Last week, the Seattle Times printed an opinion piece by James F. Vesely titled Impose license fee on King County cyclists. Vesely attempts to argue that it is long past the time which cyclists should be licensed and should have to start paying for the amenities “given” to them by gas-tax-paying drivers. This opinion piece is a work of extreme bias founded on misconceptions, and, in my opinion, only further divides the two camps, causing more harm than good.

In this opinion piece, Vesely claims that licenses “would also make cyclists true members of the world of transportation, rather than free riders on the tax rolls.” This is the first misconception that Vesely claims as truth, assuming that Vesely is referring to the Washington State gas tax as the source for pedestrian/bicycle paths. He does not directly state in his opinion piece just how cyclists get a free ride, so I may be taking liberty with my guesses. I did a bit of research and can honestly report back that cyclists do not get a free ride. Washington State’s gas tax does pay a small percentage for the upkeep of paths and bike lanes. Here’s the breakdown of the 37.5 cents per gallon gas tax as of July 1, 2008:

• 9.5 cents goes to 257 specific transportation projects statewide (2005 Transportation Partnership Projects).
• 5 cents goes to 130 specific transportation projects statewide (2003 Nickel package).
• 11 cents goes to cities and counties for local roads.
• 4 cents goes to pay off bond debt ferries and past hwy projects.
• 8 cents is left for maintenance and operations, as well as preservation, safety improvements, congestion relief.

The small percentage allocated for bike use is not paid for merely by those who fill the gas tanks of their cars. Many people own both cars and bicycles, which indicates that many cyclists already pay the same gas tax as those who do not own bicycles. This gas tax is also paid for through delivery charges, increased grocery costs, and increased Metro fares (though it is to be noted that Metro is subsidized through city, state, and federal means, but that’s another can of worms for another article). The gas tax isn’t the only source of funding for roads and bike paths either. Other funding sources include: Bridging the Gap levy (collected through increased property tax, business tax, and parking taxes), donations from local businesses, and federal funds. Speaking of federal funds, I found this tidbit: “In fact, only about 1.5 percent of federal transportation dollars go to fund bike paths and walking trails. In the meantime, 10 percent of all U.S. trips to work, school and the store occur on bike or foot, and bicyclists and pedestrians account for about 12 percent of annual traffic fatalities, according to the Federal Highway Administration. (source)” All in all, cyclists do contribute to the funding of bike/pedestrian paths, sharrows, and bike lanes simply by being participating members of society.

If in case Mr. Vesely was referring to the vehicle registration excise tax, a similar argument can be made. Many bicycle owners are also car owners, thus also paying vehicle registration fees. The costs of registering business vehicles is generally included in the overall overhead costs of the products, like groceries for example. To bring up another argument, many businesses get around Washington State’s Vehicle Registration Excise Tax by registering their company vehicles in another state. Check out UHaul and many of the shipping companies for more information. Using Vesely’s argument, by avoiding Washington’s registration fees, shouldn’t those companies by taxed individually for use of Washington’s roads?

The Motor Vehicle Fund was established for the purpose of supporting highway and highway-related programs (RCW 46.68.070). Motor Vehicle Fund revenue comes mainly from federal grants, state motor fuel taxes, and vehicle registration fees. Under the 18th Amendment of the State’s Constitution, which was approved by voters in 1944, expenditures of revenues deposited in this fund are restricted to the support of state, city and county highway maintenance and construction, highway-related activities of the Washington State Patrol, Washington State Ferries, and other highway purposes. Rail, bus, and air transportation may not be financed with Motor Vehicle Fund dollars. However, fund revenues may be used for facilities for pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists in the following cases: for existing trails on highway right-of-way, where an existing highway severs a trail, or where the use of a trail will materially increase motor vehicle safety (source)

In this context, building trails/paths for pedestrians and bicycles increases motor vehicle safety by giving bikes and pedestrians a dedicated space. The use of this fund is also, in case you missed it, part of Washington state’s constitution, rendering this argument moot until someone passes a bill to amend the constitution.

Moving on. By maintaining the argument that cyclists should have to pay for the roads/paths they are using, ignoring the facts I have stated above that cyclists already pay their share, Vesely has managed to group all cyclists into one category: freeloaders. Those who bike do so for a variety of reasons and it is just as unfair to lump them together into one group as it is to lump all drivers into one group. People ride bikes to commute, for exercise, to spend time with others, some ride because they have no other option for transportation, others ride for the sheer fun of it. One piece of legislature ensures Safe Routes For Schools, a program designed to increase safe routes for children to bike or walk to school. Would Vesely charge these children a daily toll?

Vesely’s only contribution to the car/bike argument is to further flame the hard feelings between the two groups. One commenter to the article, Bell Street, asks this: “Why do people talk about cyclists and drivers as if they are separate classes of people?” This is a great question. Humans tend to categorize each other into rigid groups. To apply this to cars and bicycles, look for the arguments that “all drivers” or “all cyclists” act the same way. On the one hand, drivers state that “all bicyclists run stop signs” or “all cyclists slow the flow of street traffic”. On the other, cyclists state that “all drivers cut off cyclists” or “all drivers are aggressive toward cyclists”. This is overgeneralizing. In my experience, the majority of drivers and cyclists obey the laws of the road, it’s only a few that tend to give the rest a bad rep. I see cyclists roll through stop signs and run red lights about as often as I see drivers roll through stop signs and change lanes without signaling. Misinformed people also tend to flame the fires. One such example: bicycles on sidewalks. In Seattle, it is legal for cyclists to use the sidewalk and crosswalks.

Laws: Section 11.44.100 RIGHT-OF-WAY IN CROSSWALK. A person operating a bicycle across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances, but shall yield to pedestrians upon and along a crosswalk. No person operating a bicycle shall suddenly enter a crosswalk into the path of a vehicle which is so close that the driver cannot yield safely.

Section 11.44.120 RIDING ON A SIDEWALK OR PUBLIC PATH. Every person operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk or public path shall operate the same in a careful and prudent manner and a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of pedestrian traffic, grade and width of sidewalk or public path, and condition of surface, and shall obey all traffic control devices. Every person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or public path shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian thereon, and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian. Source

Yet I can find example after example of people citing the very opposite in comment threads and “opinion” pieces: that it’s illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. This is just not true, and I wish that more people would verify their facts before running around telling everyone false information.

The “war” between cars and bicycles will continue as long as there is animosity, misinformation, and an almost instinctual knee-jerk reaction between the two parties. When newspapers print “opinion” pieces like this one, it only further exasperates the situation. As long as “rude cyclists” share the road with “bad drivers” this tug-of-war will continue. However one thing never changes. Regardless of who is at fault, when a bicycle and a car get into an accident, the bike loses. Every time.