Good q posed by the Amy Gillett Foundation re: registering bikes

[Biciclista]

Presumably, a person would register his bike. said registration would include locating and recording bike's serial number if one exists. then the "license number" would then be associated with it, paperwork exchanged, and a stamp/sticker/electronic device put on said device. It's a free country; you don't have to do it. even if it's mandatory (which isn't going to happen)

[MartianDestiny]

Presumably, a person would register his bike. said registration would include locating and recording bike's serial number if one exists. then the "license number" would then be associated with it, paperwork exchanged, and a stamp/sticker/electronic device put on said device. It's a free country; you don't have to do it. even if it's mandatory (which isn't going to happen)

The police also aren't likely to go looking for a stolen bike unless it smacks them in the face, and that isn't going to change (we *may* make it up to the realm of what they do for cars, but not many cars are recovered whole based on database searches alone either. That's not the purpose of the licensing system.).

We've gotten way off topic here though, the mandatory licensing was for accountability of OUR actions and appeasing motorists, not theft deterrent.

As for the last comment, that's just snarky and rude. The definition of mandatory is precisely that you do HAVE to do it. Yea, I can make the choice not to (ie: ignore/willfully break the law)...I can do that in a dictatorship as well ("it's a free country" has NOTHING to do with the ABILITY to make that choice), but there would (presumably, in this fictitious, but very plausible, scenario) be consequences possibly repeatedly. What "it's a free country" gives me is the ability to stand up and say "NO, I don't want this to be mandatory and it won't solve the problem you are trying to address" and attempt to prevent the law from being enacted or get it repealed. It does NOT mean I am free to disregard it while it's on the books, that's absurd. It's akin to saying "it's a free country" would actually get you somewhere at your murder trial.

You want some theft ID system, highly unsuccessful and flawed as it may be (though it won't help with your bike because it won't be tied to your non-existent serial number), fine, ok. I can be completely and totally behind that. On a VOLUNTARY basis. Of course such a program already exists in many municipalities, and through private institutions (companies). That information can, and in some cases already is, being distributed in national databases.

Basically, what you want already exists. Don't make it law for me to participate in it to "protect me from my own stupidity" (as I like to phrase it). That's not the government's job or business.

Now, if it were actually to protect OTHERS from my stupidity (like suggested in the OP by helping to hold me accountable for my actions), and it was a well enacted, well thought out, well enforced plan that would actually make a difference, fine, no problems, go for it. I don't believe these programs (as they have been discussing them) will do any of those things, so I see it as the government trying to force me put an ugly tag on my bike and give them more money but little else.

On the anti-theft end of things, I'd love to see a transmitting GPS type chip (like OnStar or similar uses) small enough and affordable enough to be hidden in/on a bike, so you can track it if it's stolen (or even potentially EMS could use it to track your location). This DOESN'T exist, though we are getting close (they have collars for dogs, but they are EXPENSIVE and not quite small enough yet). I'd buy into that. Obviously, that's the realm of a private company and not the government, however.