Isn't this similar to what Lance Armstrong just set up down in Austin?

It's not about the bike sales.

That from Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong, who plans in May to open a bike shop, commuting center, training facility and cafe in a 1950s-era building at the northwest corner of Fourth and Nueces streets.

"This city is exploding downtown. Are all these people in high rises going to drive everywhere? We have to promote (bike) commuting," Armstrong said Wednesday, gazing up at the towering 360 condos rising next to the site of his new shop. "This can be a hub for that."

Great Idea!

Only seems feasible in urban centers, but is probably needed in cities all over the world. My office has a shower in our single occupancy restroom, for people who bike to work, however, our bicycle parking in outside on the sidewalk. I usually don't even need to shower, but the uncovered bike parking really grates on me.

Luckily, LEED encourages bike storage and shower facilities so in the future, hopefully more employers will recognize this as a priority to their employees.

i just read an interesting post arguing that since the number of bikes on the roads is increasing due to the high cost of gas, bikes should be treated more like vehicles with licensing and registration and other safety regulations.

http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2008/06/30/toward-a-new-bicycle-safety-in-america/

what do you think about this idea? i ride my bike to work everyday, and while i don't necessarily want to pay the licensing and registration and insurance costs, i think this would really the use of bikes as legitimate vehicles in the eyes of many other americans. you have a bike license, registration documents, insurance card, etc. and you're forced to bike according to a set of rules similar to automobiles.

connecting to your post above, they advocate for tolls and parking meters for bikes, on roads where such tolls and parking meters exist for cars. again, i think it's a good idea, since no one would ever be able to argue that bicyclists don't pay their fare share.

Austin, TX has one:
http://mellowjohnnys.com/

@Kyle N. You have to remember that cycling doesn't take the physical toll on the roadway system like automobiles do. That's the whole point of having tolls on highways is to pay for construction and maintenance etc. Now, if they want to create roadways and bikeways for cyclists to use alone where automobiles aren't allowed, then I think it would be more than fair to tax cyclists who use those things to pay for construction and maintenance, but where I'm from, we don't have that. Cyclists use the roads that automobiles do. As far as metering a bike parking spot, if it's protected and out of the elements and away from thievery then I'm also for that, but if you're suggesting that I pay to attach my bike to an outdoor rack where it may or may not be safe, I can't agree to that. I have seen bike storage lockers that you can rent from a city authority or such and that seems kind of in tune with that idea.

Cyclists already by law have to abide to traffic rules and regulations when on the road, just the same as automobiles, so requiring a license and registration for something like that doesn't make sense. You don't need to be a certain age to learn to ride a bike or to legally ride a bike, where as you do with an automobile. Do I think some cyclists out on the road are dangerous with how they ride? Yes. Should local communities be offering instruction on how to ride safely with traffic? Yes.

I could see where registration of a bike with a local authority point could be an option for cyclists wanting added protection against theft, but I think it should remain optional, rather than a requirement. I don't know enough about insurance and cycling to say anything. Does anyone have knowledge as to how that works if a cyclist causes an accident with an automobile or vise versa?

My main point is this though: There is a difference, a huge huge difference between bicycles and automobiles, and I think cyclists should be given incentives for riding, not the other way around.

I bike to and from school each day, and I think bicyclists should have to be licensed, for several reasons. One, a lot of bicyclists don't follow the rules when on the road, and if they had to have licenses it would presumably be easier for traffic cops to deal with this.
Also, if bikers were licensed, bikes would constantly be on the official radar of governments. Drivers would have to know how to safely deal with bicyclists they encounter on the road just as they are required to know how to deal with motorcyclists.
Actually, I've always been surprised that bikes don't need any license. Why can a young kid get on a bike and ride in the street without having to show that he knows what he is doing? Is that safe for anyone involved?
Additionally, if bikers were licensed we might be able to muster more political clout to get the bike paths and such that we want. If we had licenses we could find out, "Oh, there are over 10,000 people who bike in this town. Look how inadequate this infrastructure is for all of them!" Instead of "Let's get the few dozen or hundred bicyclists we can find together to petition for some better infrastructure."

I walk to and from school each day, and I think pedestrians should have to be licensed, for several reasons. One, a lot of pedestrians don't follow the rules when on the road, and if they had to have licenses it would presumably be easier for traffic cops to deal with this.
Also, if pedestrians were licensed, they would constantly be on the official radar of governments. Drivers would have to know how to safely deal with pedestrians they encounter on the road just as they are required to know how to deal with motorcyclists.
Actually, I've always been surprised that shoes don't need any license. Why can a young kid get into shoes and walk in the street without having to show that he knows what he is doing? Is that safe for anyone involved?
Additionally, if pedestrians were licensed we might be able to muster more political clout to get the foot paths and such that we want. If we had licenses we could find out, "Oh, there are over 10,000 people who walk in this town. Look how inadequate this infrastructure is for all of them!" Instead of "Let's get the few dozen or hundred pedestrians we can find together to petition for some better infrastructure."

NO BIKE LICENSE !!

If you like bureaucracy and paying more taxes and fees and having archaic rules enforced against you, go ahead, put your home address on your frame and wear your phone number on your jersey.

It is most likely that the number of bike commuters, even in a big city, won't be able to pay enough to offset the cost of a bike lane, etc.

If you want your town to be a 'sanctuary city' for illegals, you will be putting an awful lot of people in dire straights who are already marginalized (I am right wing but try to see both sides of the idea).

NO MORE RED TAPE. Let some things be. If you want to contribute, write out a check to your town's treasurer or the IRS or the State and pay more. Not me... they will take my unregistered bicycle from my cold dead hands!! (OK a little over the top!).

People ride stupid, I know this from seeing it every day. You don't need a license plate to stop it.
Plenty of motorcyclists do stupid things also, the plate doesn't change it.

Keep it simple.

vsk

Licensing is just another way to squeeze the taxpayer. Also, it's potentially unenforceable. If you're a cop on foot or in a car, how are you going to pull over a bike commuter if they don't pull over voluntarily? What about kids under 12 riding bikes in the street?

NYC should get off its butt and have revolutions demanding something like this. Current mayor bloomberg claims to be going green (finally).... we need him to help save some storefronts from the outrageous uncapped rents so that not-for-profits can set up much needed, great ideas like this. (The one in Auckland where you can get your laundry done while at work is even more genius.)