I have the same licensing you do, Mr. Parker. Right here in my wallet. Paid the same price for it that you did, as a matter of fact. I had to pass the same test too. So you are calling for additional licensing for cyclists? Plus you would have cyclists held to a higher standard of revenue allocation than motorists? That is to say that the licensing fee collected by the state doesn't even come close to the cost of issuing it in the first place.

What about kids? Are you now going to assert that children should obtain a driver-license to ride a bike? What about casual users that rent bikes from some of the new consumer services proposed? Additionally, the proof of registration you seem to envision just, 'hanging from a bicycle', you know doing that will void a manufacturers warranty, don't you? Plus, you are talking about something that the DOT likes to study before deployment, who's going to pay for all that?

Same goes for registration. What delusion are you suffering from that allows you to believe that registration fees even come close to the cost of a license plate, let alone the hundreds of civil-service salaries it takes to get one on the front of your MBA? That's fantasy. Licensing and registration fees only mitigate the cost of production, they don't eliminate it. Therefore, anyway you cut it, you are talking about raising everyone's taxes.

I don't pay gasoline tax, because I don't use any. Much the same as you not paying a tobacco, or alcohol tax if you don't consume those products. If gasoline tax is being used to implement additional bike-infrastructure, that's misappropriation, not inequity. As you so readily demonstrate to everyone, taxes are used, sometimes, to punish society for certain things.

In fact, if that's the way you want to play it, my bicycle does zero damage to the road surface. Since your car does exponentially more damage, shouldn't I be expecting a refund? Tell you what, you keep what I, as a cyclist, owe you for gas tax, and you refund what you owe me for tearing up the roads in your car, k? If you could magically equalize the tax burden, that'd leave me paying the same to use a bike on the road, as motorists do. How is that equitable?

Bike infrastructure is something neither you nor I want to see. You argue that it imposes an unfair tax burden on motorists. I think that's hogwash. I argue that these infrastructure additions do nothing, and are therefore not needed. Paying any amount of money, for anything not needed, is just bad business.

If you own a bicycle, this proposal is the end of times. You are being removed from the public right-of-way, the one you pay taxes to support; and get shoved off onto sidewalks, and jogging paths. Don't let this happen. Oppose bike specific infrastructure because it is useless, and will further segregate cyclists from motorists. Oppose it because the message to the city should be, that if you want to drive a Tractor-Trailer to and from work, that is your right. Hell, oppose it because of some made up tax-inequity, it doesn't matter, just don't let them do it.