Annals of Cycling – 100: From Global to Parochial

I don’t get the reference to Edward de Bono, but below are three reasons for licensing bikes, and rebuttals to each, from Bike Calgary. Adjust slightly and they apply around the world. (Note: CPS = Calgary Police Services.)

1. “But cyclists should pay their share!”
There is a common misconception that motorists pay for building and maintaining roads through user fees such as vehicle registration and licenses. From this misconception the argument is then made that bicycle facilities like bike lanes should also be paid for by user fees. In fact, however, the lion’s share of Calgary’s transportation budget comes not from user fees but from property taxes—taxes practically everyone in the city pays, whether they cycle, walk, drive, or use transit. Vehicle registration and driver licensing fees, on the other hand, are collected by the province and spent on provincial highways; none of it comes to the city. About $154 million are collected from passenger vehicle registrations a year in Alberta, but even this only covers less than 7% of the Province’s $2.5 billion transportation expenses. Moreover, most cyclists are also licensed drivers and own cars—a cyclist licensing or bicycle registration fee would thus essentially be a punishment for choosing active transportation.
Roads are a public good. Like the Police Service, they should not only be paid for by people who use them, but by everyone (including cyclists)—and in fact they are. Cyclists pay much more than their fair share of road costs. In recent years, the City has only spent about $2.5 million a year for cycling infrastructure, about 0.4% of the total capital expenses for transportation. The 2011 Cycling Strategy calls for capital spending of $5 million a year for the next four years. That’s about 0.8% of all transportation capital expenditures, or roughly 1/2 of cylists’ “fair share” (assuming by a 1.5% commuting mode share). In terms of operating expenses, expenditures of approx. $2m for cyclists a year amount to less than 0.3% of the City’s expenses for roads, traffic, parking, and transit (2011 Annual Report). Less than 0.4% of Calgary’s 6,700 km of roads have bike lanes on them.
The majority of Calgarians are interested in cycling more, and the City’s transportation plan supports encouraging more active transportation. Recent research demonstrates the significant societal benefits of more people cycling: reduced traffic congestion, improved road safety for all road users, decreased noise and air pollution, and health, longevity, and productivity of cyclists in contrast to motorists. The “allocation of funds by existing user mode-share” model of funding is a recipe for perpetually static transportation system. If we hope to move beyond the status quo and improve the life of Calgarians by making cycling a viable transportation option, more resources need to be put into cycling, and we must avoid imposing additional barriers to cycling.
2. “Licensing will make cyclists more lawful.”
Another common misconception is that cyclists are more prone to break traffic laws, and that they would be more law-abiding and could (only) be ticketed if they were licensed and their bicycles registered. There is no evidence that cyclists as a group do violate traffic laws more often than other road users do. Moreover, Alberta’s current traffic laws already apply to cyclists and are enforced by Calgary Police and Bylaw Services—cyclists do get tickets! When police enforce traffic laws, they charge the cyclist, not the bicycle. Cyclists receive tickets for traffic violations in almost the same way that drivers do.
The purpose of licensing car drivers is to provide a mechanism to remove dangerous drivers from the road. If a car is used improperly or is not roadworthy, it poses serious threats to public safety. Bicycle users and bicycles do not pose the same threat to public safety, and do not need to be regulated in the same way (this is especially true when cyclists are provided with proper infrastructure).
Neither licensing nor registration are necessary in order for traffic laws to be enforced. Better education around cycling, for both cyclists and motorists, could achieve safer roads without creating a barrier to cycling as mandatory licensing would. In fact, practically no jurisdictions in Canada or the US currently require special licenses for cyclists.
3. “Bicycle registration will reduce theft.”
Licensing cyclists as individuals will do nothing to reduce theft. While a system for registering bicycles themselves would help reduce bicycle theft, it should not be mandatory. A mandatory bicycle registration system would introduce an unnecessary barrier to cycling which would be expensive to maintain. There are currently voluntary bicycle registration systems available to Canadian cyclists, such as Bike Revolution. A voluntary CPS supported bicycle registration system in Calgary would be welcomed by Bike Calgary.