Should Bicyclists Pay?

[Queen K]

I'm with you all the way on this, Hobby. As a kid growing up in Kelowna, we all had to buy an annual license for our bikes. Why not now?

My parents paid for my license fee, I remember lining them up on the bike frame to show all the years I had. Do you recall what was paid for the licenses? Was it $5.00? Or more or less?

After watching cyclists do all kinds of crazy antics, I mean you and I never did them right Gone_Fishin, I am of the mind of some kind of insurance purchase.

I've seen cyclist NOT slow down on public paths at Rotary Marsh, not taking into account pedestrians.
Cross roads suddenly, no signals.
Bunch up in East Kelowna, to the point of the leader signalling me to go around THEM.
No reflective gear or lights whatsoever.
Cycle hop up onto curbs and sidewalks suddenly.

Heck, my own tires got caught in sand and gravel once, pitching me forward and smashing my helmetted head onto pavement. A kid once stepped deliberately in front of me, while I was going downhill, causing me to crash.

Had I been injured in either crash, how would expenses have covered a non-homeowner, uninsured person? Just through my BC medical?

I can't think of any reason today for cyclists to not be aware of safety riding with lights or reflective gear. Pure negligence?

But seriously, in another thread, the title is 'Ban the Bike" which is silly beyond words, maybe make biking more accountable to for their actions.

And yes, I am aware of dooring and just plain the unpredictable.

[spooker]

There are thousands of ICBC bicycle/car claims. It costs a LOT of money. Even if you accept the low figures presented by the bicycle lobby, then why aren't bicycle riders paying at least that share??

Where are these claims?

When? was the last time you saw a bicycle pulled over for this: https://helmets.org/bc_law.htm My experience? Never. And when they do get fined? A lot of them don't pay. The city of Vancouver cracked down on bicycle helmets between 2008 and 2013 over 11,000 city of Vancouver bicycle helmet tickets were just ignored and not paid.

Actually it was in October that I saw a cyclist get a ticket for not wearing a helmet. Right in Knowles Park ... by a couple of officers on bicycles ...

As far as whether cyclists should carry some insurance?: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/who-should-pay-when-cyclists-and-pedestrians-collide-1.2776082

Sure, pick an extreme example ... and how often does something like that happen? It's news because of the fact that it is very rare ... people being hurt by bad choices that people in cars make is no longer news because it's become background noice, just accepted as part of life and oh well, insurance will pay for it ... anything more recent than 3 years old?

When I was in China, which has a very high bicycle usage, there were no "bike lanes". There were separate bicycle sections and separate pedestrian sections. Bicyclists stopped at every corner and crossed as pedestrians do. That makes sense. The idea of a strip of green paint and mixing cars and bicycles in high traffic areas is just dumb.

One of the things that I try to talk to cyclists, especially ones I find riding on the sidewalk, is that we need to get out there in numbers ... when drivers see greater number of cyclists it is safer for everyone ...

There are many roads in Kelowna with "bicycle lanes" where I have yet to see anyone in them, except for the odd electric scooter user.

A good transportation system doesn't get clogged up with traffic. And with your apparent bias against cycling I wonder how many cyclists you actually take notice of.

For instance, the most anti-cyclist, pro-drivist drivers are the least likely to bother even to turn their heads to check for cyclists, which is a good way to prevent right hooks and left turn deaths. They really just don't care. The more they dislike cyclists, the more willing they are to kill them.

https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-study-looks-attitudes-drivers-toward-cyclists-and-it-aint-pretty.html
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/06/28/what-do-drivers-really-think-of-cyclists/

The whole point is that bicycle lobby groups have created a lot of capital cost, and a lot of traffic and parking problems for very, very few actual users. And they always refuse to pay their share. Remember, the bicycle is not practical transportation in BC for much of the year.

As a person who finds cycling year round very "practical" I always get a kick out of the crowd who always think if it's not +20C then it's time to put the bike away ...

You've made the claim about capital costs and problems before ... but in the years that I've lived in Kelowna (since 2009) I've never seen the budget for cycling infrastructure break $500,000 ... while the budget for roads is always $10MM and above ...

Where are these parking problems the cycling public is creating? Safeway bought new bike racks and shoved them into the far corner of the lot, many cyclists can't even find them because they're hidden by all the cars ...

When has a cyclist caused congestion? I ride down Enterprise in the afternoon and can get all the way from Spall to Leathead faster than a car can, stopping for all the lights ... no wonder people in cars seem so angry ...

[Gone_Fishin]

People make lifestyle choices that may result in their dependence on a bike. There are transit options available. If you're telling us that cycling isn't popular enough to pay for its own infrastructure, then we as taxpayers need to assess whether the millions of dollars we're sinking into it is justified. According to you, it's not.

Can you tell me where these millions of dollars are that are going to cycling infrastructure?

$2.5 million to go a couple of blocks from Harvey to Sutherland. https://globalnews.ca/news/3282741/kelo ... struction/

Entire route is $12 million. https://*bleep*.ca/newsitem/ethel-stree ... ns/it20088

ETA: The link doesn't work because it's from a competing local website. You can find it if you look.

That's a huge pile of cash for a track that most bikes can cover in about 5 minutes.

[Steve-O]

$2.5 million to go a couple of blocks from Harvey to Sutherland

Did you read the article you posted? Did you miss Spookers comment above? I see "deep utilities installed", "New sidewalks, streetlights, landscaping". So ya, bike lanes are included as all this other work is being done, but it is not 2.5 million exclusively for the bike lanes. Few gallons of white paint.

Anyways, like Spooker has pointed out about a dozen times on a dozen different threads, vast majority of cyclists also pay property tax and have a vehicle paying all the fuel taxes when they use it. I commute in 30 to 40 times a year just to save the hassle of traffic, save a few bucks on fuel, and its good mentally and physically. Only takes me maybe an extra 15 to 20 minutes for the 20k each way. I recommend any that can to give it a try.

I would also point out, the majority of people that may have issues with cyclists are the ones posted on here. Can't think of one bad interaction with either a pedestrian or driver. See some mountains being built out of molehills here on castanet in regards to this topic.

[Jflem1983]

I think city of Kelowna has many active cyclists. A few get killed every year due to no safe bike paths. I would love to see some proper paths made. Im not a cyclist. I would prefer to not have to watch out for them

[Jlabute]

I'm with you all the way on this, Hobby. As a kid growing up in Kelowna, we all had to buy an annual license for our bikes. Why not now?

My parents paid for my license fee, I remember lining them up on the bike frame to show all the years I had. Do you recall what was paid for the licenses? Was it $5.00? Or more or less?

I recall paying $2.50 for a license. I am sure $2.50 barely pays for the decal let alone any tracking database, policing services, or infrastructure. I've seen cyclists not paying due attention. I've also recently seen a Ford F-350 with it's front end on top of an elderly's electric scooter... do they need to be licensed too? How about walking on the sidewalk or shoulder... do I need a license or insurance to take a walk since I am wearing out the sidewalk or pavement with my shoes and we need to pay for the infrastructure and any potential accidents? Lots of rushed motorists tend to be distracted and are by far the majority of the problem (dog bites man). All other issues that makes the news are a rarity (man bites dog).
Damage caused by cars is an order of magnitude greater than any damage that can be caused by a cyclist or pedestrian. It likely isn't worth the effort to enforce this. As for infrastructure, it is a value added part of the city that everyone can enjoy for free if they decide to and it is good for the city for attracting tourists, and present a path to cleaner alternatives... such as places like Knox mountain trails where people walk their dogs and take their bikes. If so few people are cycling, it wouldn't make sense to pay for it all via cyclists licensing. How would the hobos and the poor get around? Will we impound their bikes if they don't pay? If cyclists feel insecure, they can chose to get additional insurance.
If you expect cyclists to have a license and insurance, when does it start? When you get your first tricycle?

[GordonH]

The 3 main reasons that I have a dashcam is to protect myself against false claims by 3 groups.
*other drivers i.e vehicle & motorcycles
*cyclists
*pedestrians

don't get me wrong if I caused the accident I would still hand over video/what my dashcam recorded.

[Queen K]

My parents paid for my license fee, I remember lining them up on the bike frame to show all the years I had. Do you recall what was paid for the licenses? Was it $5.00? Or more or less?

I recall paying $2.50 for a license. I am sure $2.50 barely pays for the decal let alone any tracking database, policing services, or infrastructure. I've seen cyclists not paying due attention. I've also recently seen a Ford F-350 with it's front end on top of an elderly's electric scooter... do they need to be licensed too? How about walking on the sidewalk or shoulder... do I need a license or insurance to take a walk since I am wearing out the sidewalk or pavement with my shoes and we need to pay for the infrastructure and any potential accidents? Lots of rushed motorists tend to be distracted and are by far the majority of the problem (dog bites man). All other issues that makes the news are a rarity (man bites dog).
Damage caused by cars is an order of magnitude greater than any damage that can be caused by a cyclist or pedestrian. It likely isn't worth the effort to enforce this. As for infrastructure, it is a value added part of the city that everyone can enjoy for free if they decide to and it is good for the city for attracting tourists, and present a path to cleaner alternatives... such as places like Knox mountain trails where people walk their dogs and take their bikes. If so few people are cycling, it wouldn't make sense to pay for it all via cyclists licensing. How would the hobos and the poor get around? Will we impound their bikes if they don't pay? If cyclists feel insecure, they can chose to get additional insurance.
If you expect cyclists to have a license and insurance, when does it start? When you get your first tricycle?

All I did was ask GF a friendly question, and propose that adults carry insurance, minors would be covered by their parents insurance, obviously. As for my bolded part of your quote, all those points are why I made light of Rwede's "Ban the Bike" thread headline title. A bit of gentle reductio ad absurdum to his proposal to ban bikes because of "costs to motorists because cyclists don't pay."

[Even Steven]

I recall paying $2.50 for a license. I am sure $2.50 barely pays for the decal let alone any tracking database, policing services, or infrastructure. I've seen cyclists not paying due attention.

It doesn't.

It doesn't even pay enough for somebody to log your information into the database.

This is why the whole "Let's introduce fees for cyclists" is doomed from the start.

[Queen K]

To be fair, the $2.50 was back in the day when Jlabute, Gone Fishin' and I were kids, we starred in the real 1970s show, right. I was in Grade 11 in 1981 and don't recall paying for a bike license then, maybe the practice had been stopped by then?

[maryjane48]

I never payed for bike licence in bc ever

[hobbyguy]

I never payed for bike licence in bc ever

Two questions:

1) why not?
2) would they have given you one?

[Gone_Fishin]

To be fair, the $2.50 was back in the day when Jlabute, Gone Fishin' and I were kids, we starred in the real 1970s show, right. I was in Grade 11 in 1981 and don't recall paying for a bike license then, maybe the practice had been stopped by then?

You're just a youngster. ;) I think a fair fee would be around the $50 a year mark for licensing now, so that there would be money left after admin and enforcement costs to pay for desired infrastructure costs.

And third party liability insurance should be mandatory, same as it is for cars, trucks, rec vehicles like ATVs, etc. If, as the proponents of cycling tell us, it is becoming more popular, then we need to ensure that other users of the road are adequately protected via 3rd party liability. A 200 pound biker going at 40 kmh and running into a pedestrian could cause life altering injuries to the pedestrian - we must ensure that the pedestrian is protected and compensated for his/her loss.

[maryjane48]

I ride pedal bikes my whole life . When i was kid i had plate but it was free
Now any govt thhst tries to make people pay would come across as a nazi govt.

If you think bclibs winning plan is to run on charging families for their kids bikes good luck

[spooker]

You're just a youngster. ;) I think a fair fee would be around the $50 a year mark for licensing now, so that there would be money left after admin and enforcement costs to pay for desired infrastructure costs.

And third party liability insurance should be mandatory, same as it is for cars, trucks, rec vehicles like ATVs, etc. If, as the proponents of cycling tell us, it is becoming more popular, then we need to ensure that other users of the road are adequately protected via 3rd party liability. A 200 pound biker going at 40 kmh and running into a pedestrian could cause life altering injuries to the pedestrian - we must ensure that the pedestrian is protected and compensated for his/her loss.

In other words, you're saying that cycling is a bad idea and you don't want to encourage people to do it ...

Would love to see any math to back up your claims too ... at the current rates of cycling (avg 3%) you could roughly pay the salaries of 115 people for the whole province and have nothing leftover ... do you know of any government bureau that runs with such a skeleton staff and covers the whole province? Maybe we all have to go to Victoria and Vancouver to get a license so the other half of the staff would be enforcement ... Or maybe we can only get a license every Friday so the staff can share resources with other departments ...

Again, insurance-wise, do I need to pay for more insurance? And how often does a cyclist hurt a pedestrian? And since most of the cyclists are up on the sidewalk since the cars are scary as hell don't you think drivers deserve part of the liability? If everyone drove responsibly then cyclists could stay where they're supposed to be ...

I remember licensing when I went to visit my grandmother in a small town as a kid ... it wasn't created back then for the reasons people are using today so it's not apples to apples ...