bike count 18

Bike Count 2018

bike count 18

The annual Bike Count is around the corner, and we need your help to count bikes! By spending some time counting bicycles and recording some important data (like helmet use and direction), it can help TBAG and the City of Tempe to determine primary safety and transportation goals and needs.

Bike Count occurs on April 10, 11, and 12th. Shifts are either 7-9am or 4-6pm. And we celebrate with a post-party at Boulders on Broadway!

You can view available intersections and sign-up for your choice at

As our priority intersections are claimed we will open additional locations.
Help support efforts to record and improve bicycling infrastructure in Tempe!

bike vote 2

Tempe City Council Candidates Respond to Your Questions about Cycling Infrastructure and Safety

bike vote

Tempe Bicycle Action Group recently asked Tempe City Council candidates their thoughts on some important topics in the bike community.

This year there are 3 openings on the Tempe City Council, with 6 candidates. Candidates include Jennifer Adams, Robin Arredondo-Savage, Sarah Kader, Lauren Kuby, Justin Stewart, and Genevieve Vega. Ballots have been sent out today and can be dropped off at ballot centers (City Hall and Tempe Public Library) between March 3-March 13, or mailed in by March 7.

TBAG sent all six candidates the same two questions regarding safe cycling in Tempe, and we have included their responses below, so that the cycling community can make informed voting decisions on the issues that matter to them. The questions we offered to the candidates were:

1. The Vision Zero transportation initiative encourages cities to work towards a goal of zero traffic fatalities, and has been adopted by major multimodal transportation hubs including New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle, Silicone Valley, and worldwide. In 2016, Arizona ranked 3rd in the country for pedestrian deaths according to the Governors Highway Safety Association, and according to the Highway Loss Data Institute, in 2016 there were 865 fatal vehicle crashes resulting in 962 deaths. Tempe recently began developing a Vision Zero initiative, but it will require a real commitment and strategies to achieve zero traffic deaths.

As a Tempe City Council Member, do you feel Vision Zero is attainable for Tempe, and what will you do to promote a goal of zero traffic fatalities for our residents?

2. How does multimodal transportation, including using bicycles for commuting, recreation and sport, fit into Tempe’s General Plan 2040? And what is your personal vision for how bicycling fits into our community?


The candidates’ replies are below, unedited. TBAG has also invited all candidates to speak at the beginning of our next monthly meeting on Sunday, February 25, at Boulder’s on Broadway at 7PM.  Robin Arredondo-Savage did not reply.



Jennifer Adams


1. Your first questions is actually two questions, so let me address each of these separately:

As a Tempe City Council member, if elected I would hope to begin the process of developing Zero Vision.  First, the program reframes traffic deaths as preventable.  It focuses on where the system failures are, which means that a city task force must be created and charged with leading a study and to implement actions to prevent traffic deaths.  The Mayor should lead the players, along with Transportation officials and related commissions, Fire and Emergency Services, Public Works, Disability Services groups and School Districts all at the table.

Each of these stakeholders would commit to a representative and inclusive process.  This would ensure equitable outcomes with measurable benchmarks to ensure safe outcomes for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists.  The process should focus on systems-based approaches that are built on environmental systems which influence and emphasize that traffic losses are indeed preventable.  A great deal of data-gathering will assist in understanding these traffic issues.

Finally, the process must be transparent to the community and engage the public with workshops, online surveys and public meetings.

So, yes, I would promote the Zero Vision effort with the Mayor and Council as well as the above-mentioned stakeholders and the public.  It must also be noted that this is not a short-term project; setting this process in motion will require a great deal of time and cost.  The city council will need to identify the necessary budget and prioritize the project to make it a reality.

2. Your second question is again two parts, so I will address each part separately:

Multimodal transportation involves two or more modes of transportation for the movement of goods.  In the context of multimodal in Tempe, we have goods being moved in all traffic corridors by transport trucks, package delivery (UPS; FEDEX etc) and automobile.  For our focus, we are concerned with safe movement of pedestrians, buses (people movers) and bicyclists.  All three of these arenas of movement are a part of the Tempe General Plan 2040 within the Circulation Chapter.  The chapter identifies bike routes and facilities, pedestrian ways, arterial and collector streets, transit service areas and routes.  It also covers rail, freight and air transport as related to land use in Tempe.

The Plan establishes bikeway goals that will expand and enhance bicycle travel in the City.  The objective is to establish safe and convenient access between neighborhoods, schools, parks, businesses, and other destinations.  Bicycle option include:  Sharrows, on streets too narrow for bike lanes; Bike Boulevards and Bike Share, that have already been implemented; Cycle Tracks that physically separate bikes from traffic with barriers; and Buffered Bicycle Lanes.

My personal view of how bicycling fits into the community is that bicycling is growing every year.  More students at ASU are biking.  Many more people are using the Western Canal and connecting bike-lane streets to reach work, either in Tempe’s downtown or to ASU Research Park, Discovery Business Park and to a variety of small businesses.  New businesses like the Tempe Public Market Café even added facilities for patron bike parking.  These kinds of initiatives not only satisfy present riders, but also encourage new riders to use bike lanes and become neighborhood biking enthusiasts.



Sarah Kader


1. I am running for Tempe City Council to put Tempe Families First, and that means that the Vision Zero initiative must be a part of how we go forward. All families and groups in Tempe should feel safe while they are in transit, not worrying about potential harm from other motorists. We should strive for a strategic, achievable plan with a long term goal to build a smart and safe City that keeps residents safe.

Part of the way that this can be achieved is through coalition building and strong advocacy. Too often, animosity between different stakeholders can delay positive policy outcomes and social change in the community, including changing the conversation around issues throughout the broader Tempe community. A large piece of my work has been to build coalitions at the State Legislature for the passage of strong legislation around poverty and disability rights advocacy. I know how hard it is to meet with people with whom you disagree, but finding common ground can be both surprising and rewarding, and ultimately benefit the folks we are elected to serve. To get a Vision Zero initiative in place and working, that is what it is going to take, and I am committed to that work as I have been for my entire career.

2. Multimodal transportation is enshrined into the Tempe General Plan for 2040, which was built with input from residents in a number of areas. I have read the entire plan, and really see strong transit systems as the key to a strong, interconnected community. Bicycles are not only good for the environment, but they bring people together for a common purpose, as evidenced by the existence of this group.

For many communities that cannot afford a car, public transit does not always fit their specific needs, no matter how hard we try. Bicycling is a cost-effective way to move people and goods to jobs, shops, and needed public services. For low income communities, young people, and people of color, this is even more important as empowering all of Tempe will take access to the ability to even get to that job interview, grocery store, or a doctor’s appointment in the first place. This is why cycling is one major plank of a broader transportation vision that needs to be implemented throughout the City in line with the City’s general plan.



Lauren Kuby


1. On Thursday, February 8th, we formally adopted the Vision Zero framework. The next step is to develop a Vision Zero action plan. For this, we will be pulling together a stakeholder group. Staff is now researching what other Vision Zero cities have done in order to develop an achievable Vision Zero action plan. We need to look at spotlight cities like New York City, Philadelphia, and Seattle and learn from what they identify as their “success factors” or “best practices” and then see which of these practices and be scaled and transferred to here to Tempe.

Vision Zero is absolutely attainable for Tempe. As a councilmember who champions multimodal transportation, I would approach this necessary from a few distinct intervention points. First and foremost, we need effective infrastructure that supports safety and cycling. The best approach to take, as we know, are physical divides when it comes to infrastructure. This best practice, however, is not always possible in all locations at the moment (not when we have bike advocates who don’t walk (or bike) the talk). Regardless; we need to advocate, implement and then defend an integrated transportation infrastructure.

Because new infrastructure is not always a timely solution, I believe the 2nd prong in our approach needs to be improving our multimodal transportation literacy as a community. This means teaching drivers (via driver’s education, on the city website, through our law enforcement officials) and our cyclists (through schools, the city website, our law enforcement officials, the neighborhood associations) how to share the road.

We also need to work with the experts at ASU who are eager to offer up workshos and entire semester classes focuseed on creating “complete streets” and attaining Vision Zero.

2. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Tempe residents participated in the creation of General Plan 2040, which called for street diets (removing a lane of traffic to allow for the expanded bike insfrastructure) and envisioned a 20-minute city, and an integrated multi-modal transportation plan. It is no secret that Tempe has traffic issues and that we expect to only get denser in the years to come. This reality means we need to also be investing in and speaking to our neighboring cities about rapid public transit that travels north-south (from Scottsdale to Chandler) and about gettingmore people out of cars and onto trams, rails, bikes. This includes possibly creating districts such as “eco-zones” or pedestrian-only parts of the city.

I ride my bike almost every day to work and I often wonder what traffic would be like with no bikes. Then, our residents would have something to complain about!

As a councilmember, my goal is to support infrastructure that makes bikes and public transit the faster, safer, cheaper option for getting around Tempe. I envision a Tempe where biking is so safe, so protected, that people won’t need to even wear helmets (I can dream. can’t I?), where bike tracks are ubiqitous, shaded with lush desert trees, and the increased use of e-bikes across our city. I envision Tempe as the Copenhagen of the US.



Justin Stewart


1) I don’t think that it should necessarily be about if Vision Zero is attainable, but it should be framed that zero traffic deaths it is only the truly acceptable solution for us as humans. Each human life is extremely precious, and we as a municipality need to make sure that every single life is protected in every way possible and in the safest manner. As a Tempe City Council Member I will continue to communicate and help educate the population that every single life in Tempe is important. It is important to humanize the aspect of city life. In a large city, sometimes that gets lost, and it is easy to forget that we are someone else’s child, or mother, or father, or friend. We need to take that compassionate approach and help educate our residents that we are all indeed someone important in Tempe. I believe in working with our State legislature and other valley cities as well, to work on better ways to create roadways, educate both automotive drivers and bicyclists about proper safety etiquette, and ways the cities can work together to promote road safety. With such collaboration, we could even possibly see other cities want to adopt our goal and help put safety first for all residents.

2) In the 2040 General Plan there are specific mentions of ideas and methods that can be put forward with in the City of Tempe in regards to bicycling. There are some very creative ideas that I think we need to put some city funding into to explore, in order to get to the 2040 General Plan’s recommendations. The ideas of cycle tracks, sharrows, bike boxes, and bike boulevards are mentioned in discussed in the 2040 plan, and I think we need to follow other visionary cities world wide and learn from their techniques with these items and do our very best to find ways to fit these recommendations into the city. I believe that the 2040 plan has laid down some great options and visions for the City of Tempe, especially with concerns of connecting “the last mile”. It is just going to take some further investment to truly look at these options. As a Tempe City Council Member I would push for funds to investigate these options, and making it a goal to get to 2040 plan recommendations. Even if the City of Tempe itself has to find creative ways to find those funds. I personally think that Tempe must be multimodal, especially with the growing concerns of climate change and the direct effects on the whole Metro-Phoenix area. As I have stated, I would be willing to talk to other valley cities and try to form some type of pact or valley wide working group to help all the cities battle climate change and be prepared for climate change.



Genevieve Vega


1. I believe Vision Zero is attainable with the right leadership in place. I’ve been publicly advocating for better bike and pedestrian crossings in our busiest intersections (under or overpasses mainly) and am also a fan of buffered bike lanes and the design is a critical piece. I also think it’s important to use data to help with planning purposes and I’ve been pleased with the investment the city has made thus far in this area. Safety is one of the most sacred responsibilities of a Councilmember, and I would look for robust community engagement in the planning and implementation of Tempe’s Vision Zero commitment. I’m fortunate that I travel to my clients and I am constantly aware of how other cities invest in their bicycle infrastructure. We shouldn’t be afraid to adopt designs that work well in other cities!

2. I believe the 2040 General Plan was done with multi-modal transportation in mind, but that the General Plan is an intention and not intended to be written in stone. I think we did a good job of incorporating more bike- and pedestrian-friendly elements, but I don’t believe we’ve gone far enough. The only way we’ll alleviate traffic with increasing density is to encourage multi-modal transportation and to build an infrastructure that makes biking, walking, and transit the more desirable options. 6% of Tempe are avid cyclists yet we spend <1% of our infrastructure on it. I want bicycling to be safe enough so I have no hesitation sending my 7- and 15-year-old kids out on their bikes, and that my 68-year old dad can understand his responsibilities as a driver. We’ll only get this through intense public outreach and education.

These are big subjects and difficult to distill in a few sentences. I look forward to a robust conversation later this month!


bike vote 2


Tempe Bicycle Action Group invites you to meet the candidates and hear their thoughts on cycling in Tempe at our next meeting:

Sunday, February 25, 2018


Boulders on Broadway, Tempe

Why all bicycles should be “Licensed”

In a previous post, I talked about the game changing $15 tax on new bicycles (over $500) that was just passed in Oregon. I argue that the persuasion factor of paying an excise tax drastically empowers the cycling lobby.

Normally, excise or ‘sin’ taxes are levied on items such as cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling. These are often considered superfluous or unnecessary goods and services. However, this is not always the case; Pittman-Robertson is a great example where an ad valorem excise taxes increased use and opportunity. While excise taxes do increase the cost of an item – we have to also look to see if the increased cost is high enough to reduce consumption; as well as its effect on the purchaser’s justification to continued use. I’d argue that, if someone is paying for something (even if it is not the full cost of use) they have a hugely persuasive argument to unlimited use of that thing (whatever it is).

I’ll use the vehicle license & registration excise tax (most DMV’s call it a ‘fee’) as an example.  Most of us own or have owned a car so we know that; here in AZ for example, we pay a vehicle license tax (VLT) of around 3%. This means that, for under $500 a year, you can drive your $30,000 car everywhere. And, by everywhere, I mean literally everywhere, every highway, paved road, lot or dirt path is open to you. Nobody blinks an eye because you paid for a nifty piece of “magic metal” on your bumper. The State of AZ has set up entire organizations designed to provide access and protect you. DOT’s, State and Local Law Enforcement, City Transportation Departments all work overtime to make sure you can get anywhere using your car. ALL BECAUSE YOU PAY A FEE!

pictured: car on tree in Lubczyna. Fed up neighbours put the brakes on a boy racer after months of being driven barking by his antics - by hoisting his car to the top of a tree. Road hog Zbigniew Filo, 24 - who doesn't even have a licence - woke to find his souped up white Ford Escort dangling from a huge willow tree in Lubczyna, Poland. Locals have refused to say who carried out the prank, but have revealed that one villager's mobile crane was borrowed for the night. Police spokesman Marta Pierko confirmed: "We received a call from a man saying his car was stuck in a tree, and that his neighbours had put it there." "After inspecting the site we instructed him to remove it from the tree," she added. One local explained: "Whoever, or whatever it was, it’s probably a good thing as he was a dangerous driver and could have killed someone. "Perhaps he’ll think twice about his hair-raising driving and about getting a licence or who knows where his next car might end up?" Now shamefaced Filo has promised to change his driving style. "I get the message, but I think it was a bit harsh," he said..Its ok – because “license”

GET IT? Your “license” is literally a persuasion tactic to legitimize use. You paid for it, your taxes go to supporting it and the government condones and encourages continued use. It even looks the other way for most everything besides the most egregious offenses.

Because of this I have to ask: Today, in your community, (outside of Portland proper) do you pay a special fee on your bicycle?


But, but..but… we already pay! You argue. I’ll argue back and tell you the drivers don’t care and, in case you need reminding, there are more of ‘them’ than ‘us’. They pay, they know they pay and they have magic metal on their bumper and a nifty plastic rune in their pocket. These are all issued by the state giving them full justification to put the “pedal to the metal”. Private corporations provide extensive services, including great insurance coverage…. Every business expects them to drive… There are thousands of design options and configurations…. There is an auto repair shop or parts store within a mile of your home right now….


Now – it looks like Portland (or maybe just the folks at Bike Portland) may be coming around, or maybe they are just at the bargaining stage. But the bike excise sales tax is and should only be the beginning.  I’d argue that, like motor vehicles, every bicycle should be licensed in some way.

>Insert outrage.jpg:


WAIT! PAUSE! Before you get your HR into Zone 5, hear me out.

Cars hate you, well at least the drivers, and, even then, they probably don’t hate you, they just feel like their license fees paid for the road… and here we cyclists come asking for 5’ of space and BTW please don’t kill/ maim us.

I mean, it’s not like cyclists don’t help pay for the roads. We know they (we) do. We just can’t explain in 15 words or less how we do it. Our most common argument is ‘I pay taxes too’. This is really a terrible argument because, really, who doesn’t pay taxes… and if everyone is paying, the mob rules. Their mob is bigger. A straight voter fight won’t cut it, and arguing over scraps of funding when your local schools are behind in repairs is, frankly, a poor strategy and morally questionable. But, the logic of “muh taxes” sounds great so that’s what the League of American Bicyclists, NBDA and transportation experts argue. The problem is that we cannot argue ‘logically’ with others who are driven by persuasion because ‘science’.

Drivers believe their taxes pay for their spaces. Everyone knows that vehicle fees don’t cover the total costs of driving but we all go along with the ruse. Cyclists need to counter this ploy with similarly designed schemes. A trivial $15 dollar tax and $15 dollar permanent registration fee becomes extremely powerful once the numbers are added up; In 2015 about 17 million bicycles were sold across the US. My fellow cyclists, if we simply had a $30 dollar per bike (Tax and License) we would generate $510 million dollars to be used for bicycle infrastructure….each year.

That $510 M also buys about 30 Trillion CRAP-tonnes of persuasion, and before you get up in arms about taxes, if my cycling Pittman-Robertson-esqe (C-PR) idea is implemented, this ad valorem money would directly benefit cyclists and only cyclists. Bicyclists need to stop looking exactly like economic free-riders to the “other guys”. C-PR fixes this for pennies on the dollar & kills the free-rider issue. What is ‘free-riding”? (Items following “*” are my comments):

  • Occurs when people can enjoy a good service without paying anything (or making a small or unknown contribution less than their benefit.)

*Cyclists cannot point to a specific dollar contribution or amount because we are not charged $ like drivers

  • If enough people can enjoy a good without paying for the cost then there is a danger that, in a free market, the good will be under-provided or not provided at all.

*Does any cyclist feel like we have enough infrastructure?

  • Another way to explain the free-rider problem is a slogan like “Let George do it” – where George stands for the other person.

*Cyclists: “Everyone else (the Georges) needs to give us space, money for lanes, etc.”

(Bullet points are courtesy of:

Persuasion-wise, a $30 excise tax on new bicycles (~6% on a $500 bike) is unbeatable because it eliminates every argument lobbied against us. Watch Portland closely, in less than 6 months, the bike industry there will have more power because they can now point to specific contributions. This is the fight for $15 they should have been supporting.

Locally, imagine how much more power TBAG and bicycle retailers would have been able to bring to the argument if we had a similar excise tax. The controversy over #BikeMcClintock may never have happened…


Up next time, I’ll tell you why I believe all bicyclists should be licensed …

NB – While the author is the President of TBAG, these comments are his own and not of TBAG supporters or the TBAG Board of Directors.

On Portland’s Bike Tax & Pittman-Robertson (But for Bicycling)

“Take a deep breath and consider this: Oregon is now the only state in America with a bicycle excise tax.”
-Jonathan Maus, editor of Bike Portland

– Patrick Valandra, Pres. Tempe Bicycle Action Group

Photo Credit:

There’s been biblical levels of fear mongering coming out of the Pacific Northwest and cycling commentators following the recent vote by the City of Portland to impose a flat tax on new bicycle purchases.  Arguments range from “the poor can’t afford it” to ‘the tax is so small that it won’t pay for anything. Mr. Maus even opined that the bill was “opposed by small business owners, advocacy groups, and by many voters.” 

After traveling spending the better part of Summer 2016 in Portland, watching my pal Tall Todd plug in Biketown, attending my professional conference, crushing BUCPDX along with riding around with the fine folks in Portland I can honestly say this:

  • Taxes affect everyone, with the poor seeing a greater ratio of their salary affected by taxes.
  • The annual tax is expected to generate about $1.2 million USD. This won’t pay for much using today’s NACTO design standards.
  • Many business owners, advocacy groups and voters are against this bill (now Law).

ALSO:  THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG (and should be ashamed for missing this opportunity)

Now, before you all run me out of town with your Italian brazed pitchforks, let me explain why I think that local groups such as Bike Portland and TBAG as well as national groups like the League of American Bicyclists and the National Bicycle Dealers Association should be spending every minute of their time lobbying local governments and Congress to pass a Pittman-Robertson (PR) type bill focused on bicycling. As an aside, the outdoor industry in general should be lobbying for such a bill but that is another post) 

What is this fool talking about you may ask. As I explain Pittman-Robertson (PR), let’s hop in the wayback machine to a period between late 1800’s and early 1930’s:
Many wildlife species faced extinction due to overhunting (both commercial and private) and habitat destruction. Many states didn’t allow hunting, there were almost no conservation efforts and outdoor activities were extremely limited. People saw these issues as a threat to future hunting and recreational opportunities and rightfully so. In 1937, Senators Pittman (NV) and Robertson (VA) wrote and passed a bill to move an existing 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition from the general treasury to the Dept. of the Interior. (This has been expanded to other hunting items but you get the idea; also if you feel tempted to post pro or con 2A arguments here; don’t – we’re a damn bike blog)

Now, instead of taking this money and putting it directly in the Treasury; PR created a separate account under the Department of the Interior. How is this money allocated..? well Wikipedia is actually helpfull here:

The Secretary (of the Interior) determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters.

States must fulfill certain requirements to use the money apportioned to them. None of the money from their hunting license sales may be used by anyone other than the states’s fish and game department.  Plans for what to do with the money must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the Interior.  Acceptable options include research, surveys, management of wildlife and/or habitat, and acquisition or lease of land.  Once a plan has been approved, the state must pay the full cost and is later reimbursed for up to 75% of that cost through PR funds.  The 25% of the cost that the state must pay generally comes from its hunting license sales.  If, for whatever reason, any of the federal money does not get spent, after two years that money is then reallocated to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Now if you mind works like mine – you can see how this plays out for cyclists if such a “Cyclists Pittman-Robertson” (C-PR) bill were passed – (edits are mine)

The Secretary (of Transportation) determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of cyclists.

States must fulfill certain requirements to use the money apportioned to them. None of the money from their cycling accessory sales may be used by anyone other than the state’s Transportation department (and only for cycling related projects).  Plans for what to do with the money must be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Transportation.  Acceptable options include research, surveys, management of cycling infrastructure, and acquisition or lease of land for said infrastructure.  Once a plan has been approved, the state must pay the full cost and is later reimbursed for up to 75% of that cost through C-PR funds.  The 25% of the cost that the state must pay generally comes from its cycling accessory sales.  If, for whatever reason, any of the federal money does not get spent, after two years that money is then reallocated to non-profits focused on cycling and used for training, education or tourism (etc)

Sounds good right!

What happened with wildlife as a result of Pittman-Robertson? I like pictures so let’s look at the growth of hunting opportunity

Hunting days

From:,  p33

The photo shows an increase in hunting days since 1930. As a hunter, I know you can’t hunt what isn’t there. PR Conservation dollars paid to improve habitat and, thus hunting opportunity. For example, In 1937, Missouri’s deer season was only three days long, and harvested 108 deer. Today hunters in Missouri can hunt deer for 123 days (a 4000% increase) During 2009, Missouri hunters took almost 300,000 deer. As a cyclist, I can imagine how a paltry (by comparison) 200% increase in cycling infrastructure would improve the cycling network and opportunity here in Tempe.

Many may say, that will never work for cycling, we already pay taxes and our mode of transport is less hard on roadways (maintenance). I’d say you are full of it because you don’t understand perception:  Drivers believe that, in general, their tax money should benefit them, because they pay a tax and establish the funding. The result is that little money is spent on things that do not improve motoring opportunities.

How do cyclists counter this perception that they don’t pay – you got it! By establishing a dedicated tax to pay for their infrastructure and immediately and forever dispel the myth that cyclists are freeloaders.  I thinking of purchasing a new bike soon – the bike I like will cost well over $2000. If I had to pay an extra $15 (a 0.0075% tax on $2K) – knowing that this money went to pay for improvements around cycling opportunities – I’d be ecstatic. I’d buy a $200 dollar helmet knowing that 11% of that purchase ($22) would stay local to pay for bike lanes and the like. Shoot! I’d buy local knowing that my new tires fund the bike lane I am riding on. And guess what, I’d also be 100% demanding that money to be used for what it was intended. Instead of fighting for transportation dollar scraps, I’d have the most powerful argument available: “because I paid for it out of my taxes”. And here’s the beautiful twist; unlike auto users, cyclists could point to a specific tax, singled out to pay for the stuff we want. Drivers simply could not do this because fuel, license and registration fees account for, at most, 50% of the cost of building and maintaining roads.

I’ve long thought that the cycling industry should employ the strategies and tactics that the hunting and firearm industries use. This is a simple persuasion play using their exact tactics – we pay for our own stuff and thus we deserve it. This is so powerful that it cannot be outflanked and there is no city department or politician who can say you don’t get use your ear marked tax dollars. It was so successfully in the hunting industry that, 13 years after it was passed, a similar law was passed to benefit fishing and the fishing industry begged for it to pass!

The cycling industry can lead the way here. However, it will take a leadership change along with advocates who understand that most of the arguments against cycling are based on perception. Instituting a C-PR type bill would immediately swing the tide in transportation funding and wipe out the largest perception: Cyclists don’t pay their way.

The recent tax on bikes in Portland has immediately put the cycling community on the same plane as motorists. Some say the the tax was instituted as a punitive measure by non-cyclist groups intended to punish cyclists – even it it is, it was a grave tactical error. We’ll soon see whether the business owners and advocates in PDX embrace their new found power or continue to look this gift horse in the mouth.


Up next:  I’ll tell you why I believe cyclists should be licensed… (hint – because persuasion)
NB – While the author is the President of TBAG, these comments are his own and not of TBAG supporters or the TBAG Board of Directors.



Scottsdale: It will cost you $450 to kill a person

Let. This. Sink. In. Your life is worth $450

The Mafia had it harder, they actually had to bribe the police and elected officials. I am betting it cost them way more that $450 to make someone “disappear”. Payments to the police, council and the unfortunate decedent’s family add up. Scottsdale’s own Amy Alexander had it way easier and is only lighter in the purse by 450 “bone$” after driving over fellow cyclists Shawn McCarthy.

Mrs Alexander, from

Speaking of bones, there are 206 in the human body. Mr. McCarty almost certainly had several of his broken while Mrs. Alexander, possibly in, possibly out of control (reports were not clear) of her Chevy Silverado, struck and killed Mr. McCarthy on March 12th, 2017. According to reports from and

Shawn McCarty was cycling northbound on Thompson Peak Pkwy in the bike lane. Amy Alexander, in control of a Chevy Tahoe (GVW 55oo lbs), swerved into the bike lane, striking McCarty. It wasn’t immediately known what caused her to swerve.

Science Section: A Chevy Tahoe traveling at 45 mph has the kinetic energy of (roughly) 1/2 million joules
Scarry section: You are driving around in a 500,ooo watt ray gun.

According to reports, after striking Mr McCarthy, Mrs Alexander immediately consulted her husband (a lawyer) who wisely advised his client to remain silent when the police arrived. This author has been deposed several times, and, while you should never say anything other than what is asked, shutting up when you run over someone is probably a good idea if you want get away with manslaughter in the USA. (more…)

Bike Index: Bike Registration that Works

Bike theft.  When it happens, you often feel like you have no recourse.  We at TBAG understand that frustration, and want to make sure you are prepared for this worst case scenario.  The City of Tempe has their own bike registration page ( to help you register your bike within the city.  For a more expansive registry, please check out the Bike Index (  Registering your bike will make sure you have the proof you need to get your bike back

Grand Canalscape Project logo

Grand Canalscape Project Needs Your Feedback

The City of Phoenix has begun designing the first and second phase of the Grand Canalscape project, which creates a nearly 12-mile continuous trail system along the Grand Canal from I-17 to the Phoenix/Tempe border, and they want to hear from us!  Visit the project page at, and feel free to email any comments on their contact page:  Take a moment to either cut-and-paste our sample message we have crafted (below), or send your own comments.

“The Grand Canal is an important connector route from Tempe to Phoenix. As a cyclist and [parent/commuter/employee/student] I frequently bike this route, and can see two improvements that would greatly benefit this route.  The improvements are 1) paving and consistent upkeep (removing debris) of both the north and south side of the canal, and 2) adding crosswalk lights or other safety measures at key intersections.  These route improvements will ensure riders of all ages are safe and feel comfortable using these public routes.”