Chances are quite good that you share your morning and afternoon drives with a growing subset of the Greenest Generation – bicycle commuters. An increasing number of cyclists are zipping along the three or four-foot wide strip at the right edge of many King County roads; a stream of two-wheeled travelers taking advantage of a widening network of shoulder strips and bike lanes.
The ever tenser scrum of Chevy Suburbans and Schwinns that coalesces daily on a field of cement and asphalt has matured beyond an experiment that many local residents saw it as when the trend kicked off years ago. The commitment by local and state governments to create shared roadways – streets that are designed to carry cars, trucks, buses and bicycles simultaneously - has created the need for a regime of common sense bicycle licensing laws. They are needed in the interests of public safety, maintaining revenue for road projects and to preserving some semblance of equity in how the government does business with all users of public roadways.
There was a time in the not-so-distant past when bicycles were used almost exclusively on off-street trails and sidewalks and therefore did not intermingle with motorized traffic. Licensing bicycles and riders in that bygone era would have made as much sense as licensing pedestrians, and any future licensing laws should obviously create ironclad exclusions for the government to begin taxing toddlers on tricycles or recreational cyclists who stick to the off-street venues. But, with more forced integration of our roads barreling down the pike, now is the optimal time for the legislature and local officials to wrap their collective heads around reconciling a maze of statutes concerning the new animal that is the shared roadway, as well as begin to conceive and implement a system of licensing cyclists and their bicycles.
Seattle is only one-sixth of the way through its $240 million plan to add almost 300 miles of on-road bicycle facilities by 2016, and Bellevue has yet to begin implementation of its “Walk and Roll” plan that will create more than 140 miles of similar space on existing city streets. If Bellevue meets its objectives, non-motorized trips will increase at least ten percent over the next decade, projections that do not even keep pace with anticipated population growth.
The number of bicycles on streets and highways is almost certainly to increase at a rate faster than a mere ten percent, and growth of that kind will also inflate the cheerless statistics of accidents involving cyclists. In 2007 there were 763 accidents involving cyclists in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties combined, according to figures compiled by the Washington State Department of Transportation. Five of those accidents involved fatalities. As on-road bicycling increases, the mission of transportation agencies, lawmakers and law enforcement will have to be finding ways to keep the accident and fatality rate from keeping pace.
The challenge of creating a safe public environment is always the paramount task of government and in this case is a particularly daunting one because the space being made for bicycles is most often carved from the edges of motorways that already underserve the driving population. Roads more crowded with motorists, sprinkled with comparatively fragile motorists, are a hazardous transportation setting. Nevertheless, the coexistence of bicycles and motor vehicles on our roads is no longer an experiment. The phenomenon that has existed in a protective bubble, mostly free from enforcement of existing city and state laws, and certainly free from sharing the direct monetary burden connected to the transportation budget, must now be recognized as a reality in the only way state governments know how to recognize a thing. Tax it, license it and regulate its users.
In a convoluted way, cyclists have yet to be accepted by motorists because they have been handed their pavement on a silver platter on top of having developed a public image of being arrogant and careless. Anecdotes about the cavalier manner in which some bicyclists treat the road - as if it were just another trail and without regard for the safety of themselves or the drivers around them - could fill volumes, but the truth about most riders is exactly the opposite of what those examples would presume to say. Still, in order to be taken seriously, to be treated as equals on the road, bicyclists’ street cred will be earned by strapping on the same yoke their fellow commuters don to enjoy the privilege of traveling on public roads.
#1 – Bicyclists and motorists should operate on shared roads with rules of the road that are equal but for common sense exceptions.
On the road, confusion begets chaos and chaos begets injury. The state has allowed towns and cities to develop their own sets of laws for bicycles, but if regional planners expect to promote the idea of bicycle commuting between Bellevue and Seattle, it seems rational to develop a universal set of rules that everyone can depend on. Permitting diversity in this area is at best a recipe for confusion or at worst, loss of life.
#2 – All on-road bicycles should be required to maintain a valid vehicle license and pay annual tab fees.
Building and maintaining an adequate system of roads (or even an inadequate one, in the case of the Seattle/Bellevue corridor) costs a great deal of money. As users of the system, on-road cyclists should bear some share of the cost. Certainly not a fee equal to a car or motorcycle, but some representative share to help pay for the cost of the road network seems reasonable. Cycling groups like the Cascade Bicycle Club could enhance their own revenue by selling specialty license plates.
Even for the utopian vision espoused by radical cycling groups like Critical Mass, bicycle licensing is likely a part of their utopian future vision. Some source of funding for roads must exist even if - in a cyclist’s fantasy – roads someday will only be built to accommodate two-wheeled pedal-powered traffic.
#3 – On-road riders should be required to obtain and hold a valid operator’s license.
We rely on the government to require motorists to obtain a license, mostly because it guarantees that a minimum standard of driving skill must be demonstrated, and a basic knowledge of the rules of the road have been certified for each licensed driver. Despite broad similarities between the operation of a car and a motorcycle, we require a separate license for motorcyclists. By universalizing and consolidating rules for all road occupants, bicyclists could be issued the same kind of permit to operate their vehicle on the street.
Most importantly, a quick road test would evaluate a rider’s skills specific to on-road cycling. Can the rider maintain straight-line motion for one-quarter mile without breaking the boundaries of a three-foot lane? Can the rider demonstrate an ability to change lanes safely and/or merge with traffic? A standard more objective than the current standard for entering the flow of traffic – possessing a bicycle – should be met before a cyclist hits the street.
#4 – Law enforcement officials adopt a formal initiative to write tickets to cyclists as aggressively as motor vehicles.
Perhaps lax citation by police of infractions committed by cyclists stems from a lack of training, but cyclists may currently get off the hook on the basis that they have nothing on the line. Along with licensing, citations become a valuable feedback mechanism, punishing bad apples who could eventually have their rights to ride the roads revoked.
For Pete’s sake, the revenue stream that could come just by writing tickets to downtown Seattle bike couriers might be enough to pay for a few miles of the proposed Alaskan Way Tunnel.
#5 – And, of course, mandatory liability insurance requirements for bicyclists.
Washington has not enacted laws pre-exculpating bicyclists from fault in traffic incidents or accidents. Not requiring bicycles riders to carry some form of general liability insurance is parallel to implying that cyclists are incapable of causing accidents; a preposterous conclusion. If cyclists are on the road, they can cause accidents and should be required to carry insurance to cover potential liability.
The question begs to be answered of why the state has not previously addressed these obvious issues. The excuse cannot be made that the issue of on-road operation of bicycles is a ‘non-issue’ because of the amount of time and money spent on projects and initiatives toward that very issue. No, it likely has more to do with the cheek-to-jowl relationship between special interests and government agencies, in particular the active involvement of the Cascade Bicycle Club. Despite the social implication of its name, the Cascade Bicycle Club is a vigorous lobbying group for the narrow interests of the cycling community. When transportation planning boards and legislative committees meet, Cascade is there in force, and in some cases it is unclear whether they are influencing policy or whether policymaking has been outsourced to Cascade. (Take, for example, the tidal wave of community feedback to Bellevue’s “Walk and Roll” project and measure the comments of the city’s residents against the current plan for which Cascade lobbied intensely.)
In opposition to inevitable proposals to impose fees and regulations such as these, the bicycle lobby will predictably don the halo of environmentalism and make the argument that the absence of fees justified in consideration of the light impact on the environment. Those groups should be swiftly reminded that they have already been compensated for their purity by not having to pay the inflated state gasoline tax. Incentives for a green Washington have already been established for decades; now it is time to institute equal responsibility and accountability among commuters.
Use of public roads is neither a right nor an entitlement. It is a privilege. In adopting a comprehensive licensing regime and a consolidation of its rules of the road, Washington could blaze the trail for other states by truly integrating our local roadways and not affording any special status to one particular group of users.
Comments
Bicycles don't weigh five thousand pounds, nor do many of them travel in excess of the speed limits.
Some bicycles do exceed the speed limit, but the writer of this article fails to suggest giving them speeding tickets. Bicycles never get speeding tickets-this is the real issue.
If a bicyclist was cited for speeding , it would set a precedent. Thereafter, the motorist who clips a bike would be held in suspicion of speeding. The Police could easily collect enough revenue from speeding tickets to fund your tunnel to Alaska. For an 8000 pound SUV, 45MPH in a typical 30MPH zone is "holding up traffic". There are bicycles going 36 to 42MPH (hoping to avoid getting creamed from behind) who could be ticketed themselves for speeding.
Give the bicycle riders speeding tickets! I'm all for it. I ride a bike, and drive a car, I also have a pilot's license. I would love to get a speeding ticket while riding my bicycle. I would have it framed. As I said, it would set a precedent- I would then show a photocopy of the speeding ticket to anyone who says I was holding up traffic.
I drive , so I know more than half the cars and SUV's are going ten or more miles over the limit at any given time.
Bryan Myrick: you have just written 18 paragraphs about giving tickets to bicycles, without mentioning that some of these bicycles are speeding. If not speeding, then what would the bulk of these tickets be issued for? What are the ramifications of a speeding ticket, when the SUV driver says the bike was going too slow? As I said, it would be a precedent setting case, and that SUV driver would be caught in a bold-faced LIE.
If the writer had bothered to figure out that property taxes and not gas taxes or registration fees, pay for roads, I might think this writer has a clue.
Everyone pays for the road system, regardless of whether they drive a car on it or not. Cars/trucks pay a little extra with gas tax, but are responsible for almost all of the wear on the roads.
"In a convoluted way, cyclists have yet to be accepted by motorists because they have been handed their pavement on a silver platter..."
Actually, that couldn't be more wrong. Look up the League of American Wheelmen And the Good Roads Movement. You'll see it was the bicyclists working for a better road system before cars were even on the scene.
You call yourself conservative? How then is more government regulation is the answer? _More_ taxes? Whole-cloth creating a new insurance industry through government fiat?
I'd expect this kind of crap article from the liberal examiner, but of you sir I would have expected a higher caliber of argument. You may as well have opened the door for those liberal moonbats down in Olympia to start licensing and taxing simple hard-working pedestrians.
I would like to know where he thinks the funds to pay for city streets come from. I know one thing it isn't a) gas taxes b) registration fees c) insurance or d) licenses. City streets are paid for from General Funds, and I have never been given any of those back because I ride a bicycle, nor have I been asked if I was a cyclist when buying something so that I wouldn't have to pay the sales tax.
Regarding insurance I have been trying to find insurance to pay my medical expenses should I get hit by a car (when I get hit with a car?) and the driver either hits-and-runs or has no insurance. Guess what? There ain't none. There is no insurance I can get to cover either my actions should I heaven forbid injure someone or the actions of others that injure me. You can't require people to buy something that doesn't exist or is not readily available. Car insurance had been in existence for nearly 70 years and readily available for more than 40 before it became required to operate a motor vehicle. Require insurers to offer bicycle insurance now and maybe in 30 years they will have enough data to know how much to charge like they do with motor vehicles.
I have been car-free since 1995.
"There was a time in the not-so-distant past when bicycles were used almost exclusively on off-street trails and sidewalks and therefore did not intermingle with motorized traffic."
Err, no- cyclists have used roads since bicycles were invented. This is the first of many ignorant assertions in this article.
I should have mentioned that the main reason that motor vehicle operators are required to be licensed is to prove that they are competent and knowledgeable in the operation of devices that have an 80-99% lethality against pedestrians and cyclists at speeds over 30 MPH. Harry Calahan's favorite caliber (.44 Magnum) has a lethality of less than 10% for comparison.
As a matter for comparison most bicycle fatalities involving pedestrians are usually the result of an older person striking their head against the ground, curb, or sidewalk resulting in a closed wound head injury. Perhaps mandatory helmets for pedestrians? Or maybe just some common sense for everyone.
some of these points are good, in particular #1 that admits bicycles should not be treated exactly like cars in all circumstances related to traffic enforcement. however a lot of this article just demonstrates a lack or research into the subject by the author. in particular:
- roads were originally built for bicycles, not cars. bike commuting is not a "new phenomenon"
- everyone pays taxes for roads. revenue does not specifically come from vehicle-related taxes
- motorcycles are not required to carry liability insurance in WA, it wouldn't make sense to require it for bicycles when they can't cause nearly the amount of damage.
regarding #4, I suspect enforcement already is at the same level as it is for cars. I regularly see autos commit the same infractions cyclists are accused of, and generally in a much more dangerous manner. SPD just doesn't have the manpower to enforce traffic all over.
I'm not entirely opposed to some kind of bicycle proficiency test but its arguably draconian. in any case, if someone rode 1/4 mile without breaking the boundries of a bike lane I'd probably fail them. proximity to car doors, potholes, and other road hazards generally require a constant adjustment of lane position, and yes, occasionally this means it is more safe to venture out of the bike lane.
is our 1% of bike commuting even worth discussing? compared to the netherland's 40% of trips taken by bikes, our .5-1% of commuters biking isnt even worth discussing. stats are saying that's going to jump to 11%.. maybe they mean motorbike.
..and im pretty sure insurance regulations for bikes aren’t equivalent to cars due to the obvious fact that when cars run into people they die and when bikes run into people it causes the person to start using phrases like "don the halo of environmentalism" and other pro-ignorance slogans in attempts to validate their slobbish American lifestyle.
i would, however, Love some cheap bike insurance. hAAAAAA, imagine-- you crash your 5000$ carbon frame whenever you want a new one for the price of the deductable.
america, home of the obese.. my bike's license plate header will read..
Bryan,
It's interesting to read a conservative recommending more regulation. What happened to the ideology of freedom.
So the Conservative answer is more taxation, more regulation, and more police involvement?
Hey you guys. Don't get down on the conservative guy because he's calling for more rules and regulation. Conservatives do that all the time, but only for poor people.
I would like address this silliness though.
Point 1: The rules are there. google RCW and bicycle and you will find them all.
Point 2 & 3 since they are conflated: Enforcement is a different point. I've been attacked by drivers of cars a few times and even when I had the license number and a description of the driver, the police didn't want to "get involved". And more, licensing bicycles and their operators will lessen the ability of government to rescind driving privileges of motor vehicles because there would not be an alternative to licensed conveyance. I prefer to give DUII's to be prosecuted and punished.
Point 4: Prosecutions happen. I'm sure that the author researched the citation numbers before he wrote that paragraph. No?
Point 5: Anyone with auto insurance will be covered on their bike while riding on the road. Very, very few cyclists don't drive so the current system catches most everyone.
It's good to hear what the losers of the 2008 election are up to. Down in Oregon, some retired state trooper is trying to license all bicycles regardless of usage at the $54 auto rate, even though motorcycles pay much less and atv's are exempt. Nutty.
Most of the major point have been covered, so I'll add only this - our public roads are for the use of all, not just motorists. That's the 'public' part, you know. Unlike bicyclists, pedestrians, or equestrians, motor vehicles and their operators do untold damage to people and property. That's why our government insists on licensing, registering, and insuring them. Driving is a privilege while using the public way is a right.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!