[MissoulaGov] bike license clarification - More info From Last E-mail

[Jeremy Hood]

I received an e-mail I accidentally deleted when trying to click on "not-junk".

I would like to address a few things from the e-mail.

First I said that "There is no freedom in that, just a very fascist approach to making yourself feel good." Re-read that please. I am not calling helmets, people who wear them, etc, fascists. I am not calling protection fascism. I am not responsible for people understanding language. I will however explain this just to help. Fascism is based on dictatorship, which does not imply bad per say. In many cases in history there have been a lot of beloved and praised fascists leaders. My point being if you have any respect for the ideals of this country you would recognized self serving, which making other people do what you think is right not by choice, is, is a fascist approach. You are dictating what they do, even if you feel it is best for them, and ultimately there is nothing free about that. Now I do know there is the point that people are free to do what they want but may pay the consequences, via law or forces of physics but that is not the issue. It is not an argument of implied and consequential semantics. The intent is completely undemocratic decision forced onto people, in other words very fascists. 

The children and rehab clinic defense:

First I am disappointing to see this kind of tactic employed on a very one sided "band-aid" approach. I would guess there has been too much investment in presidential campaign watching over the last year not to draw out this kind of tactic, sympathy. 

Lets start at parents are responsible for their children. True some parents do not do anything to protect their children. We have some options about what to do when this is the case. 

1. Force something on them that does not work because it will never get enforced at a notable measure (helmets), just do one more thing to most likely a poor family that has way too many problems as is and does not need anymore NEGATIVE harmful judiciary coming at them even if they are bad parents. They have way more than enough holding them down to the point where it is ingrained in their thought pattern. Back off. 

2. Real ground work that works and peers for when parents are not there or even when they are. First stop telling people what to do or what they should do from your car window. People and children will listen to reason when it comes from someone that is not the enemy. Ride a bike, wear a helmet first. Then do something real like tell them at FreeCycles you can get free helmets for children and adults, or at St. Pats. Give them the option not the end of the road, and let them decide. People will wear helmets if they want, and are more likely to it if others do it and advocate it at the same time but in a friendly non authoritarian manner. However know this is personal agenda, not everyone is going to adhere to it, but if it is what you feel should be done do it.

3. Survival of the fittest. Perhaps the world could afford to have a few less in it as far as resources are concerned for the car culture we have.

There are more options obviously but those are some examples of things happening as is right now every day.

The Bigger Concern:

Why are we trying so hard to make sure we are safe in accidents? Can you imagine what statistics of accidents would look like if they were based on ratios of accidents caused by or created by cars and poor car infastructure provisions. We are protecting ourselves because it is unsafe to ride a bicycle due to the implications of cars. We should be fixing these things instead of just trying to survive them. I have had a friend or two have accidents that where not car related, but almost all have been. My personal ones have been car related. This is where we need to start. Poor intersections, poor bike lanes, poor road infrastructure design, poor so many things. That and less cars would be swell, maybe some more buses and times for them, but not without the support of lots of riders. 

Anyway I say we start somewhere real. We start now instead of never. It may be a very long difficult road but it is better than doing nothing and having people in rehab and ultimately always being scared for doing the right thing.



Tid-bit for thought:
Statistics for helmets are portrayed in such a way it should make people wear them when walking or doing anything. They usually go something like "73% of people with damage from a head injury could have been prevented by a helmet" which means that even if it was 100% and then we put helmets on all of them, that they would still have had to hit their heads to make it into this statistic. Very rarely will you see statistics on how many bicycle crashes invovled hitting the head and combine it with how many a helmet would of actually helped with. The number would be way to low and unsatisfactory for helmet manufactures. In fact I have personally met more people told that if they had been wearing a helmet they would of broke their neck or something else awful. The statistics suck. I am not saying to not wear a helmet, but put it into perspective and think about spinal injuries and other things than just head. Now how do we prevent those, um well, we make it safer for people to bike around.





From: thepoe at hotmail.com
To: derekmgold at hotmail.com; marler at bigsky.net; pklemz at missoulanews.com
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:16:09 -0700
CC: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] bike license clarification








What if we see a decline in bicyclists, can we then remove infrastructure? Should we make it less safe or more safe based on the amount of them?

There are no requirements to ride a bicycle on the road. You are required to license it, but that license is not a deterrent for provisions of use. 

Helmets too now?

People can make their own choices. If you want to wear a helmet do it. If you are worried about your bike getting jacked license it, if you are worried about a car accident buckle your seat belt. People can think for themselves even if they want to make bad decisions. You are nothing but a jerk trying to serve your own ego by forcing other people to make some "obvious" "right" decisions that you would. There is no freedom in that, just a very fascist approach to making yourself feel good. The only real responsibility anyone has towards people doing something they are free to do is education. People will make informed decisions by themselves when they are informed. Here is where it gets stupid. PSA's only moderately do much of anything. Who watches TV? Not that many people riding bikes, and even less watch MCAT or whatever PSA's run on. The reality is that community peers can and do show the way, so start riding your bike, right now. Change streets so people not in cars do not have to make awkward always wrong decisions.

I hear a lot about educating bicyclists about one ways and things like that. Get real, you really think people can not read signs, you think that the majority of bicyclists doing things that go against car law just do not know? You are fooled just as bad as everyone that thinks Bush is stupid because of his speeches or that believe he is a good old ranch fellow because he can not speak perfectly, fooled so bad to think so much is unintentional.  You are way too self arrogantly invested in your "I am smart ego, make them be smart like me" ego to understand that some people make these decisions on purpose. There are people on bikes that recognize things like an inconviance for a car is not the end of the world especially when every time you ride your bike you are inconvianced by cars, your life is threatened but you do it everyday because you are not a lazy war monger wanting to be on pills in a nursing home. 

Realistically all this talk about money going towards biking and pedestrian infrastructure needs to be re-evaluted as it stands now. Who has seen the figures of actual investment towards them, and not one ones that only give total figures for the entire road? No one, they do not currently exist. Keep that in mind when you suggest things because real figures would show that the amount of people not driving a car get almost all benefit of taxes. Then things like sidewalks are often paid for by who ever lives on that stretch or owns the property, unlike the road which gets tax funding. Also trails and stuff? Not everyone rides a bike for recreation or has the liberty to choose to live next to a trail or work next to one. Yeah just what every cyclists wants, to be seperated from every destination they intend to go to but a select few, and then be expected to never be anywhere else. That is bad like those death tracks, or er cycle tracks that make left hand turns 9-1-1 calls. 



From: derekmgold at hotmail.com
To: marler at bigsky.net; pklemz at missoulanews.com
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:13:07 -0700
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.net
To: pklemz at missoulanews.com
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:45:10 -0700
CC: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: 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 MacDonald
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:27 PM
To: Marilyn Marler
Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: 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












----- Original Message ----- 

From: Bob Jaffe 

To: missoulagov at cmslists.com 

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:23 PM

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


Greetings,
This morning I found out we have a cat ordinance.  We were amending it to limit the number of cats a person can own to 5. If you want more you are supposed to get a cat breeders license. We also considered revisions to the dog ordinance. The only one I really wanted to see more discussion on was the part about doggy day care facilities. In the past these types of businesses were not addressed by any of our ordinances. The zoning office had made the interpretation that they were the equivalent of vet clinics. The new ordinance defines doggy day care and exempts it from the nuisance barking rule. I'm not so sure I am in favor of this.  We have one down the street from us on second. It is in a D zone along the tracks but is very close to a number of homes and other businesses. I have received complaints about the barking but they have been exempt from the rule that says you can't let your dogs bark all day. That may be changing soon. The public hearing will be on 12/22.

In Conservation we covered a few items. We approved an agreement where the County pays us about $65,000 per year to maintain fort Missoula park. Once you subtract out all the fees we collect for use of the park it ends up costing the city about an additional $35,000 to run that park.
We also approved an easement for Northwest Energy to put in a Cathodic Well along a pipe line in the north hills.  That is a deal to help the steel pipe from rusting by changing the way electrolysis would naturally work against the pipe.
We also approved the new parks fee schedule. Everything is going up a few percent.

In PAZ we took up the Clark Fork Terrace number one subdivision. CFT #2 is the one where we are being sued for asking the developer to put in trails.  There were two issues that came up in the discussion. The trail easement and the SID waiver for off-site improvements. Parks would like to assure that we will secure a trail easement along the southern edge of the property that parallels the Milwaukee trail. If we can't get an easement on the actual old rail line we want to at least get something parallel to it. Considering the likelihood of  litigation I probably shouldn't say any more about the project outside of the public meeting.
We were also planning to have an update on the zoning rewrite but our consultant got stuck somewhere do to the weather.

In A&F we made a modification to our agreement on the repayment of the brownfield revolving loan fund for the millsite project. The $1.25 million loan is supposed to be paid back from tax increment from the project over a number of years. During the interim period while the clean up is happening MRA has been paying interest only on the loan. There was a clause in the agreement that said that if the property isn't closed on by 1/1/09 then principal payments need to start. It was assumed that if the deal didn't go down by then that the options to purchase would expire and the deal would be dead. But as we have it we are still waiting for DEQ signoff on the clean up. The property can not be financed and purchased until this is done. The Millsite people have negotiated another extension on the option and DEQ approval is expected this winter.  So we took out the 1/1/09 deadline from the agreement.

We also had an interesting discussion about our bike license ordinance. We did some housekeeping on the language and then discussed how we could make the bike license program effective. Phil Smith, our bike ped coordinator was extremely pessimistic about the possibility that licensing bikes would ever be embraced by the community and the whole thing was a big waste of time. It was tried 10 or 15 years ago and was a lot of work and never really took off.  I'm a little more hopeful that folks can get behind the idea of paying a small fee that would go towards supporting bicycle programs in the city. The current fee is $10 for four years. $15 for families and $5 for children. Bikes with wheels under 24" do not need to be registered. I'm thinking the cycling community in Missoula has a high level of civic engagement and would eventually be supportive of this program. There could also be incentives thrown in to get it going. We will also want to work with the retailers to find a way to make the program work for them.

The other A&F item we discussed was the sewer rate increase. The general consensus was that we wanted to wait to approve any rate increase until the study on flow based billing was complete. I will be more comfortable voting for the rate increase if it is combined with the new billing based on usage. That way the low users of the system will hopefully see a rate decrease. It is possible we will have the information needed some time this spring.

In Public Works we approved the request to make changes to our rules on deicer. We removed the restrictions on corrosiveness and we now allow solid products.  The argument was that our streets department will do everything possible to find the best solutions and we shouldn't tie his hands. Stacy and I voted for an amendment that would make the change sunset next fall but that failed. 
   
Thank you for your interest,

Bob Jaffe
Missoula City Council, Ward 3
bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us
                              406-728-1052                




_______________________________________________
Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 

_______________________________________________
Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may be entered into the public record.
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 


-- 
"Rocks in the water do not know the suffering of rocks in the sun."
Haitian proverb, www.GrassrootsOnline.org
_______________________________________________
Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 


Patrick M. Klemz
Missoula Independent
w: 406.543.6609 x109
c: 406.214.2425
pklemz at missoulanews.com





_______________________________________________
Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.
_______________________________________________
Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 


Patrick M. Klemz
Missoula Independent
w: 406.543.6609 x109
c: 406.214.2425
pklemz at missoulanews.com


Suspicious message? There’s an alert for that.  Get your Hotmail® account now.
Suspicious message? There’s an alert for that.  Get your Hotmail® account now.
_________________________________________________________________
Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_anywhere_122008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20081215/fda04446/attachment.htm>