The Life-Sized City Blog

Once in a while the issue of "bikes should pay" rises to the surface like bubbles of methane in Lake Kivu. In the UK, they're tackling it quite well with the I Pay Road Tax project . Several readers have sent links to Jonathan's post over at BikePortland so I figured I'd do a post about it. Regarding bike registration in Europe, there are half a billion citizens in the European Union alone. 100 million of them ride a bicycle for transport according to the European Cyclists' Federation . None of them are inconvenienced by bicycle licences, least of all the Netherlands or Denmark - the two countries with most bike usage. I posted about this ages ago and since then I've heard that a number of cities have actually calculated what the administrative costs would be. None of them have found that licensing bicycles was cost-efficient. Lately there is talk 'over there' about a symbolic appeasement fee. Cyclists paying a fee to get the motorists et al to sh...

Photo by ' fixed gear ' on Flickr. So the bicycle licence beast raises it's ugly head again. This time in Seattle . Sure, it's only an opinion piece from a man who doesn't look like he's been on a bicycle since the days the plates above were valid, but still. Copenhagenize is quite clear on bike licences. They are one of the most ridiculous inventions in the history of transport. "Bikes should pay" is a weak argument from the Automotive Defence League. We've posted about this before in a rebuttal aimed at anyone who mumbles 'bike licences'. Here's the link. Use it freely . - Bicycle licences are a logistical nightmare that almost always end up in the red. That's why they've been dropped all over the world. They're simply not cost-effective. More cyclists on the streets and on the new infrastructure are a bonus for any city: - More cyclists means less wear and tear on the roads which means less roadworks and fewer delays for ...