Madison WI Bike Registration

Madison is a college town, so my guess is this is an attempt to combat bike theft which is usually a
big problem in college towns. As for hassling minorities, you have to be kidding as far as Madison
is concerned. Like a lot of big-name university towns, it's a far-left PDR (People's Democratic
Republic) kind of place and about the only ones who get hassled are the few Young Republicans and
such if they dare open their mouths.

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer)
"bikerider7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was reviewing the Madison, WI official bike web page
(ci.madison.wi.usbicycle.htmlOpen ↗) and it makes a big deal about bike registration.
Indeed, the web page says it is against the law to ride an unregistered bike on city streets.

The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known. In Oakland, CA the laws were
used as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were repealed). Bike
registration also had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at least
out here in California).

Not having biked in Madison myself, I was just curious to know if this is law is being enforced,
and whether it conflicts with WI state law (and whether the state of Wisconson even allows
municipalities to enact stupid bike registration laws).

"GRL" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

As for hassling minorities, you have to be kidding as far as Madison is concerned. Like a lot of
big-name university towns, it's a far-left PDR (People's Democratic Republic) kind of place and
about the only ones who get hassled are the few Young Republicans and such if they dare open
their mouths.

Not to say you are wrong about Madison, but just because a place is PDR doesn't mean there cannot be
police misconduct. Berkeley and Oakland (Calif.) are in most ways very PDR, but that has never
stopped the police from firing rubber bullets at peace marchers, or deliberately destroying bicycle
equipment belonging to people they don't like.

Quoted message said:

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer)
"bikerider7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was reviewing the Madison, WI official bike web page
(ci.madison.wi.usbicycle.htmlOpen ↗) and it makes a big deal about bike
registration. Indeed, the web page says it is against the law to ride an unregistered bike on
city streets.

The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known. In Oakland, CA the laws were
used as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were repealed). Bike
registration also had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at least
out here in California).

Not having biked in Madison myself, I was just curious to know if this is law is being enforced,
and whether it conflicts with WI state law (and whether the state of Wisconson even allows
municipalities to enact stupid bike registration laws).

[email hidden] (bikerider7) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

What's the beef? Bicycle registration is not necessarily bad. The League of American Bicyclists
named Palo Alto, CA as one of the 'Gold-level award' winners as a bicycle friendly community last
month. Guess what? Palo Alto has a mandatory bike registration. The police do not go around writing
citations if your bike is not registered, but they do recommend you go to your local fire station to
register if they stop you and you are a resident on an unregistered bike. The law is used to help
track serial numbers in case of theft, and being a college town (like Madison) there is a fair
amount of theft and an active second-hand bike market. I do not think that many, if any, in Palo
Alto feels the law and registration is intrusive. I would think that the folks in Madison find the
situation similar.

- rick warner

The city makes an effort to promote registration, but AFAIK does not go out its way to enforce this.
I have not heard of any hassles related to registration, ethnic-group related or otherwise.

As others have responded, the goal is primarily to prevent theft. I don't think its stupid.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(bikerider7) said:

I was reviewing the Madison, WI official bike web page
(ci.madison.wi.usbicycle.htmlOpen ↗) and it makes a big deal about bike registration.
Indeed, the web page says it is against the law to ride an unregistered bike on city streets.

The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known. In Oakland, CA the laws were
used as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were repealed). Bike
registration also had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at least
out here in California).

Not having biked in Madison myself, I was just curious to know if this is law is being enforced,
and whether it conflicts with WI state law (and whether the state of Wisconson even allows
municipalities to enact stupid bike registration laws).

dcb said:

The city makes an effort to promote registration, but AFAIK does not go out its way to
enforce this.

So why does the registration have to be "mandatory" with the authorization to impose $50 fines on
those who do not comply? Surely a voluntary registration could be promoted just as easily and if it
were shown to have significant benefits in recovering stolen bikes most residents would probably
choose to participate - at least if it were conveniently available at the time of bike purchase or
university registration.

Quoted message said:

I have not heard of any hassles related to registration, ethnic-group related or otherwise.

But it allows hassling of bicyclists whenever someone in authority may deem it to be politically
expedient in the future. Huntington Beach in California had a similar ordinance years ago and
started enforcing it one summer with the confiscation of hundreds of bicycles, many of them
belonging to non-resident visitors. What assurance is there that Madison won't someday start similar
enforcement? Since I ride my bicycle through many different communities, I don't like the idea that
I need to research the registration requirements or other unique laws of each one to avoid the
possibility of having the police steal my bike or levy a fine against me.

Quoted message said:

As others have responded, the goal is primarily to prevent theft. I don't think its stupid.

Not necessarily stupid, but a bad precedent to have each local community establish different laws
that affect all who cycle there, including non-residents who are unlikely to be familiar with these
laws and have no convenient way to comply even if they were.

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]

(bikerider7) said:

I was reviewing the Madison, WI official bike web page
(ci.madison.wi.usbicycle.htmlOpen ↗) and it makes a big deal about bike registration.
Indeed, the web page says it is against the law to ride an unregistered bike on city streets.

[email hidden] (Rick Warner) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (bikerider7) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

What's the beef? Bicycle registration is not necessarily bad. The League of American Bicyclists
named Palo Alto, CA as one of the 'Gold-level award' winners as a bicycle friendly community last
month. Guess what? Palo Alto has a mandatory bike registration.

Guess what? You're wrong.

Palo Alto does not have mandatory bike registration, nor does any other municipality in the state of
California. Thankfully, state law was changed several years ago to prohibit the practice.

Quoted message said:

The police do not go around writing citations if your bike is not registered, but they do
recommend you go to your local fire station to register if they stop you and you are a resident on
an unregistered bike.

If the law isn't enforced, then of course that is no big deal (but then why have laws that are not
enforced?). The problem is when it does get enforced. Imagine a cross-county bicycle tourist passing
through a place where bike registration is mandatory and enforced -- either the cyclist risks having
his bike confiscated, or he has to register his bike in dozens of municipalities across the country.
And as the original post pointed out, mandatory bike registration laws have been abused by police to
confiscate or arrest people that have not broken any laws.

Quoted message said:

The law is used to help track serial numbers in case of theft, and being a college town (like
Madison) there is a fair amount of theft and an active second-hand bike market.

The city of Berkeley has probably more bicycle theft per capita than any other city in the US.
Besides Manhattan, it is the only place where the Kryptonite lock guarantee did not apply. Mandatory
bike registration rules were absolutely useless in reducing theft in Berkeley or in recovering
stolen bikes.

The best way to prevent theft is secure bicycle parking (i.e. bike lockers, gated facilities), and
education on how to properly lock up a bike. Installation of secure bike facilities has helped
reduce bike theft on the UC campus.

bikerider7 said:

I was reviewing the Madison, WI official bike web page
(ci.madison.wi.usbicycle.htmlOpen ↗) and it makes a big deal about bike registration.
Indeed, the web page says it is against the law to ride an unregistered bike on city streets.

The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known. In Oakland, CA the laws were
used as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were repealed). Bike
registration also had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at least
out here in California).

Not having biked in Madison myself, I was just curious to know if this is law is being enforced,
and whether it conflicts with WI state law (and whether the state of Wisconson even allows
municipalities to enact stupid bike registration laws).

I know no one who has received a ticket for un-registered bikes, and I've been here for <uh-oh>
going on 20 years.

As others have noted, the law is sold as a way to reduce bike thefts. It's only real value is that
if a bike is recovered (a big IF), then it's easier to find the owner if it's registered.

Still, recovering a stolen, non-registered bike isn't impossible. I recall a friend in the 80s had
his bike stolen, and a few days later he saw a guy riding it on State Street. He gave chase on foot,
caught the cyclist, arguing ensued, a policeman arrived, friend produced proof of ownership (I think
he had written down the serial # somewhere and produced it), and he got his bike back there, and the
rider was taken away.

Scott

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Bikerider7


The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known. In Oakland, CA the laws were used
as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were repealed). Bike registration also
had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at least out here in
California).

About 10 years ago someone stole my bike from the roof of my car in Walnut Creek, CA (I had forgotten to take it off after coming home). I made the police report for insurance purposes, I don't think they asked me if it was registered (it wasn't) but they took down the serial number in the report.

A few weeks later I get a call from an officer who recovered the bike. He said that he happened to be following this guy on a bike who just fell over and stopped to help him. The cop saw that the bike had electrical tape covering up the decals and recognized that as a common bike thief ploy but the guy hadn't done anything illegal so the cop had no justification to run the guy's ID or anything. Except that the bike wasn't registered - an infraction that opened the door for the cop to call in the serial number and voila - it turned up as stolen and the guy wound up paying me about $400 as part of his probation requirement.

The thing is, if the bike HAD been registered I wouldn't have gotten it back. And the last time I went to a police bike auction there were a LOT of bikes that DID have the registration stickers on them.

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (bikerider7

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

The problems with mandatory bike registration laws are well known.

---snip---

Maybe they are well known to you in which case you could enlighten everyone. Conforming with
reasonable laws often causes minor inconveniences and expenses. Beyond that, what are the
"well-known problems" with bike registration laws?

Quoted message said:

In Oakland, CA the laws were used as an excuse to harass minorities (even long after such laws were
repealed).

I assume you mean harassment by the police. If so, that's hardly a "problem with mandatory bike
registration" as *any* law can be used to harass minorities or even majorities if the individual
police officer is willing to abuse his/her authority. That doesn't mean the laws are bad, just that
sometimes authority is abused.

Quoted message said:

Bike registration also had negligible benefit in deterring theft or recovering stolen bikes (at
least out here in California).

---snip---

Registration of any object doesn't deter theft. If it did auto theft wouldn't be a major industry.
Likewise it doesn't facilitate the recovery of stolen property. It only enhances the likelihood of
*identifying* stolen property and on that score mandatory bicycle registration has no downside.
Whether or not it's worth the time and trouble to set up a registration system in Madison is another
issue. I'm not a Madison resident so I don't know.

Regards, Bob Hunt

(Hunrobe) said:

what are the "well-known problems" with bike registration laws?

Some that I know of are:

- the cost of collection almost always makes up most of the fee
- enforcement is difficult (is that bike out of service? or only used on private land?)
- it discourages cycling (which is a healthy form of exercise)
- many bikes are rarely used
- bikes are an accessible form of transport for those on very low incomes, and raising the cost
risks restricting their mobility

Some have suggested a one-off fee at the time of purchase, but of course that would not affect the
bikes already out there, and would really only amount to a sales tax. Tracking changes of ownership
would likely be prohibitively expensive.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

Hunrobe said:

Quoted message said:

- it discourages cycling (which is a healthy form of exercise)

IMO, there are a lot of people who would balk at cycling if they thought they were likely to get
pulled over to have their reg checked, or if they had to hand over a form to the authorities to
register. Illegal immigrants are an obvious case, but there are others. Not to mention, lots of
people would forget to mail in the form, and then be discouraged from taking out their bikes.

Quoted message said:

None of the above means that I *support* mandatory bike registration- I don't think it serves any
particularly critical public interest- just that many of the arguments against such programs are
baseless.

Here's the biggie. Car registration only works because all of the states have it. If Illinois
demanded registration and licensing of drivers but Indiana didn't, when you pulled someone over what
is to stop them from claiming Indiana residency? (Sure, there are ways to check this, but it would
be an enormous mess.) There would have to be signs at the Illinois-Indiana border checkpoints (!)
warning people of the registration requirements. This is one reason why an active bicycle
confiscation program like the one Huntington Beach was running is so offensive - it violates what a
normal person expects when crossing a municipal boundary.

"Hunrobe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20030626121435.20242.00001942@mb-<snip>

Quoted message said:

First, how many cyclists actually spend that much time riding outside of their own municipality?
I'm not talking about touring cyclists

or

Quoted message said:

even the members of this NG. I'm talking about *all* people that ride

bikes.

Quoted message said:

I'd venture to say that the overwhelming majority of cyclists never leave

the

Quoted message said:

city limits of the town where they live.

If you include the people that take their bikes with them to state and national parks, as well as
those who carry them along on their RV or boat, I'd say the number is higher than you suspect. But
I'd also say that the total number of cyclists of all ages is so small in the U.S. that registration
is just silly.

Quoted message said:

Second, using the example you described and assuming that non-registration was the only
reason for the

stop

Quoted message said:

once the driver of that non-registered car produced ID that showed he

lived in

Quoted message said:

Indiana he'd be free to leave. The same would apply to cyclists. What's so terrible about that?

The only way an officer can legally stop someone to check their registration is if a visible tag is
required on a specific location on the bike and said tag is not in place. Having a tag which is
visible on every type of bike at any reasonable distance is just a fallacy. Now stopping because of
illegal behavior and checking registration is a different matter.

The only way registration would be a viable system is if registration was required at the state
level so it is applied equally in all municipalities, a tag is required that is visible at a
reasonable distance, and all states agree to implement registration and honor each other's
registration. This is what is necessary for vehicle registration to work. And all of these just
don't work well for bicycles because of prohibitive cost as well as the need for a tag. Just imagine
us all being required to have a license plate hanging from our seat....

-Buck

(Hunrobe) said:

Quoted message said:

- the cost of collection almost always makes up most of the fee

Quoted message said:

The same argument could be applied to passenger car registration.

Only if the amounts are similar. If the bike fee is anything like rational - proportional to the
damage the bike does to the road, say - the bike fee would be several orders of magnitude less than
the car fee.

Quoted message said:

Any bets on what percentage of that money goes to pay for the otherwise unnecessary licensing
agency's overhead? ;-)

It should be accessible from public records, I guess.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- enforcement is difficult (is that bike out of service? or only used on private land?

Quoted message said:

If the law is written properly- "All bicycles upon a public roadway must be registered."
enforcement is a no-brainer....

Except that most bikes spend most of their time off a public roadway. Do you include trails? What
about crossing the road while moving between trails? How about riding 100 yards of public road to
the start of the trail?

Quoted message said:

You don't have to register your car until or unless you actually drive it on a public road.

Or park it there, yes. The proportion of cars (other then Oldsmobile Hencoops) never used on a
public road is small, though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- it discourages cycling (which is a healthy form of exercise)

Quoted message said:

There are entrance fees charged at US National Parks. Those fees haven't discouraged park usage. On
what do you base your assumption that nominal bike registration fees would discourage cycling?

Simple: I have a bike. If I want to ride it, I get thje bike out and ride. Now there's a
registration fee. Before I can ride the bike I have to pay the fee and register the bike. It's a
nice sunny day but it was raining yesterday so I didn't think to go out and pay the fee. So the bike
stays in the garage. Last year I didn't ride it because I never got round to getting the
registration sorted out. Perhaps I should get rid of the bike, I never use it.

It places a barrier between the owner and the activity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- many bikes are rarely used

Quoted message said:

I own a 12' jonboat that I use maybe three times a year. I still pay the $18 registration fee so I
don't see your point.

What proportion of the cost of the boat does that $18 represent?

How about if you had a $100 bike? Would you still pay $18 to ride it three times a year?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- bikes are an accessible form of transport for those on very low incomes, and raising the cost
risks restricting their mobility

Quoted message said:

The municipal bike registration fees I've seen have all been in the $2 to $6 range. That's about
the price of a Big Mac, large fries, and large drink at McDonald's. That's hardly a "restrictive"
dollar amount.

It may be a spit in the bucket to you and me, but if there was a choice to make netween eating the
Big Mac and evading the tax or going hungry so you could ride your bike legally I wonder what
someone genuinely poor would choose?

Quoted message said:

The municipality keeps all three registration records. The most current registration is Zoot's
proof of ownership. Where's the "prohibitive expense" involved?

What if Zoot lives in the next jurisdiction?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

"Hunrobe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Buck" ju n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m wrote: If you include the people that take
their bikes with them to state and national parks, as well as those who carry them along on
their RV or

boat,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd say the number is higher than you suspect. But I'd also say that the total number of cyclists
of all ages is so small in the U.S. that registration is just silly.

Hunrobe said:

You're going off on a tangent Buck. No one is suggesting that cyclists be registered so if they
are found wandering lost they can be returned home safely. The discussion is about registering
bicycles, not their operators.

I

Quoted message said:

don't have the figures in front of me but would you agree that there are

more

Quoted message said:

bicycles in the US than there are boats? Don't we still register boats?

Upon inspection, I can see where my ambiguous pronouns and lack of clarity has confused you. I was
not suggesting the registration of cyclists, but I was pointing out that registration of the
bicycles that cyclists ride is silly.

Buck said:

Quoted message said:

for a tag. Just imagine us all being required to have a license plate hanging from our seat....

Bob said:

As I've said, I'm not necessarily in favor of mandatory bicycle

registration.

Quoted message said:

I'm just unconvinced by most of the arguments used to oppose it. Your last sentence implies the
only argument I've heard against registration that I

agree

Quoted message said:

with completely. I don't *want* a registration tag dangling where my seat

pack

Quoted message said:

should be. That doesn't make registration evil or expensive. No one is

talking

Quoted message said:

about confiscation of unregistered bikes and you can still buy a license

plate

Quoted message said:

similiar to what you describe for your kid's bike for just a couple of

bucks.

Quoted message said:

IMO, the best argument against *any* new law is simply, "Is it necessary

and

Quoted message said:

will it accomplish it's goal?". Unless both questions are answered with a

"yes"

Quoted message said:

further discussion is not needed.

Nowhere in my post did I state or suggest anything about confiscation of bikes. I only discussed
registration. We are in agreement on this. I think registration is unnecessary, prohibitively
expensive, and just plain stupid. It is a waste of time and money for everyone involved.

-Buck

"Hunrobe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20030626201521.02065.00001256@mb-

Quoted message said:

What if he does live in the next jurisdiction? That doesn't change the

expense

Quoted message said:

involved. If he rides that bike in Madison he has to register it there

unless

Quoted message said:

he registers it elsewhere. In either case, the most recent registration

serves

Quoted message said:

the same purpose.

But that isn't the way things are set up. Every town wants a piece of the action. "Register your
bike in our town whether you live here or not or else!" That's why if registration were to work, it
would have to be at a greater scale than the municipality. I think you would find fewer arguments
over a statewide registration program, especially if every state were required to have one.

-Buck

Benjamin Weiner said:

IMO, there are a lot of people who would balk at cycling if they thought they were likely to get
pulled over to have their reg checked, or if they had to hand over a form to the authorities to
register.

Since that has stopped _so_ many people from registering cars.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but _`\(,_ | what canst thou say?
-- George Fox. (_)/ (_) |

Hunrobe said:

I didn't intend to imply that you had. Others had and my "confiscation" comment was really
directed at them.

I brought that up (wrt Huntington Beach's actual actions, not Madison), but only as an extreme
example of a misguided cosequence of zealous enforcement of registration rules. Not to tar your
argument with guilt by association. Sorry it looked that way.

I accept your point that many people drive w/o being registered, I do still think that the
requirement would deter some people from riding - but they'd be the law-abiding types, probably.

As for theft deterrent, if people can't bother to write down the S/N of their bike, are they going
to register it? I still think registration has to be universal for this to work, otherwise a thief
can scrape off the sticker and export the bike to the next town.

BTW, California has bicycle registration, and it is technically mandatory on the University of
California campus where I work. A professor in my department who does things by the book went to the
place that is supposed to issue licenses and of course, nobody there had a clue what he was talking
about. After getting a huge runaround, I think he eventually managed to get a license from the
university police, who were also somewhat mystified.

Ben

[email hidden] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

BTW, a four year bike registration costs $8 US in that town. I wouldn't call $2 a year all that
expensive.

I own 7 bikes -- nice road bike, old road bike, mountain bike, folding bike, tandem, beater bike,
and a touring bike. Even though I could afford it, I would not be happy about having to shell out
$56 every few years for no damn good reason.

I have vague memories of some midwestern state, about 20 years ago, introducing a state wide
registration system, and announcing with great pride that at last there was a system that was
a success.

Their sole criterion for success was that the scheme did take in more money in fees than it cost to
administer.

I thought the state was Wisconsin, but maybe I am mistaken. If it wasn't Wisconsin, maybe it was
Minnesota.

Registration is always a popular idea when politicians are asked to "do something" about bikes.
That's how Takoma Park, Maryland, ended up with three schemes, city, county and state, until
Maryland abolished the state scheme, on the grounds that it was useless. I think the metropolitan
Washington DC area was covered by thirteen registration schemes at that time, although some of them
might have had reciprocity, in case you cycled across a border, as people sometimes do.

Jeremy Parker