[MissoulaGov] bike license clarification

[Bob Giordano]

We see about 600 people a month at Free Cycles that need help fixing their
bikes.  Most are there because of lack of money.

I'd agree that the license fee does not cover the paper work.  I'd also
say that property taxes more than cover the amounts needed for bike
'infrastructure.'

While it's good to have the police call you and say 'we have your bike
here,' a citizen can take responsibility to lock bike (U-lock is important
if the bike is worth more than $500), and can also check the abandoned
bikes at the police station without needing a phone call.

I'd second the notion:  why not license shoes if we license bikes?

It's been estimated that the impact of a car on the road is 1,000 times
that of a bike, and a large truck is 1,000 times more impactful than a
car.  Should the license fees reflect that?

If we keep the $10 bike fee, than the car fee would be $10,000 and the
large truck fee would be $10,000,000.

Or, since a car fee is about $100, the bike fee would be a dime.  But,
again, the paper work costs to taxpayers would dwarf the revenue.

The $10, or even $20, fee might make sense if the result was very tangible
and transparent:  'this year the bike fee is covering 100 parking racks
and a half mile trail.'

I think Jim's ideas have merit:  already, cyclists are paying for things
like all the police time spent on car crashes- a little equity might be in
order.

We are a community and we have to decide about things like 'what's a
common good that everyone should pay for.'  Otherwise we end up paying for
every footprint on public right of way, each day at school, each sip of a
public water fountain, etc.

Is mobility a public good?  If so, where do we draw the line for everyone
sharing in the costs?  Walking? Cycling? Transit? Driving? Flying?

With bike theft as high as it is, I'd say 'bike recovery' is the biggest
benefit of licenses.  Yet, this can be accomplished by recording the
serial # on the underside of the Bottom Bracket on most bikes, and then
entered into a data base, and ensuring police utilize this program.

http://www.nationalbikeregistry.com is a national system that costs $10
for ten years.  It used to be that pawn shops had to check the police hot
sheets when a bike came in- I think that is not the case now.


-Bob Giordano, Free Cycles, Msla Inst. for Sus Trans.



Jim McGrath wrote:

> Here's a crazy idea. Why not add a fee on the vehicle licensing paying

for

> a bike license. Anyone who can survive in Missoula without owning a car

gets a free license; vehicle owners who don't use bikes simply pay for it

> anyway. Like the junk vehicle fee. Part of the social cost of driving.

it would generate more money, be easier to collect, remain just as
controversial and just as vague in purpose, plus eliminate the need to
worry about non-enforcement.

> I don't care what the money goes for. All the ideas marilyn and others

put

> out for spending the money should be done regardless of bike license

fees.

> Just do them. Ticket everyone without a helmet and give them a helmet.

Ticket everyone without a light and give them a light.

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com on behalf of Derek Goldman Sent:

Thu 12/11/2008 8:13 PM

> To: marler at bigsky.net; pklemz at missoulanews.com

> Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] bike license clarification

>

>

> ...perhaps we could also use bike registration totals to better track

the

> growing number of cyclists in Missoula, and in turn use that data to

bolster arguments for more funding for bike infrastructure
improvements...

> BTW, Bob,  how many CDU's (cats per dwelling unit) are allowed under

current law? (I sure hope we do not offer the same volume discount for
licensing 5 cats as we do for 5 bikes!) --Derek

>

>

>

>

>

> From: marler at bigsky.netTo: pklemz at missoulanews.comDate: Thu, 11 Dec 2008

19:45:10 -0700CC: missoulagov at cmslists.comSubject: Re: [MissoulaGov] bike

> license clarification

>

>

> I don't get the Planned Parenthood reference, but I can sure try to be

more clear:

>

> - Might help recover your bike if stolen

> -Can help identify accident victims if they aren't carrying

identification

> - Money from license fees will be spent directly on programs that

benefit

> cyclists

> -Civically responsible (in some people's view, but clearly not

everyone).

>

> Jesse Froehling at the Indy emailed me off list and asked for some

examples of what programs might be funded locally from bike licenses sales.

>

> A few Missoula examples might be:

> * the Bike Ambassadors program, or...

> * PSA campaign with the goal of improving everyone's understanding of

sharing the road with bikes.  Something similar to the "everyone's a
pedestrian at some point" campaign that was running in recent years (maybe

> it still is), or the "shovel your sidewalk because sometimes very

pregnant

> women need to walk there" tv commercial (does anyone remember that?).  I

thought those were informative and well done.  The bike analogs could be
"Yes, cyclists are allowed to use the left turn lane", etc.

> * a fund for helmets and lights for people who can't afford it

> * provide a local funding source (a small one, perhaps) for matching

funds

> for state and federal grants (I credit Lynn Hellegaard for this great

idea

> that did not occur to me)

>

> And I'm sure as a community we could think of more.  Everyone, I do

appreciate your comments, especially the less sarcastic ones because they

> are easier to understand.. Keep sending them, on or off list.  Thanks!

Marilyn

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Patrick Klemz

> To: Marilyn Marler

> Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:00 PM

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] bike license clarification

> Did I just get sent to literature? What is this Planned Parenthood?

>

> That's it, I'm keeping the baby.

>

>

> On Dec 11, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Marilyn Marler wrote:

>

> Hi everyone,

>

> Just to clarify something.  There is already a city ordinance  law that

bikes should be licensed.  It is $10 for a single bike for 4 years.  It is

> $15 for all the bikes in your "family."  Even if that is 5 bikes.  You

get

> your license(s) from City Treasurer in City Hall.

> Why should you license your bike?  Try this link for just a few good

reasons:  http://cityofdavis.org/bicycles/licenses.cfm

>

> Thanks! Keep the comments coming. It's really helpful to hear reasons

why

> folks haven't licensed yet. Marilyn

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Patrick Klemz

> To: Phil Smith ; missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:51 PM

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 12-10-08

> I'm hearing everything but justification for why the city needs to know

what's in my garage. The fact that it's a law doesn't cut it--Missoula has

> a wealth of laws it (thankfully) can't enforce.

>

> Incidentally, I speak only for myself.

>

>

> On Dec 11, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Phil Smith wrote:

>

>

> Just for information:  all bike licenses sold get entered into the

computer; the records are kept indefinitely.  When the police recover a
licensed bike, we make every effort to find the owner (although many
owners have sold their bike to someone else and moved away).  The bike
shops (like Open Road) have a card they have agreed to give to every bike

> purchaser.  The card says that ".City Ordinance requires that all bikes

ridden in the city be licensed.  If your bike is stolen and the police
recover it, the license number enables City staff to return your bike." 
It then directs the purchaser  to go to City Hall to get a license.   When

> we set this up in the past year, shop owners told us it would be much

easier to handle than a license form and a cash transaction.  Frankly, we

> were getting VERY low compliance with the old system of shops selling

licenses.  I don't know how good a job shops are doing with this newer
card system.

>

> However, it does allow shops to provide information about bike licenses

easily and in a non-pushy way to their customers, and puts the burden on
the bike owner to actually get a license.

>

> Phil Smith

> Missoula Bike Ped Program Manager

>

>

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com

> [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Ethel

> MacDonaldSent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:27 PMTo: Marilyn MarlerCc:

missoulagov at cmslists.comSubject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 12-10-08

>

>

> Re bike licensing -- I'll respond to this list to encourage broader

discussion.  I just left my licensed bike in France with friends to avoid

> the hassle and expense of shipping it next time I go, and bought a nice

new one at Open Road.  I didn't even think to license it!  Why not? 
Because in the past, bike shops sold licenses with the bike.  That is
absolutely the best way to get people to license bikes as a matter of
course.  And the reason for licensing?  So if the bike is "borrowed" and
abandoned, the City Bike-Ped office can easily find the owner.  If that
hasn't been happening -- i.e. if "found" bikes are not examined for a
license, and the owners contacted, that would be an oversight in the
Bike-Ped office.

>

>    The longevity of bike licenses has never been clear -- I've always

> assumed the bike license is "forever."  And the record of license

numbers should be retained forever.

>

>      Because $20 seems a little steep -- i.e. unless there's

enforcement,

> people would not pay it -- I would recommend $10 for 5 years and hope

that people would renew,  but also hope that the Bike-Ped office would
keep the old records anyway.  A simple postcard reminder like the dog
license ones should work -- after all, we at least don't have to go
through the hassle of getting a rabies shot for our bikes

> before licensing them.

>

>      I think licensing bikes is a good idea.  Ethel MacDonald

>

> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Marilyn Marler <marler at bigsky.net>

wrote:

>

>

> Thanks Bob for the weekly updates.

>

>

>

> A clarification on the Conservation Committee- we did not approve the

new

> Parks fee schedule.  We just set a public hearing for January 12th.  So

people can comment on it before we approve it. Also, I think it's worth
mentioning that some folks from the swim team community were there and
they spoke in favor of the new 50 m pool rental fees. It's nice that there

> has been some improvement in communication between Parks and the

swimmers,

> and everyone seems happy.

>

>

>

> Also, I'd like to hear from cyclists about their positions on the $10

for

> 4 years ($15/family) bike license. How do you think we (as the city)

could

> encourage more cyclists to purchase bike licenses? What we came up with

in

> committee as suggestions were:

>

> -Make available on the new city website

>

> -Give out freebies or Bike Benefits stickers with the license

>

> -Have the summer Bike Ambasssadors sell them occasionally

>

> -Better marketing of how the proceeds are spent (on programs that

benefit

> cyclists)

>

> -Make the license more expensive (like $20) but have it be permanent

>

> -Work with local non-profits to spread the word to their memberships and

audiences

>

>

>

> Email me off list if you like, marler at bigsky.net, or send ideas to all

of

> council at council at ci.missoula.mt.us  And if you don't already have a

bike

> license, maybe you should go get one! Although it's a little

inconvenient-

> you have to physically go to the Treasurer's Office on the 2nd floor of

city hall.

>

>

>

> Thanks again, Marilyn Marler

>

>