Press enter after choosing selection

Regulation But No License

Regulation But No License image
Parent Issue
Day
7
Month
May
Year
1897
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

Aid. Rhodes, at the last meeting of the Ann Arbor council, introduced a resolution for an ordinance to license bicycles. This ordinance, if it comes up, should be defeated. There is no reason for a bicycle license and we doubt if it would be upheld by the courts. As well license every buggy. The argument on which the license is based is that the bicycle owners want good streets and should be taxed tö build them. So do the owners of buggies want good streets. True, some bicyclists pay no taxes, but then some owners of horses pay no taxes. There are as many taxpayers in this city who own bicyeles as there are who have horses for pleasure driving. A license will not be upheld by the courts as a tax measure, but only as a pólice measure. Why lumber up our ordinance books with an ordinance that cannot be enforced. There is, indeed, need of a bicycle ordinance, but it goes in the direction of compelling bicyclists to observe the rights of others to the use of the streets, making them have lighted lan: terns at night, to give warning with bells when crossing streets, to turn to the right half of the road when meeting a wagon or bicycle, etc. Keep the bicycles in their proper place in the streets, compel the careless bicycler to obey certain regulations which the caref ui bicycler would obey for his own protection and you protect bicyclists as well as users of other vehicles aud that is the kind of legislation needed. Do the bicyclers want good roads'r So do we all of us. Is this any reason ■why they should be classed with fish hucksters or banana peddlers.

Article

Subjects
Ann Arbor Argus
Old News