There were passionate pleas Thursday at the Portland City Council's first public budget meeting because some officers, firefighters and the city's mounted patrol could lose their jobs. Watch KATU's report on the meeting.
Gov. John Kitzhaber's Driver Card bill speech at the Oregon state Capitol in Salem, May 1, 2013.
If he wants the infrastructure improved bicyclist need to pay for that.
The bike supporter was saying don't you feel sorry for me, I own 12 bikes, your making poor me getting a licence tag. That is his choice to own those bikes.
It could cut down on crime requiring bike tags. $10 a year per bike, OMG that's awful lol
If bicyclist are expected to get a license, license tags, insurance how many bad guys do you think will be using bikes for their main mode of transport. If they don't have a license plate, cops will be able to pull them over to check them out.
I wish people would start looking at how these bike lanes benifit the city. The problem is if they did that they might find out they don't. They reduce the width of the roads which increases traffic congestion. Buisnesses that were once able to have customers park in front of their buisness can no longer do that since there is a bike lane there now. So they inhibit buisness. You no longer have a lane you can safely pull into if a car breaks down. Which further congests traffic flow. People who were once able to park in front of their house are no longer allowed to do that if they have a bike lane.Just what benifit does the city gain by having all the bike lanes again? More thought should be put into how to move traffic through a city not how to increase its congestion. We spends tons of money on these bike lanes and get very little in return.If they had to license them and register them you would at the very least get an accurate picture about the number of people who would prefer to bike over drive a car. Right now its a guessing game that you will benifit anything from all of this.Â
 @mike Glad you asked. For you see, it wasn't until you asked that I did a Google search for the terms "study cities benefits bicycles" (sans quotes) and came up with this: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/371038
Â
It is a study -- I don't see a publication date but it must be recent because it includes 2010 data -- explaining how bicycles have benefitted the transportation circumstances in Portland, how the growth of automobiles over bridges is flat/going down because of the number of bicycles that are being employed for transportation over the years. How they've spent the equivalent cost of 1 mile of freeway to build the bicycle infrastructure that we have. Money stays in the local economy instead of going to gasoline costs. As for on-street parking? A quote:
Â
"All things being equal, a person riding a bicycle has more money in their pocket than a person driving an automobile. Portland businesses recognize and visibly support thisâ 'voting with their feet' by requesting that the city remove on-street car parking and replace it with on-street bicycle parking."
Â
So it's not a guessing game. There is hard research. It's not "tons of money." It doesn't increase congestion. They have an accurate picture. Care to dredge up any more FUD?
I rather like the idea. Â It doesn't have to be seen as Government and interference and all that...I believe having a license would do a few things. Â A. It might allow for citation when a cyclist does commit a flagrant disregard for laws and rules and breaks them as I have too often seen. Â B. if a cyclist is licensed they might then get some protections -i.e. if in a collision with PEOPLE having a license (and insurance?) will help in any legal proceedings. C. If they all get licenses maybe they will also get lights or equipment that make them visible. Â I am horrified at how often I have almost hit someone who is breaking the law and biking in dark clothes, no helmet, no reflective lights of any kind. Â And maybe if a little money is paid for licenses it can help pay for more safe bike infrastructure. Â How feasible, how expensive, how likely to happen...questionable. Â But I would like to see it. Â We know that the physical infrastructure is a it issue. Â But how to pay for it? Â Will licensing bikes help this? Â Maybe. Â
 @BCH mom The physical infrastructure is not an issue; see the link to the study I posted for Mike above.
Â
In thinking about it, I'm willing to meet people halfway. Instead of a driver's license, how about a roadway usage license? If you want to use the road, you need to have a license. So if you are already a licensed driver, your license covers you on a bicycle. If you intend to use the roadway just for bicycling, you still need a license. No special endorsements, just a roadway usage license.
Â
The reasoning is simple. For that percentage of bicyclists that do not already have a driver's license, yes, they should have to prove they know the rules of the road. That's simply a safety issue -- to know the rules of the road. But having a separate license makes no sense when two licenses will cover the same material. If a bicycle rider has a driver's license and he or she disregards the basic rules right now, forcing them to get a bicycle license is not going to change anything.
Â
And bicyclists can get ticketed for everything you listed already -- not having lights, flagrantly disregarding laws -- it's just a matter of the police being around at the right time to pull them over. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. There's an Oregon Bicycle Manual out there that lists what lights and other equipment are needed on a bicycle. So if an officer pulls a bicyclist over, said bicyclist can't say "I didn't know officer!"
Gosh darn it NO, NO more parasitic wallet sucking by the dang government... I will not , I repeat WILL NOT pay the dang government a fee to ride my bike... That is what this country has become... a great money making scheme, we are the "consumers" (not citizens) meant to be charged around every bend. Yet another (of the seemingly endless) reasons for the police state to harrass,steal from, and fine you.
 @theytriedtocensorbut-I'MBACK! Your a hypocrite. Your not paying anything for riding your bike on the road that has added an additional cost for the bike lanes, green boxes. If you say you own a car, your car fees are for your car expenses on the road.
If insurance wasnt a government mandated SCAM... your policy would cover YOU nomatter what you are driving or riding. Instead they have thier racket down perfect... you pay a seperate policy for everything even though common sense would tell you that it is IMPOSIBLE to ride /drive more than one thing at a time (duh) . So now the insurance lobyists will pay bribes...and we will get YET ANOTHER bill.
Only in America, the fattest country in the world, would they put roadblocks up in the way of exercising.
I find this amusing. If you read the comments in most KATU forums, you will find the vast majority of people want government out of their lives. That is, until they see someone getting something they are not. They see people on bicycles without licenses and registration and they are enraged. Not because it matters but because cyclists are "getting away with something". License and registration will do absolutely nothing to decrease the deaths of cyclists. Education might, but that would necessitate education of both bicyclists and motorists. As the comments show, many motor vehicle drivers have no idea what the rules are for bicycles.
Â
It is a very rare occasion when a bicycle damages a motor vehicle, so what purpose does insurance serve? The main thing I see, from the comments, is motorists just want cyclists to have to pay, like they do. Most cyclists also drive cars, so most already have insurance. The cyclists who would ride uninsured would probably be about equal in numbers to the drivers who drive without insurance.
Â
Time and again drivers complain about the money spent on bicycle lanes instead of more roads so we can use up the remaining oil faster. Bicycle lanes benefit motorists as much as cyclists. The lanes move the bicycles out of the traffic lanes so drivers don't have to slow. (So drivers can continue speeding.) They, some drivers, want bicycle fees the same as the fees for cars. The theory is that cyclists should "pay their share" for road repairs. But the damage caused by cars is exponentially greater that that caused by bicycles. So these drivers are not saying they want equality, they are saying they want to hurt cyclists monetarily.Â
Â
Drivers complain that cyclists don't obey the rules, and imply that this is true of ALL cyclists. It is not. Cyclists are not the only ones that disobey the traffic laws. I see, every time I am out on the road, drivers who are not obeying the laws. Requiring licenses, registration, and insurance has not prevented some drivers from disobeying the rules, they will not prevent bicyclists from doing the same.
Â
Licenses, registration, and insurance for bicyclists does nothing to solve any problems.
 @Nobody It will help, if a bicylist is at fault. they can pay for the damage they cause. Registration and licenses will a pay small portion of the road cost to make room for bike lanes their desire of chosen transportation has created.
I was crossing Allen at Murray, and Murray is 45mph driving speed, a car had to stop until I got a cross the street and the cars behind that car had to stop, because there was no longer a turning lane, the lane was turned into a bike lane. A turning lane is used more than a bike lane.
When I am dealing with bicylist who respect the road rules and they ride like there are other vehicles on the road, and they have respect for car drivers, I have an natural respect for them, and they are the ones because because they ride intelligently and will not get hurt.
There are bicylist who are respectful unlike people with your attitude.
 @Nobody Well, we have to take a test for a license to drive on the road. We also pay taxes to keep that road up to par. Not to mention license and registration fees. We pay for insurance in case we have an accident, and we're supposed to keep current on the laws regarding the usage of said roads while using a motor vehicle.
Â
There is no reason that those who want to also share in the use of said roads by using bicycles should not have to share in the joy of going through those same experiences.
Â
This shouldn't be a problem for those with an automobile, they can get a bicycle endorsement on their license and their insurance should cover them. Kids can take classes and receive a bicycle license and be covered on their parents' insurance.
Â
For those without a motor vehicle who want to share the roads that are intended for vehicular traffic, then it's only fitting that they share a little bit in the upkeep of those roads - especially not that monies previous allotted for something else are being used for bike paths and signage.
@Mikey @Nobody Since you like it so much, how about you just let the big parasitic government sea urchin attach itself to your face for a while...
 @Nobody Thank you. That is a fabulous summary and a very clear explanation of why making bicyclists pay more will not do anything to change the situation.
Yes, yes, yes. commom sense says yes.
 @paperbob "Commom sense" may say yes, but *common* sense says no.
Since they insist on riding in traffic(highways), yes licensed and insured.
Its about time the bicyclists pay their share....
I just saw a sign in Hillsboro that states the bike lane isn't for vehicle travel. Basically stay out of the bike lane. This happens to be a section of road that gets bunched up because of a turn lane. People have been going around the cars their long before a bike lane was ever added there. First we get told SHARE the road with the bikes. Now we are being told STAY OUT of THEIR lane. Isn't this just typical? So which is it are we sharing the road or are we creating a priveledged lane for bikers? If we stay out of their lane will they stay out of the road made for cars and follow the laws?
Â
I don't have much sympathy because the police have taken the we dont care to enforce the road rules on the bikers attitude. So if they dont care then I guess I shouldn't either.
Â
If they want the same rights and priveledges then they should be licensed and be required to pay!!Â
 @mike A thousand likes
Â
I'd also add that the homeowners who used to be able to park in front of their houses must be extra delighted to know that a bike lane was added and they can no longer park in front of their house.
Why does everyone think that because you are riding a bike that you are a freeloader? All bike riders are unlicensed hooligans seems to be the common belief. There is a perception that riding a bike grants you exclusion from paying taxes or owning a car. That is certainly not true. I, for one pay plenty of taxes. I have a well paying job, and I own a house. I also have a car, a drivers license and ,believe it or not, insurance.
Â
 @sparky59 Why don't you get it, your car has paid to cover expenses for your car travel, but there has been added expenses for bike lanes and bicyclist make up excuses to avoid paying for those additional cost. Taking away the turning lanes, is setting drivers up for rear end collisions because they can't move over to get out of way of moving traffic. People can't even take quiet strolls in the parks because bicylist have taken over the paths. Bicyclist are self-fish brats.
Government should be all over this. It is revenue for them and shouldn't be an issue.
Just had this debate a couple of weeks ago. Here: http://www.katu.com/politics/local/167238755.html
Â
I think licensing Bicycles is a great idea. Make them pay tag fee's, plate fee's and license fee's. They should also be required to carry insurance.
@T 120
A driver's license for bicyclists? You've got to be kidding. . . .haven't we had enough of the multitude of government's pesky rules? . . . you'd think . . . but by the look of the comments most people on this site want to 1.) Â give more money to the government, as long as it's not THEIR own money and it's someone else's. 2.) Have people beg/ask for permission to ride a bicycle!!! Get off your butt, get on a bike and find the joy of exercise . 3.) Â Force people to pay for insurance on a bicycle?. . . . which if hits something causes minimal damage compared to a car?!? 4.) Force people to pay for licensing/tags (permission??)- horrible!!!
Â
Having to beg the government for permission, also nicknamed the "privilege" to travel is enough! (obviously we no longer a Right to travel!). It all needs to stop! Many cyclists also own a car already, give it a break. Â Also cyclists do get tickets for breaking traffic law already- no need for more government mandates. We have too many laws as it is. Â Currently, If a cyclist is at fault the payment is their responsibility.
Â
What I want to know is why does everyone on this website believe in living in a state of slavery?? Slavery defined: having to get permission for everything (i.e. license/tags) and not owning your labor (i.e.via income taxes). I feel shacked and chained enough by the obese State. The ideas that were the foundation of this country of beautiful freedom & liberty are apparently dead here. Wake up and chill out all you control freaks.
Â
@Thinkingishardforthemasses @T 120 Well said! Well said!
To me, it's not just a matter of what they're discussing here, rather gas taxes pay for the roads and yet as we ever increase the expense involved in making roads safe for bike riders, the bike riders reap the rewards of cars paying the gas tax and aren't contributing. Â Tax them, license them and make them follow the rules of the road.
A no brainer. Bicyclists over 16 years old should be required to maintain the same requirements as motorists - license, registration, insurance, obey the same rules and regulations as motorists, and the fines for traffic infractions would be the same.Â
Bicyclists consistently break traffic rules. Riding on the sidewalks!!!!!!!!!!!!! Â Not stopping at stop signs. Not yielding to right of way. Not using hand signals for turning, cutting through parking lots so they won't have to make stops, driving on the wrong side of the road.....I could list 100 violations. Bicyclists should have to be licensed and taxed, just like car owners and drivers.Â
 @KKStJohn Cars also consistently break the rules!!! Where's the outcry?  Just today within about 10 minutes of each other I saw two separate cars break the law. Â
 @Thinkingishardforthemasses  @KKStJohn Your point, its ok for bicylist to break the law. What's your reason for not paying for the additional cost for bike lanes.
Â
 @KKStJohn I'd like to know where this mistaken belief about riding on the sidewalk comes from. It's not generally prohibited to ride on the sidewalk. There are areas of downtown Portland where it's prohibited, and downtown Hillsboro (the two areas I frequent), but the idea that it is generally prohibited to ride on the sidewalk is incorrect.
 I have less issue with cyclists not being insured/licensed as I do that they have a ELGAL right to perform road maneuvers other cannot.â
Â
For example, a cyclist can (and do) ride with the flow of traffic in the lane as another user. Fine with that makes logical sense. A cyclist can also, ride along the curb âlaneâ ether in a cycle lane, or on the curb side of the right (or left lanes in one way traffic) outside the flow of traffic. They can also in many places in the city go up onto the curb or off like a pedestrian.
Â
All of these by themselves I find in the spirit of the law. Cyclists, who can maintain with traffic, flow with it. When they cannot (a hill or high speed street) keep outside the flow), and when they are with children or are riding a foot speed, on the sidewalk.
Â
The issue I have is when I see all three modes in less than three blocks. I see a cyclist in the flow of traffic, when traffic gets backed up, they go to the curb (or illegally split between two lanes but thatâs different). If the curb is filled (with a large vehicle) they go up onto the curb and ride on the sidewalk.
Â
This is what I believe causes many âright hand hookâ collisions with cars. The cyclists was, it or will be in one mode, then switches when it suits them to head to the curb to overtake traffic. Then they get clobbered.
Â
I keep a weary eye out for jaywalkers, cyclists who split lanes and other motorists. But it seems cyclists feel that if itâs legal, GO FOR IT! Even if it is a bad idea.
Â
If we are talking about laws for cyclists, how about we clean up some of the laws we already have to make their usage (not necessarily their documentation) more uniform with other users of the road. Maybe make ALL cyclists use cycle lanes, or take AWAY all cycle lanes. But do something to make it easier to know what a cyclist can legally do so we can anticipate what they might do.
Â
What percentage of cyclists aren't already licensed drivers? Talk about p*ssing in the wind.
 @Festivus That's really my issue. I don't have statistics, but it is likely that the majority of bicyclists are also licensed drivers. Since most of what a person learns as a driver is what he/she needs to know as a bicyclist, there's really not much point to having a separate license.
Â
And if such a bicyclist will ignore the rules even with a driver's license, there's really not any hope for issuing a bicyclist license.
@nonpartisan @Festivus the point is to get them to pay for the bike lanes that they are benefiting from. They don't come for free and are currently being paid for out of funds that would go towards road improvements for cars. If you want the lane then pay for it.
 @mike I already pay for the lane with my gas taxes when I drive.
Â
But here, let's compromise. I'll pay to have my bicycle licensed, or get a bicycle rider license, or whatever you want. In return, EVERY road must have bicycle lanes -- I'm paying extra for bicycle lanes, so I demand it. In addition, that bicycle lane needs to be fully MAINTAINED -- no sweeping the glass or other debris from a car crash into the bicycle lane. It must remain UNOBSTRUCTED -- no putting road construction signs or manholes in the bicycle lane. Cars are not allowed to pull over and block my lane, even in an emergency.
Â
In return, I promise to follow all of the laws (like I already do) since I have a fully maintained lane in which to ride.
 @nonpartisan  @Festivus I couldn't agree more that most bicyclists are also licensed drivers.
@Festivus I'm not a licensed driver. in fact I don't like driving a car
BUT I do follow traffic rules as required by law
One Portlander gets mad at the City of Portland and now all Oregonians will potentially be subjected to more bureaucracy and more fees?! Â Ridiculous.Â
Won't happen, ever.
People who drive cars are found to be at fault in the majority of crashes involving cars + bikes or pedestrians as various studies have shown.* As drivers, they presumably have passed the kinds of training and licensing Huckaby wants those who bike to undergo. Yet on the street, where it matters, they appear to know 'the law' less well than the drivers, or at least to be more dangerous. So if we're leveling the playing field, requiring bikers to be more like drivers, who's to say that things won't get worse? *http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/08/06/ta-most-city-pedestrians-and-cyclists-killed-by-drivers-who-broke-the-law/
 @9watts If bicyclists show a lesser knowledge of the law, yet the drivers are found at fault more often, I'd think there was a problem with who was being cited.
Â
As mentioned in a previous discussion a couple of weeks ago, my belief is that if it becomes a "he-said-she-said" between a driver and a bicyclist, the police are going to have to go with the physical evidence:Â a car hit a bicycle, the officer has no evidence that (the bicyclist didn't stop/didn't signal/didn't [insert whatever here]), the driver says the bicyclist didn't, the bicyclist says he/she did, so the officer cites the driver.
Â
I'm guessing the driver gets the short end more often than he/she should. And yes, I am a bicyclist, I bicycle to work, and I stop at every stop sign and signal every turn and lane change. I value my life over thinking that some traffic rule is "inconvenient" for a bicycle.
@9watts - You also need to consider the source of the statistics you want to use. "streetblog.org" is an alternative transportation mouthpiece. Depending on how they constructed their definitions for their report directly affects the result. I am sure that another organization, this one against bikes on the road, could use the same statistics with slightly different filters to come up with the exact opposite (or close to it) results. Without knowing who commissioned the study, how the definitions were worded, and how the data was compiled, the results are always questionable. That holds to studies like this, political surveys of all parties, and Dentifrice ads that state 95% of Dentists recommend XXX product.
They should have licenses so they can be identified while on the fly.Â
Â
@Lei22 .....and ticketed when they violate the law......like the rest of us !
 @Rob C  @Lei22Â
Um, there is no difficulty ticketing people biking right now. They don't need a driver's license or license plate for that. Heck many people driving don't have valid driver's licenses or valid stickers on their plates. That doesn't prevent them from getting tickets. Let's not go off on fishing expeditions just yet.
 @9watts  @Rob C Rob C you're hopeless. . . I hope you are able to find joy and peace somewhere, someday.Â
 @Rob C  @9watts I've never heard that to be a problem.
Are you saying when someone commits a crime and the police show up but the guy turns out to be on foot (i.e. not in a car or licensed) he can't be arrested? How about jaywalkers? I don't think I'm following your logic.
@9watts ........UM.......Yes there is difficulty. It's called a form of identification. UM do you get that concept?