arguments con

Right: Bicycle Victoria's members' magazine Ride On. BV's president, Harry Barber, has said that, as most bike riders were also motorists, they had already paid registration fees on their cars.

Arguments against cyclists being licensed and required to pay registration fees

1. Those who ride bicycles already pay taxes for the facilities they use
Those who claim that cyclists should not have to pay bike registration and other fees typically argue that most bike riders are already paying a range of other taxes that fund the services they use.
On March 19, 2009, one of the online respondents on this issue contacting The Brisbane Times noted, 'I am a cyclist and nothing annoys me more than the spurious argument from some motorists that as I don't pay registration on my bike I don't have the same rights to the road they do. My wife and I own 2 cars on which we pay registration, I pay council rates on my house, I pay more income tax than most people and I pay my share of GST on whatever I purchase. I think I'm entitled to use road infrastructure.'
Another respondent contacted The BrisbaneTimes on the same day to make a similar observation. 'One of the great fallacies that always comes up in this argument is the idea that registration and licensing solely pays for roads - it doesn't!! The cost of the road network is largely paid for out of consolidated revenue and is far higher than the small amount collected in licensing and registration fees. Secondly, the majority of adult bike riders actually do own a car and pay rego and licensing - they just choose not to use it most of the time.'
Mr Harry Barber, the president of Bicycle Victoria has also stated that most cyclists were also motorists and so already funded the TAC through car registration fees.
Mr Barber also indicated that if non-drivers were asked to provide TAC funding then it would have to extend to pedestrians and public transport users, because they were also at risk of being injured by a car.
An editorial published in March 2007 in the Illawarra Bicycle Line stated, 'Bicycle riders' registration fails to take into consideration the contribution cyclists already make towards cycling
infrastructure, not only do we pay income tax on the moneys earned to fund our cycling habit, we are also slugged with 10% GST and the host of other taxes and government charges passed on by retailers, that is, payroll tax, company tax, land tax and the list goes on.
If we consider the average cost of the 1.47 million bicycles sold in 2006 at $500 each and an average 25% income tax then we contributed $125 in income tax and $50 GST per bike, a total contribution of 257.25 million dollars without taking all the other taxes into consideration. Add to that all the taxes paid on new tyers, repairs,cycle helmets etc and then ask where all our contributions are going. Not into cycling infrastructure.'

2. Bike riding is an environmentally friendly, healthy activity which governments are seeking to promote
It is generally acknowledged that bike riding has major health benefits for cyclists. These benefits advantage the individuals concerned and also the society as a whole. A recent editorial published in the Medical Journal of Australia states, 'Cycling, the fourth most popular physical recreation in Australia, is increasingly being used as a means of transport. As a form of regular physical activity, it confers substantial health benefits that are accessible to people of all ages... evidence is growing that cycling has health-enhancing effects... In a large Danish cohort followed up for 15 years, a 39% reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in those who cycled to work, and this was independent of participation in sport and other physical activity.
Other large population studies have shown the effects of commuting by bicycle on reducing mortality and cardiovascular risk among Finnish women, and similar risk reductions for Chinese adults in Shanghai. Ecological observations have noted lower rates of obesity in regions with high rates of cycling.'
The Victorian premier, John Brumby has stated, 'We are losing more people from the non-communicable diseases than we are from the communicable diseases for the first time in our history. These are all the lifestyle diseases.
The best way to counter a lifestyle disease is to keep fit and to keep healthier. And you can do it walking, you can do it running, or you can do it cycling.'
Preliminary results from a study undertaken on behalf of the Federal Department of Health and Ageing found cyclists saved more than $82 million in public health costs, almost $64 million in traffic congestion-related costs and $9 million in greenhouse gas-related costs.
Governments around the world are seeking to encourage bicycle use both for its health benefits and its environmental benefits. The Brumby Government has just announced its Victorian Cycling Strategy. Roads Minister Tim Pallas has said that the Government's new cycling plan was about cycling's emergence as a 'mainstream' activity. 'We are mainstreaming cycling as a legitimate transport mode... (Cycling) is good for your personal health. It will get your blood pressure down, it will get your cholesterol down. It also takes pressure off the public transport system and our road system,' Mr Pallas said.
It has been claimed that requiring cyclists to be licensed and to pay bike registration would cut
across government attempts to encourage citizens to take up bike riding. The Victorian cyclists lobby group, Bicycle Victoria, has stated, 'By introducing a financial and administrative burden, registration would discourage people from cycling. Families would particularly suffer: riding a bike might become an unaffordable luxury for many kids.'
a similar point has been made by Gordon Black, director of the Bicycle Alliance of Washington. Mr Black has said, 'We want as many drivers as possible to give up driving their cars.' Mr Black believes compulsory registration would create a 'potential barrier' to cycling. He added, 'We want to make the access to bicycling as easy as possible.'

3. Registering cyclists would raise little usable revenue
It has been claimed that the cost and difficulties of administering a bike registration system would make it at best revenue neutral. It would not be reasonable to charge bike riders a large fee and the difficulties of deciding who should pay (with respect to age of rider and frequency and nature of bicycle use) would be considerable.
On March 19, 2009, one of the online respondents on this issue contacting The Brisbane Times noted, 'I just can't see the benefits of the scheme. It will be revenue negative (cost of the scheme will be more than implementing it) and I can't see police enforcing road rules on cyclists anymore than currently. Then there will be the huge debate over who should be licensed - 12 year olds out with their mates? It's just unworkable.'
A VicRoads spokesman said it did not have the resources to make bicycle registration a viable option.
Queensland Greens MP for Indooroopilly, Ronan Lee, has stated that any move to license riders would be unworkable. Mr Lee noted, 'You can't license an eight-year-old riding his bike to school. It would just add another layer of bureaucracy and would actually discourage people from getting out of their cars.'
Cycling Promotion Fund, a bicycle industry lobby group, said a levy would discourage bicycle use.
'There is no country around the world which has registration for bicycles, and the revenue raised would be quite low,' said the organisation's program director, Rosemarie Speidel.
Arthur Ross, pedestrian-bike coordinator for the city of Madison, Wisconsin, USA has said, 'Certainly, I would not want to see program funding tied to bike registration. We need a whole lot more money than we're ever going to raise through bicycle registration.'

4. Pedestrians and the users of wheelchairs are not registered or licensed.
It has been repeatedly pointed out by opponents of a registration fee being imposed on cyclists that this would be excessive and inequitable. Those who hold this view note that a similar registration fee is not proposed for pedestrians to cover the cost of their use of pavements, bridges and other walkways.
In a letter published in The Age on April 14, 2009, Dave Cole wrote, 'Before we register cyclists to pay for their mostly non-existent infrastructure, shouldn't we first register pedestrians to pay for their footpaths? And if having car registration does not count for cyclists, then it should not count for pedestrians. On the other hand, if I had to pay bicycle registration, I would ride in the middle of the lane. Is this what people calling for it want?'
A similar point was made by another letter writer to The Age, writing on the same day. Grant McHerron wrote, 'Heck, yeah, let's register cyclists. But don't stop there. Those damned pedestrians are using footpaths (and often roads) that cost a lot to build and maintain. Let's put rego plates on them so we can get back money from them and track the annoying ones who step in front of traffic and ignore "Don't walk" signs. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Registering cyclists will not stop them riding more than two abreast and blocking traffic, or zipping through red lights. Create a red light/speed camera system for cyclists that generates significant revenue and watch how fast things change.'

5. Cycling is not a sufficiently hazardous activity to warrant licensing and cyclists are already regulated by law
It has been claimed that bike riding is not a sufficiently dangerous activity to require a licensing system.
On April 8, 2009, one of the online respondents on this issue contacting The Brisbane Times noted, 'Licenses are only necessary for inherently dangerous activities that put the general public at risk. Cyclists rarely hurt anyone but themselves. Head down this track and it won't stop at bicycle licences - it will be skateboards, inline skates, rockclimbing, bushwalking -- heck probably you'll need a licence and insurance before you leave your property. The job of government is to include as many people as they can in as many activities as they can -- not to bar all but the fortunate by dodgy license schemes.' It has further been argued that if government authorities and others are concerned to improve cyclists' safety then they should extend biker education programs and driver education programs on safely sharing the road with cyclists.
Bicycle Queensland has argued that licensing bike riders is unnecessary because most cyclists know the road rules. A spokesperson for Bicycle Queensland, Ben Wilson, noted, 'Cyclists are already accountable under the same laws drivers are. Most cyclists have a driver's licence, and if they break the law, they get a fine.'
Similar points have been made in United States publications. Washington cyclists already follow many of the same rules as motorists. In most states bike riders obey the same traffic rules as cars. However, they are also allowed to travel on many sidewalks and some highways. If a cyclist violates a law, such as running a red light, police can issue the same ticket a motorist would get.
It is also generally the case that the ticket will not go on a cyclist's driving record. However, that is not the case in at least one state, Florida, where cyclists accumulate points that jeopardise their driver's licenses and inflate their insurance rates. In fact, Florida establishes a 'dummy record' for underage cycling law-breakers. Juveniles must pay any tickets on that record before they can get their first licence.