The most telling part of this story is about China. China knows all about the advantages and disadvantages of bicycling better than any other country in the world, as illustrated by the fact that 60% of trips in China were by bicycle in 1986. The fact that bicycling has dropped to 17% in 2010 shows what the Chinese think of riding bicycles: if you have any chance to get off a bicycle and into a motor vehicle, do it!

Bicycling in Seattle is a fair-weather fad. I remember back in the early 70's when bicycling became popular for several years, also, after the first gasoline price spike. That soon petered out, and people went back to motor vehicles.

If bicycling is so great, then answer this: why have the Chinese, who know more about bicycling as a regular mode of transportation than any western country, gone from 60% of trips on bicycles in 1986 to just 17% of trips in 2010? The Chinese know a whole lot more about bicycling as an every day means of transportation than the spandex clad hipsters in Seattle will ever know.

Urban Chinese must know a lot about bicycling but didn't learn how to maintain their use while incorporating automobiles into street design. With the sudden introduction of affordable automobiles, it's not surprising that bicycle use diminished. In time, the Chinese too will recognize the problems of traffic and establish LAW requiring bicycle infrastructure. You have no say in the matter.

Totally agree, Lincoln. I think we should strive to be more like these Chinese cities, where the wisdom of the people has led to days-long traffic jams and incredible pollution. Get off your bikes and into your cars, people! Let's see if we can keep moving up the list of most-congested US cities! We can be number 1!

Denmark is essentially flat compared to Seattle. I think Beijing is too but never been there. Also at some age you don't peddle so well or at all so at least a car works for aged, and other problems people might have. We will all have the aged problem. I don't get this infatuation with peddling a bike. I also think most of the one I see out in the county seem to have bad street manners. But of course I am biased. If I rode my horse like they ride bikes i would be dead or arrested.

Seattle's "progressive" bicyclists despise the old and the disabled. They are so inconvenient.

I agree that unlicensed bike peddlers are a major problem. Hat peddlers and encyclopedia peddlers too. Not to mention tinkers and gypsies and cheapjacks.

Anybody notice that not a one of the bicyclists in the picture is wearing a silly costume (Peloton orphan/100% hemp hipster/head-to-toe HyViz)? Or riding a $5,000 racing bike (or a fixie, or a recumbent)?

Has anyone ever noticed how every guy (and it's always a guy) on a recumbent bike looks like the Unmbomer?

Our roads carry four vehicle types: Trucks, cars, motorcycles, and bicycles. Of those, only one vehicle class pays no dedicated use fees, nor requires either the vehicle or its operator to be licensed.

If I buy a Vespa and want to use it on the streets or highways, I will pay state sales tax on the purchase. I will also need an operator's license backed by a road test and a written test. I need a vehicle license that will cost $85 this year, and I will need to display tags. If I don't comply with those requirements, I am subject to arrest and penalty.

If I buy a bicycle and want to use it on the streets or highways (except for Interstates, where bicycles are typically prohibited for safety reasons), I pay state sales tax on the purchase. And that's all. No operator's license, no vehicle taxes or tabs.

Until bicyclists and their operators are treated as other road users are, I am opposed to providing any infrastructure whatsoever for them.

I can't stop agreeing with these Crosscut commenters! Total mode equality, YES!

When the massive local, state, and federal subsidies that benefit cars and trucks are extended to bikes, and when local codes mandate on-street bicycle parking and garages, I will happily pay usage fees (above and beyond the propery and local taxes I pay that already disproportionally fund roads relative to my use) for my bike. And even though mandatory bike registration is a proven civic money-loser, I'd even pony up for that.

But when are those mooching pedestrians going to get licensed and pay their fair share, eh?

Pray tell, what is an "on-street bicycle garage?" And no, you won't "happily pay usage fees." Bicyclists have always been whining children when it comes to pulling their weight, and always will be. Oh, and it's and out-and-out "progressive" lie that bike registration would lose money. Run it through the same infrastructure that registers cars, and it would generate revenue.

On-street bicycle parking includes bike corrals where 10-12 bike can be parked instead of one car. Garages are inside buildings, and can include bicycle cages or at least covered rack space. But I think you knew that.

"Pulling your weight" in an interesting turn of phrase for someone whose 2-ton vehicle's running costs, environmental impacts, and road wear are heavily subsidized by the rest of us. If you want to bill me for a weight-based wear and tear on infrastructure, or a percent of public spending on bike infrastructure (1%ish), again, I'll pay that $5 a year fee. But you'll lose it and more on collecting and enforcing such a silly fee, even at the DMV. Which is why many municipalities have dumped their bike licensing programs.

For a "free-market" sounding sort of guy, you seem willfully ignorant about what the true costs of driving would be without public subsidies. Let's try you pulling your 2-ton weight for awhile and see who's a whining child. Oh wait, you already are: viz. every "war on cars" comment ever posted.

Also, people who sound disturbingly satisfied by the crunch of a cyclist's limbs under their taxi might not want to make unabomber allusions. Just saying.

As a lad growing up in Victoria, B.C., I started paying for an annual bike license in 1948. The license "plate", in the form of a metal shield about the size of your palm, was bolted onto the rear fork under the saddle. Oak Bay, on the other hand, used decals.

It served several purposes. Chiefly these were for owner identity for the recovery of stolen bikes and for revenue to cover administration. The municipalities did make money, too!

The argument that any form of bike licensing is not worth the effort is, frankly, utter gibberish.

Next, to also suggest auto owners derive a gigantic benefit from some other tax source, other than from their own user fees, gas taxes, parts taxes, and related excise extractions is, likewise, nonsense.

Finally, missing from all the above arguments is the matter of bike rider's insurance. Why is this not a part of the discussion.

For short, bike riders are free loaders.

You had a bike plate, how quaint. Bicycles in this century have frame numbers or you can add registry stickers, and there are multiple local and national registries to help with the theft recovery aspect. And as you admitted, the fee went to administering the program. As for the profit aspect - is Victoria still doing this?

And if you think that your user fees are covering the true cost of driving then I just can't help you. They don't, but it's clear nothing I say will change your mind. Read up a little?

As for insurance, I have umbrella coverage, but for those who don't, there really isn't an commonly available bike insurance. Because it really isn't needed. People on bikes aren't the ones killing 30-40,000 people a year on our roads ...

The sole intent behind a proposal for more "on street bicycle parking" is to make it even more difficult for motorists to use the streets. There is no lack of bicycle parking.

As for road wear, the overwhleming majority of it is caused by trucks and city buses. Of course, the bicyclists also are mass transit worshippers, demanding heavy subsidies for buses, and refusing to even acknowledge, much less pay compensation for, the heavy damage done to pavment by those vehicles.

The crowning irony, of course, is that the bicyclists' hostility to street maintenance, in the endm, does the most harm to bicyclists themselves. Let a car hit a pothole and it's an irritation, an inconvenience, and maybe a claim against the city. Let a bicyclist hit a pothole on the streets that the Cascade Bicycle Club has resolutely opposed maintaining, and the result is far more hazardous.

Bicyclists don't think logically about their own interests, much less those of the community in general that they disdain with such fervor.

NotFan wrote: "Of course, the bicyclists also are mass transit worshippers, demanding heavy subsidies for buses, and refusing to even acknowledge, much less pay compensation for, the heavy damage done to pavment by those vehicles." Where do you come up with this baloney? I and many other bikers I know strongly support funding for road maintenance, including taxing ourselves to pay for it. Do you have something beyond your own opinion to support your statement?

"Let a bicyclist hit a pothole on the streets that the Cascade Bicycle Club has resolutely opposed maintaining..." More baloney, or did you forget that Cascade Bicycle Club supported Proposition 1 last fall?

The history of bicycling includes organizing to build and maintain decent roads. "In 1894, paver bricks were laid down on one city block, and by 1896 there was one mile of paved street. Cyclists took up the cause for smooth riding and formed the Queen City Bicycle Club, whose members lobbied for better roads." http://www.bikingpugetsound.com/article_EarlyCyclinginSeattle.htm

If bicyclists were actually interested in maintaining the streets, their lobbyists wouldn't have slavishly supported the fraudulent $60 tab fee rejected by Seattle voters last year. Only 20% of the proceeds would've gone for street repair. The other 80% went mainly for Paul Allen's streetcars and city hall's bloated, ethically compromised, and unproductive urban planning staff.

The culprits include the standard Vehicular Bicycling Community -- who emphasize the velodrome style high speed racing with traffic.

Look at the images of Copenhagen:

1. No helmets
2. People dressed in work and casual clothes
3. Bicycles are high handlebar type -- users eyes straight ahead not down

So, to get us to Copenhagen in King County and Washington State (not just Seattle) requires a complete mindset of thinking how bicycles are for everyone -- but only when the setting is completely safe and kid-healthy.

I lived some 15+ years in Seattle, then China and currently in Copenhagen. Having also studied relative transportation costs, this is an interesting conversation. I'm always surprised how heated discussions about cycling become in the States (they are sometimes contraversial here, too).

There's a time and a place for bikes, cars…and walking. The balance is out of kilter in the US largely because the government subsidizes automobile traffic (1)(2)(3). An estimate is that "payments by motor-vehicle users fall short of government expenditures tied to motor-vehicle use by 20–70 cents per gallon of gas" (4). That practice has exaggerated demand and contributed to externalities like social isolation, obesity and cities lacking human scale, among others (4). So, if cyclists "pulling their fair share" is an issue, then motorists need to pony up a fair amount more, too.

Some personal observations Seattle/US vs. Copenhagen/Europe:
- Some people in Copenhagen do wear helmets, though far less than in Seattle. (I wore a helmet when biking in Seattle, but rarely do here because bicycles are mostly separated from car traffic, making it a safer experience. A personal choice.)

- Because it isn't unusual for European adults not to have a driver's license, cyclists' awareness of motorists and their needs tends to be poorer here than the US. But since cyclists don't interact with cars to the same degree, "militant" incidents of the kind that sometimes occur in Seattle are rare.

- On the other hand, driver education is generally more rigorous in Europe with regard to cyclists. In the US discussion of cyclists during driver ed is minimal, doing little to balance the "cars are more important" / "us against them" divide.

- It is faster in Copenhagen to get almost anywhere by bike than by public transport, and often faster than by private car. Yes, it's flat here, but strong wind can be a significant factor (at times it seems to blow from all four directions simultaneously). The number of gray days is about the same as in Seattle.

- In the US, thinking is more individualist, and Europe it's more collectivist (5). Motorists in the US assume (incorrectly) that they are "paying their own way," and so are reluctant to pay for bicycle facilities or public transportation that they don't use. In Europe, heavy fuel and car taxes (6) keep demand down and cover road maintenance and other transportation options, including bicycle infrastructure. (Car/fuel taxes also go toward public health care in some countries.) The thinking is that this serves everyone - motorists and non-motorists alike - by reducing traffic and pollution, increasing social interaction and health benefits, and making for overall more pleasant conditions. In this view, cyclists are seen as contributors merely by not using a car.

Considering the current situation in the US with budget shortfalls, traffic congestion, disproportionate energy consumption and, not the least, obesity, softening just a wee bit on the cars-over-bikes thinking seems like a useful idea.

(1) Vuchic, Vukan, 1999, "Transportation for Livable Cities"
(2) Shoup, Donald, 2005, "The High Cost of Free Parking"
(3) MacKenzie, et al, 1992, "The Going Rate: What it Really Costs to Drive"
(4) http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi
(5) http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html
(6) http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/01/news/international/usgas_price/index.htm?postversion=2008050212

Love the footnotes. I bet you think this lends credibility to your case, even if you are citing out-and-out propaganda. Take the World Resources Institute "report," for instance. It mentions no benefits of motorized transportation. None.

I actually think that gasoline should carry a foreign wars tax of a buck a gallon, to be paid to the military for securing the supplies. So I'm fine with better cost accounting, but if we're going to tally up the "cost of driving," we'd better also tally up the benefits.

As for bicyclists, they are the only vehicles on the streets and roads that pay no dedicated use taxes. Until they do, I'll oppose any and all infrastructure projects for bicyclists. I'm fine with letting them use the streets, as long as they don't get in the way of paying users, but not with funding anything whatsoever special for them.

By the way, the Europeans should be paying a buck a gallon war tax too, with most of it going to the American mercenary force. No insult intended, but I don't think the Dutch are doing the heavy lifting when it comes to making sure no one seizes the oil fields.

So do you take three thousand pounds of metal along with you when you go to the store to get a head of lettuce? it may be safer that way but we all realize, don't we, it's not just unseemly, it's berserk. The allure of bike riding and walking is its comforting rationality. Arguing about the rules of the road will go on forever but we eventually have to confront physics.

Typical Seattle "progressive" who forgets about the elderly and disabled people who can't ride bikes. You see, the "progressives" here regard those people as inconvenient, never to be mentioned.

You're unpleasant (and inaccurate), and your comments are tiresome.

Poor louploup! Must be rough to see someone who can cut through the usual Seattle "progressive" hypocrisy.

You're still unpleasant (and inaccurate), and your comments are still tiresome.

I got it the first time, louploup. Or are you just an endless loop, louploup? You write and all I see is blah blah blah "progressive" blah blah blah.

"I got it the first time, louploup." No, Nonfat, you didn't.

You persist in last word sniping with little content beyond reactionary blah blah. Well, feel free, have at it, post away, you can have the last word; I won't respond here again. It would be nice if you actually added some thoughtful content, however.

For instance, why don't you defend your constant use of "progressive" for everything you dislike? Perhaps you could tell us which of the following aspects of Seattle (as opposed to Yakima or Ulan Bator or what?) "progressives" you detest:

adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
...
noun
10. a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, especially in political matters.

Or progressive taxation: The rich are taxed at higher rates than the poor to counteract the strong tendency of unregulated capitalism to increase the maldistribution of wealth. So as to take better care of "the elderly and disabled people who can't ride bikes."

[moved to proper location]