It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NJ Politician Proposes License Plates For Bicycles

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by guohua
 


Na I live closer to Buffalo not sure what they do in NYC as far as messengers, bet they could make a killing though!!! I just think that whoever (obviously not underage children) uses the roads should be required to pay for use and maintenance of the roads. Or could it be that the tax dollars and fees that are collected for road use are being spent elsewhere and people are afraid to admit it??


I apologize there my friend, I assumed you lived in New York City.
Now here you've made a very true and for some an eye opening statement. ["Or could it be that the tax dollars and fees that are collected for road use are being spent elsewhere and people are afraid to admit it??"]




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jaynkeel
 


Bicycles do not use the roads the same way cars do. They do not cause wear and tear on road surfaces. Theyare still subject to the rules of the road. Using the logic some are in this thread then anything coming in contact with the road should have to pay a usage fee and be registered with the state. So that includes pedestrians. This s typical NJ government, trying to get every penny it can

Aren't towns supposed to encourage bike riding? It's healthy and good for the environment but no lets see how we can screw over more people.
edit on 14-1-2011 by drock905 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Long Beach bicyclists register their displeasure City that aims for bike-friendliness should drop the registration requirement — and the steep fines that go with it, they say. Long Beach is making a concerted effort to become a bike-friendly city,… (Luis Sinco, Los Angeles Times) January 04, 2011|By Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times Anna Seng had no idea it was against the law to ride an unregistered bike in Long Beach, a place that has pledged to be "the most bicycle-friendly city in America." But she found out earlier this year when her teenage son borrowed a cousin's bike and came home with a big surprise: a ticket for not having a bell — or registration. Ads by Google Orange County Coupons1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. It's like doing O.C. at 90% off! www.Groupon.com/Orange-County "I didn't even know that existed until I got the ticket," Seng said. "People that I talk to — none of them tell me they have registration." Now she and her son are preparing for a court date to challenge the fines, which total more than $400. "Thirty or forty bucks would make sense," she said, "but $400? I was shocked." For many in the fast-growing Long Beach cycling community, the little-known municipal law requiring that all bikes be registered at a local fire station seems out of sync with the city's push to become a haven for cyclists. In the last two years, Long Beach has undergone a flurry of bike-oriented transportation projects. After building dozens of miles of new bike lanes, the city last month opened its first "bike boulevard," a side street designed to offer safe passage for cyclists. Workers also have begun installing bike-only traffic signals along two streets through the city's downtown — the first step in handing over an entire lane to bikes to eliminate accidents with cars. Now, in a significant olive branch to cyclists, the City Council is considering eliminating the mandatory bike registration, a detail Long Beach seemed to have overlooked when rolling out its ambitious bike agenda.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


I beg to differ my friend. I agree that bikes do not cause the same wear and tear on the road, but they most certainly use the road in the same way that cars do. They travel in the same direction as cars, on the same side of the road, in the same lanes. The way in which they operate on the road is identical to that of cars - unlike pedestrians who generally only travel on roads in directions perpendicular to the traffic, and to whom roads are obstructions, not paths (ie as a pedestrian you must cross a road to get where you're going, not use that road to get where you're going - to be clear I'm differentiating roads and footpaths here, which I think is fair). So your comparison of bikes to pedestrians is flawed at best.

The issue I have is not one of cost. I completely agree that cyclists should be charged less due to reduced wear and tear on the road. They should be charged a cost to cover the infrastructure required to register them.

Let me give you an example. You're out walking on the footpath next to a road (let's get you out of any mode of transport for the sake of this article) you see someone in a car swerve into a lane dangerously, cutting another driver off drastically, causing them to brake and swerve into another lane. You might feel compelled to report that driver to the authorities as dangerous, and you'd be well within your rights to do so and would be able to do so thanks to the license plate on their car.

Now if you experienced the same situation again, only this time it is a cyclist who cut off a driver causing them to swerve dangerously (which I see happen often), the cyclist is completely anonymous and is in no way responsible for their actions. They can act however they like on the road, safe in the knowledge that they are completely untraceable.

How is this reasonable? Motorcycles also cause less wear and tear on the road than cars, and I believe they are charged a lower cost for registration because of this. Trucks cause more wear and tear than cars, and are charged more as such. But all other users of the road are still required to be registered, and why wouldn't they be?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
What everyone that has posted here so far seems to forget is that according to state laws, driving a motorized vehicle of any kind (ie. electric, gas, or wind-up spring) is considered a privilege granted by the state, not a right, therefore it is regulated. A human powered vehicle (ie. a bicycle or on foot) and even an animal powered vehicle, is considered a pedestrian. Pedestrians in my state have the right of way in all cases. Also, it is our right as U.S. citizens to travel freely and unrestricted, be it on land, water or even in the air. In my opinion, this type of law infringes upon the right of free travel as there are so few alternatives to paying for the privilege of driving a motorized vehicle. ". . . If you take a walk they'll tax your feet. Taxman!" This is strictly about the money and not about safety or road maintenance. They already have taxes for necessary infrastructure like roads and sidewalks. By the way, many cities prohibit bicycles from being ridden on sidewalks and so bicyclists are forced to take their chances with the distracted people driving in their cars. Most people on bikes are completely aware of the traffic, if they weren't, then they wouldn't last long on the road.
edit on 14-1-2011 by MichiganSwampBuck because: syntax and spelling error



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Interesting you should say that, I wasn't aware that the motor was what determined 'pedestrian' travel. It seems odd to me that foot pedestrians travel on the footpath, while road pedestrians travel on the road. I'm sure I've seen motorised bicycles that are unregistered.

Personally, I think that distinction is pointless. What should be considered is who is sharing the passageway. Sure, everyone can travel unrestricted. Whatever vehicle you can afford, you can drive or ride. But if you're gonna have interactions with drivers and other cyclists in the same shared space, there needs to be some kind of regulation. For everyone.

Isn't the United States all about equal rights for everyone? Why do pedestrians have more rights than drivers?

I assure you that drivers are just as aware of cyclists, knowing that one clip could potentially lead to a manslaughter charge. Especially if the cyclist is moronic enough to not be wearing a helmet.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Is insurance for them next I would hope so. Our little town many years ago you had to have a plate a little spray paint amd letters from the hardware is all they used so thats what everybody did. Long before computers



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Reply to post by TheStev
 



unlike pedestrians who generally only travel on roads in directions perpendicular to the traffic


What? How would pedestrians get anywhere if they only crossed roads?

Step out of your concrete cage once in a while. Beyond the realm of sidewalks and crosswalks there are joggers, walkers, cyclists, all traveling right along your roads either for 20,50,100 miles of exercise or for one 200 mile leg of an epic sojourn.

Folks need to get out more. There is a lot going on in the world than what you see 'downtown.'


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Reply to post by TheStev
 



I assure you that drivers are just as aware of cyclists, knowing that one clip could potentially lead to a manslaughter charge.


Drivers arent particularly aware of themselves let alone cyclists.

Read through these posts and you'll see great animosity toward them. Hatred even. How dare they be on the road, bicycles are for children at parks, etc...

Often that manslaughter charge becomes a simple ticket. We had a woman here who plowed into a training cycling club. She killed three of them. She was trying to change CD's when she hit them. She got a ticket for reckless driving. Three families got to bury their loved ones.

Drivers who only drive are horrible drivers. Get out once in a while and ride a bike on the roads you drive on. The terror will make you a better driver.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DigitalSea
Seriously? No offence but that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on this site. EVERYONE including children and adults should wear a helmet. What kind of example would adults be setting for their own kids if they didn't wear helmets?


Really?! "This"
is the most ridiculous thing you ever read on this site?! You sir/mam are lying! Admit it.

This is more ridiculous:

New Proof Of Nibiru! It's Coming! Prepare!
I was a Gray Alien in past life
Galactic Federation of Light or Project Blue Beam and the Nephilim?

I'm not here to set examples for you or anyone's children. Got kids?! Cool, set an example. Not my problem.
edit on 14-1-2011 by cluckerspud because: I just don't care

edit on 14-1-2011 by cluckerspud because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TheStev
 


"But if you're gonna have interactions with drivers and other cyclists in the same shared space, there needs to be some kind of regulation. For everyone."

Those regulations exist because the rules of the road apply to everyone, drivers, cyclists and joggers included.

"Isn't the United States all about equal rights for everyone? Why do pedestrians have more rights than drivers?"

A pedestrian has less regulations than a motor vehicle driver because it is their God given right to use their muscle power to travel freely and they travel on roads because it is not legal to trespass on private property while traveling.

"I assure you that drivers are just as aware of cyclists, knowing that one clip could potentially lead to a manslaughter charge. Especially if the cyclist is moronic enough to not be wearing a helmet."

No driver in Michigan would "clip" a pedestrian if they were obeying the law that says they must yield to pedestrians and give them a half a lane or more when passing them. Motorcyclists get "clipped" to death all the time and they, by Michigan law, must wear a helmet.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


As a motorcycle rider, I understand exactly what you mean. People have almost killed me a few times, and they say they never even seen me... Really, you didn't see the red motorcycle, with the guy wearing a red leather riding suit, and the red helmet with reflective paint on it? People seriously don't seem to pay attention when they are driving. I am a 500 times better driver, both in the car and on my motorcycle since I have started riding it on the road.


To be honest, I am surprised you don't have register and insure everything that has wheels these days. All license and permits are just money getters. You need to pay the man to do everything these days, it makes me sick.
edit on Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:08:06 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by fordrew
 




But yea this has to be the most ridiculous proposal ever.

Not EVER... the most ridiculous proposal YET.

Next it'll be a license plate tattooed on your back otherwise you can't leave your house.

EDIT : Apparently there's already a fee like that in LA... and in several cities you have to register your bicycle with the police...

America is really run by insane people.
edit on 14-1-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Reply to post by TKDRL
 


Yup. You glow neon and cover yourself with blinking lights and they still can't see you.

They get complacent and dumb in their steel cages insulated from the world texting, applying makeup, drinking a coffee and scanning radio stations while piloting two tons of stupid at 80 miles per hour.

They dont want you on back roads because they cant see you in the turns. God forbid they drive the speed limit. They dont want you on main roads because they cant see in all the traffic. God forbid they drive the speed limit or check their blind spots.

Motorcycles and bikes are the scapegoats for their bad driving. They'd sooner kill one of us than admit they drive like assholes and strive to pay a little more attention to the world outside their coffin on wheels.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Sure is a ton of hatred for bicyclists on here.
I as a bike rider am subject to the same rules of the road. Bikes cause no wear on road surfaces, the vast majority are uber safe and aware because they have to be. I already pay taxes That go towards road upkeep and bike lanes which are never built anyway.

If you're for this then you must also be in favor for registering

- skateboards
- pedestrians
- wheelchairs
- rollerskates
- big wheels

Some people amaze me with their irrational ideas



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


drock905, Your statement below is scary, I think it's because the Politicians don't believe they can get away with it yet, That is the Only Reason we're not paying a registration fee yet for walking, skateboards, wheelchairs, roller skates or even you youngest kids Big Wheel.
I know the Old People Living in Sun City ( Gods Waiting Room ) here, have to register their Golf carts they use on the city streets. Yes, they get DUI's on their golf carts!
As soon as the Politicians figure the American Public is complacent enough and being lead by their nose enough, They'll make you register your right and left shoe, for that little extra tax monies.

This list was provided to us by drock905. If you're for this then you must also be in favor for registering

- skateboards
- pedestrians
- wheelchairs
- rollerskates
- big wheels



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


If this lunacy goes through, you can bet those will be next.

I can't BELIEVE folks are cheering this tyrannical, extortional crap on.

LICENSING is one of the biggest scamming enterprises plaguing humans right now-It is designed to force one to PAY for absolutely EVERYTHING, and to be CONTROLLED by those 'issuing' the licenses. It is ALWAYS about squeezing more money out of the little people, and very rarely do 'licensing fees' go back into what they are proposed to do. The funds are usually allocated to making folks in high places richer, and giving beneficial 'perks' to 'officials' who mandate such nonsense.

Next up, a license to WALK if you are using designated pathways.

Unreal what this world is coming to. Pay, pay, pay, for EVERYTHING.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I don't know about the traffic rules in your country, but in Australia joggers are required to use the footpath, or any asphalt surface outside of the marked lanes . If they have no choice but to use the road, then they are required to jog on the opposite side of the road to the direction that the traffic is travelling. This is so that drivers can easily see them, and they can easily see drivers, but it shows that pedestrians do not use the roads the same way that cyclists do. Cyclists, are required to use the road, travelling in the same direction as other traffic, and are not meant to be riding on the footpath.

Tell me, if you went jogging and there was a footpath next to the road (or any grass or dirt next to the road) would you honestly be jogging right out on the road in amongst the traffic? This seems pretty darn specious to me. The simple way to discern between pedestrians and cyclists is this: pedestrians are suggested to avoid using the road if at all possible, cyclists are encouraged to use the road if at all possible.

I've shown no hatred for cyclists, and it seems to me there are a lot of cyclists here that are getting seriously defensive. Let me say again: I have no hatred for cyclists, I simply want everyone who has a chance of colliding with me on the road to have some way of being tracked - just as I do. I'm actually quite confused by this 'hatred and contempt' claim. Can you please show me a post in this thread that is anywhere approaching "How dare they be on the road, bicycles are for children at parks, etc... "

You don't want cyclists to have to register to use the road? Fine. Then I don't want to have to register to use the road as a driver. Why should I have to? What makes cyclists superior to me that they have a right that I don't have? Try to look at it from a driver's perspective. If a driver has to pay, why not a cyclist. I haven't heard a single argument (apart from the lack of a motor, which seems pretty arbitrary) for why cyclists are in a different class to any other road user.


Those regulations exist because the rules of the road apply to everyone, drivers, cyclists and joggers included.


So the rules apply to everyone on the road, but not the regulations? As I pointed out previously in my post, different rules apply to cyclists and drivers to those that apply to joggers. At least that's the case in this country, I'd be surprised if it was different elsewhere.


A pedestrian has less regulations than a motor vehicle driver because it is their God given right to use their muscle power to travel freely


It is not my god-given right to buy and travel in a car? Since when?!?!


and they travel on roads because it is not legal to trespass on private property while traveling.


Come on, seriously? Now you're just stretching. Areas where private property runs right up to the very road itself are such an insignificant minority that this is an irrelevant argument. Pedestrians other than bikes more often than not have a choice other than to travel on the road - and more often than not they choose to travel other than on the road. Cyclists, however...


No driver in Michigan would "clip" a pedestrian if they were obeying the law that says they must yield to pedestrians and give them a half a lane or more when passing them.


In nice, wide, open, multi-laned passageway, sure. But in tight urban city traffic, where cyclists weave in and out of the traffic (something a driver, and even probably a motorcyclist, would get pulled over for) the danger of clipping a cyclist - even if one is conscious and aware of them - is far higher.

Let me be clear on that point. I don't give a rat's if cyclists want to weave in and out of traffic in such a way. But nobody should be able to do so without being accountable. That includes myself. I have no hatred or contempt for cyclists, I'd just like to be treated equally on the road. If I have to be registered, licensed and traceable, then it's only fair that cyclists are required to do the same.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by guohua
 


most funds in NJ go into a general slush fund and once they go in it is alot harder to track were they go once they leave. this is just another ridiculous scheme to get more money out of us. but i can't really complain i left NJ for the great state of Texas and then moved back



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 



LICENSING is one of the biggest scamming enterprises plaguing humans right now-It is designed to force one to PAY for absolutely EVERYTHING, and to be CONTROLLED by those 'issuing' the licenses.


Look I totally get this perspective, and I agree with it in principle. But do you drive? Do you refuse to get a license on this principle? Do you refuse to drive based on this principle?

I tend to doubt it. I'd say (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you suck it up and get a license because you don't have any choice.

My only question is: why are cyclists exempt? Just because they're pedal powered? As another poster said, if I converted my car to pedal power, would I no longer need to be licensed and registered?

I think there's a long jump between licensing cyclists and licensing pedestrians, and I think the distinction between these two classes of 'road users' should be considered.

Seriously. Pedestrians as 'road users'? I just don't get it. I've been driving for 25 years, and I pass cyclists on the road all the time. I can't remember once passing a jogger. A jogger who's running alongside the road, sure, but am I the only one who thinks that's a little different to using the actual road?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join