From: msharder@cayley.waterloo.edu (Mathew Harder)
Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:38:01 GMT

In article <Bs3rCL.9IF@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> howard@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Howard Lem) writes:
>
>I believe users wanting the government to provide something should contribute
>a majority of the cost to operate/maintain the service.  Drivers pay assorted
>taxes and licensing fees to use the roads.  If bicylists want bike paths,
>they contirbute towards their creation and upkeep just like motor vehicles
>and their drivers.
>
>As a step in that direction, the government (Municaipal | Provincial) should 
>license ALL bicycles.  The fee need not be large, just enough to cover
>necessary costs.  MoT already has much of the bureaucracy in place with the
>licensing of motor vehicles.  Just set the fee to $2-30/year for each
>bicycle.  Of course, childrens bicycles would be at the low end or off the
>low end.  'Adult' bicycles would be towards the high end.  And Courier
>bicycles would be off the high end :-)  Moneys generated from licensing can
>be channelled back into the community to build and maintain a network of
>bicycle paths.
>
>An even easier idea is to have the retailer do all the paper work and send it
>to the government. :-))  Yah! Yah! That's it!  A bicycle tax! :-))  Maybe the
>government can augment the tire tax to include bicycle tires too! :-)) :-))
>
   This isn't a bad idea in itself.  The problem stems from the fact that
many people still see bicycles as 'toys', something to use in one's
leisure time.  And that is a legitimate use for them.  To some extent,
bicycles have a dual role; both as a means of transportation, and as
recreational equipment.  The car, by comparison, is regarded almost
exclusively as a means of transportation (although some people put so much
time in to them that it seems a hobby :-).

   Keeping in mind the distinction between transportation and recreation,
I would wholeheartedly support (modest) licensing fees, etc. for bicycles
used as a means of transportation.  But I would oppose the licensing of
recreational bicycles (after all, we don't require licenses for ice
skates, or swimsuits, or books, or barbeques).

   The problem arises in differentiating between recreational bicycles and
transportational bicycles.  This is a task that is difficult bordering on
impossible.  What do you use as a criteria?  Size, weight, number of
speeds?  I use my (one and only) bicycle for both transportation and
recreation.  Would it need to be licensed?  A part-time license perhaps?

   Besides that, I don't think that driver's licenses generate much more
revenue than needed to maintain the bureaucracy it supports.  The purpose
of licenses is supposedly to insure that drivers are capable and know the
rules of the road, not to generate revenue.

   So, to sum up, although an interesting idea, I don't think that bicycle
licenses are implementable at this point in time.  Maybe in five or ten
years, public perception will have changed sufficiently to make this
politically feasible.

   Keep on riding...

			Mathew Harder
			msharder@descartes.uwaterloo.ca
 
Xref: sparky can.general:3331 can.politics:5254