"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
> But still, bicycle lanes are a good idea. And well worth spending
> the 1% or so of highway dollars which we spend on such things.
What do you think about requiring registration fees for commuter-quality
bikes? (Ie, not the little pink one with the white tires that the little
girl is riding out in front of my house, or the BMX bike that the little
dude down the street rides out in the field?)
It seems like a modest registration would help cyclists justify the expense
of additional bike lanes, and it would prevent people from suggesting that
bike lanes are subsidized by drivers.
-c
jrw@no-spam (Joyce Reynolds-Ward) wrote in news:3f0b2719.6792540
@no-spam
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:24:14 GMT, "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
>>
>>> But still, bicycle lanes are a good idea. And well worth spending
>>> the 1% or so of highway dollars which we spend on such things.
>>
>>What do you think about requiring registration fees for commuter-
quality
>>bikes? (Ie, not the little pink one with the white tires that the
little
>>girl is riding out in front of my house, or the BMX bike that the
little
>>dude down the street rides out in the field?)
>
> I think it's ridiculous that Portland doesn't do so. Eugene did when
> I lived there--required licensing and registration, at least on campus
> (and it was a good idea, more or less, considering the amount of
> campus bike theft).
So did Corvallis. Primary rationalization was theft. There were some
pretty amizing bike thefts there. One night some enterprising folks cut
the bolts holding a bike rack to the pavement and made off with half
dozen or so bikes still chained to the rack. The only safe bike to own in
Corvallis was something nobody would want to steal.
LD
>
> jrw
>