home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: can.general
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!watserv1!watmath!undergrad.math.waterloo.edu!cayley.waterloo.edu!msharder
- From: msharder@cayley.waterloo.edu (Mathew Harder)
- Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
- Message-ID: <Bs49BD.223@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
- Sender: news@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu
- Organization: University of Waterloo
- References: <1992Jul27.193509.26974@zooid.guild.org> <Bs3rCL.9IF@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
- Distribution: can
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:38:01 GMT
- Lines: 57
-
- 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
-
-