Environmentalists to Testify Against Driver License Fee Legislation

Cool, so is CBC open to mandatory adult cyclist licensing and insurance requirements as well?

Or do they want all of the benefits of road ridership without any of the burdens? You know, having to stop at lights and pay towards usage?

“and non-driving IDs cost even more than licenses”

Identicard = $30 License = $45

Enhanced ID or license = $55

“and non-driving IDs cost even more than licenses”

Identicard = $30 License = $45

Enhanced ID or license = $55

Mandatory cyclist licensing and insurance requirements? Makes sense if you think 20-pound bikes have more in common with 4000-pound cars than with pedestrians and skateboarders.

I don’t think I know a single adult cyclist who doesn’t already have a driver’s license.

They do if they are legally allowed to ride down city streets.

So no problem if they only ride on sidewalks and bike trails?

“Hiller says the proposal is yet another example of the state legislature “fundamentally failing to recognize that driving is a massively subsidized activity.” ”

Here is the WA State Transportation Department budget for 2010-2011. Show me how highways are “subsidized.”

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Finance/budget/BudgetPieCharts.htm

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Finance/budget/2009-11ExpendituresTable.htm

pedestrians use the streets legally as well, where there are no sidewalks

Actually I would agree with T_Chen’s implication that bikes have more in common with pedestrians and skateboarders than with cars and trucks. Therefore, it is really stupid to allow bikes on roads. Bikes should be treated just like pedestrians and skateboarders, and not allowed to ride on streets. They should be restricted to sidewalks, bike paths and skate parks.

bicyclists don’t run people down and kill them, then leave the scene. We need insurance and licensing to hold the many, many incompetent drivers accountable.

bicyclists don’t run people down and kill them, then leave the scene. We need insurance and licensing to hold the many, many incompetent drivers accountable.

Uh, show me how they are not an “entitlement program”

If you are claiming that highways are an “entitlement program”, prove it.

But there’s a crucial difference alluded to by the weight difference: Automobiles have the ability to inflict vastly more harm on third parties than bicycles, owing to their much greater weight and speed (basic physics of mass X speed/acceleration). In terms of ability to inflict harm on others, bicycle riders are much closer to pedestrians than to drivers in cars. It is the potential to inflict great harm on other persons and property that is the basis for the licensing and insurance requirements.

Not all driving is on highways. Much of it is on county and city roads, which are financed in large part by property and sales taxes.

Yes, like public transit. (Grover’s common argument)

Or parks. Or police. The point is, automobile drivers need to stop pretending that the infrastructure and laws that support car use are unique from other types of public investments and subsidies.

Which is one reason why pedestrians and bicycles do not belong on roads with motor vehicles.

Seattle gets more revneue just from parking fees, taxes and tickets than it spends on streets.

When you add up all the federal state and local taxes, fees, et. al. that motorists in WA state pay, it is more than the total spent on federal and state highways, and county and city roads combined.

Lie, lie, blah blah blah

Logic fail. One key component of licensing is to ensure that all operators of potentially dangerous equipment are originally qualified to operate within the standards set by the jurisdiction. It’s a function of a government’s police power to ensure public health, safety and welfare. Bicycles are similarly capable of injuring people and fleeing. Hysterical claims about incompetent drivers don’t advance your position…especially when one can use the same anecdotal “hold incompetent drivers accountable” claims against the many, many fixies disregarding traffic laws on Capitol Hill.

True dat. Here’s to requiring bicyclists who use public roadways to finally pay their fair share, and be accountable for their unlawful behavior. Time to license cyclists.

Back to the actual topic:
Why would environmentalists oppose these increased fees? Are they too small?

I get that they wished for a bigger cut, but if you look at the things it does fund, what’s wrong with it?
Are they really hoping it will fail? Or are they hoping it will get redone somehow with more for bikes?

And really, CBC is not an environmental group anyway. Almost nothing in common. It’s a bike group.

Back to the actual topic:
Why would environmentalists oppose these increased fees? Are they too small?

I get that they wished for a bigger cut, but if you look at the things it does fund, what’s wrong with it?
Are they really hoping it will fail? Or are they hoping it will get redone somehow with more for bikes?

And really, CBC is not an environmental group anyway. Almost nothing in common. It’s a bike group.

logic? comparing the destructive capacity of an automobile with a bike? complete idiocy.

rather, those who can’t drive responsibly should have the privilege taken away, not given measly fines. It’s really not hard to respect the lives of your fellow citizens, and make the roads a safe place for all to use.

laughing, Grover is really right in a theoretical sense.
All the problems we talk about come up because of the weight and speed differences between cars and bikes, and there aren’t enough pedestrians here to make the bike vs. ped argument loudly, but they are the same. That’s why Green Lake loop is divided like it is.

Bikers who can’t ride responsibly should have the privilege taken away, not given measly fines. It’s not really hard to respect the lives of your fellow citizens, and make the paths a safe place for all to use.

Or the four way stops. Ever seen one? It’s got an octagonal red sign that says STOP in the middle.
It would be on your right as you approach, or maybe also as a blinking red light overhead.

So is Hiller planning on riding his bike down to Olympia on Monday to testify?

if bikes are less damagint then any insurance premiums would be low, so why not…pay them?

there are accidents of bikes mowing down peds..or other bikes….why should those third party vitctims not be able to be compensated? People sometimes have $100,000 of damage if knocked down by a cyclist. Two cycles hitting can cause death. It makes sense to spread these risks becuase the average cyclist does not have $110K or $300K lying around with which to be personally responsible.

the average store owner has insurance against slip and falls. They, too, do not involve injuries caused by 3000 pounds of moving metal ……

So when a bicyclist hits and injures a pedestrian, how are any potential hospital bills covered? I’m not asking to be a jerk, I’m genuinely curious.

Like this one?

http://pugetsoundblogs.com/bainbridge-conversation/2011/02/17/police-blotter-bicyclist-hits-bike-lane-builder/

good question. since there’s no insurance covering this situation under present rules….neither the ped nor the bike guy is required to have insurance, i mean…..the ped goes to a hospital and his insurance pays it if he has it or if not the hospital pays it or the government pays it…..then the victim can sue the bad or negigent cyclist..if he wins, out of the recovery he has to pay back anyone who paid the medical bills. of course, if the bike rider has no assets and is like a typical american with few savings, the lawsuit won’t produce any money at all, so in the end, we in society pay the medical bills but if the victim is like put into a wheelchair for life there is no one who’s on the hook for that pain and suffering. If we mandated that your auto insurance covers you while you are riding a bike, that would be a step forward as most people riding bikes also own cars and have insurance. if we mandated that bikers get insurance then the rates would be so very low — if you accept 6the true arguments that bikes rarely cause injury and can’t injure much if they do — who knows? maybe you’d get a $100K of liability policy for just $25 a year. I think that’s a fair and reasonable thing to do if you are riding your bike around town btw, it’s better to buy insurance so if you do hit someone, they are covered. That’s being nice. What’s not nice is claiming it will never happen thus you are immune from negligence, etc. etc. etc.

so, it should be fairly easy to add a few questions about bikes on the driver license test….or mandate that auto policies also cover the driver when he’s riding a bike, no?

well for starters, I can’t go build a condo without you making me provide parking. this is product tying just like when MS tied to the browser thingy. when private companies do it it’s illegal. second, we have gas tax set aside for highways when I would be asking my legisltor to use that money for transit. So there’s an implicit subsidy there. The 10-20% of us who want more for transit are thus forced to have our share of gas taxes go to roads; if this restriction wasn’t there, to build a majority support for road project they’d have to throw more transit into the mix. Just two examples. Throw in the cost of cops to police speeders, seems like we have more cops driving around in cars focused on speeding and DWI, and fewer on the street protecting folks from assaults and stuff.

Please look at the sponsors, beyond Clibborn. I know that the people who post here are not particularly sensitive to the ferry issues, but the legislators who signed onto this bill are quite aware of the funding problems with ferries … and the bill solves the problem of finding money to build boats. The lack of enthusiasm from bike and transit advocates reported here is predictable. LOBBYISTS do not give ground easily. They are paid to advocate for a certain position. Hard to get them to admit, even privately, that the other guy might have a point … or an interest … woth considering. So, while it’s kind of sad that they came out opposed so quickly … which will earn them no political capital with many legislators … it’s not at all surprising.

I’d think it’s more like overpriced motorized transit is cutting into the more popular non-motorized projects.

You could take one — ONE — mile of light rail and transform it into 1.6 Billion dollars in non-motorized transport.

Just like the tunnel, the numbers don’t add up.

My sense is the really popular modes of transportation in this state are personal transit options:

Car
Bike
Walk

I would rather see money spent on those options rather than tunnels, rail, and even too many buses.

My sense is that in places that don’t have good rail systems, not many people use rail. Therefore, it wouldn’t make sense to build it anyplace except where it’s already fully built out.

Similarly, it oesn’t make sense to build colleges in nations where people only go thru high school. Just look at the statitistics: in places without college, no one is going to college, therefore people don’t want college, and college is useless.

A similar survey result was found in 1350 when they asked citizens of London if they wanted an electric system for lighting. The surveyers found not one citizen used an electric system for lighting! So, London decided not to build one.

In fact, you can also point to what is, to find out what should be. Things that are here now, that proves tthey’re the best! And things that are not here now, shouldn’t be built.

Sure, why not? Those questions are already on the test BTW.

So what is your point? Yes the opposition is predictable, because license fees are a bad way to pay for boats.

jeff, time to finally stop spreading misinformation more like

Cascade discontinued being a bike group a long time ago. They are trying to become something of the Sierra Club of the northwest now. Meaning the activity is the hook, and the cash cow, but the focus of their efforts becomes large scale environmental lobbying that has little to do with the reason their membership ever joined in the first place.