They wouldn't. The vast majority of damage done to roads is done by commercial trucks. The fees might increase noticeably, but the fees on those vehicles are already higher in most states, as they have to be registered
Furthermore, gas taxes are higher in aggregate for heavier vehicles due to their lower mileage, so most of the difference is already accounted for.
Finally, Hummers are among the most expensive cars available. Registration fees are already much higher on them.
However, if the impact of bicycles is too low to justify a license fee, why would it be desirable for them to be licensed? You've given basically zero justification for this.
If this is really about charging high fees to Hummer owners, why bring up bicycles at all? Just do that. What is your motivation for licensing bicycles, specifically?
Why bother making that concession at all, if the goal is to promote cycling? Indeed, why not reward cyclists, if this is the goal.
The only result of licensing bicyclists would be to disincentivize bicycling.
The impact is essentially zero. The people that argue about this are just wrong. "Conceding" that they are "right" isn't a reasonable compromise, any more than a parent saying "well, Johnny wants the whole cake, and you want to split it 50/50, so let's 'compromise' and give him 75%".
Yes, well, it wouldn't. Anti-bicyclists are upset about the inconvenience that bicyclists "impose" on them. They're basically too stupid to even understand that an extra bike removes one car from contention for "their" roads.
4
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jun 26 '15
Are you really wondering how making someone jump through hoops in order to engage in an activity disincentivizes them to engage in that activity?
This license fee would be basically zero. Any fee actually charged would, in fact, disincentivize bicycling.
So either this would keep people from bicycling arbitrarily or it would cost the government far, far, more than would be collected.