Taxes, License Plate And Imposes Obligations For Cyclists

The reader Jose Antonio g. Da Conceicao sent the comment below about the note in which we talk about the ferry-Guaruja not charge the carriage of bicycles (emphasis added):

Am totally in favour of the use of the bicycle. I had the first, a “Strong Bar Monark” in 1980. Sold to the father of a friend in 1982, I kept the money in savings. I thought I was making a big deal (that idiot). HJ I know you don’t!

Bought my second in 1986, a “Caloi 10, which ventured – alone – to a certain stretch of Rio Santos (a few miles). I went tb to Bertioga, but came back with her semi-desmontada in the silver beetle…

Good, but despite being very in favour of the use of bicycles, tb I am totally in favour of the LICENSE PLATE, the use of flashes on the left and right, flashlight, reflective items, side mirrors, security equipment (helmet etc etc).

As well as taken these thousands of workers and owners of the Bikes to ride! Since the motorists pay the PROPERTY TAXES and other taxes (tolls etc.) That hold up roads, avenues and to help in the budget cake with the construction and maintenance of bicycle paths and lanes. So come on! Come on, councilmen and MEMBERS: move it!

PROPERTY TAXES for bicycles

PROPERTY TAXES means property tax of motor vehicles. It’s not a tax on use of streets, is to have a motor vehicle tax, so by definition does not apply to bicycles. And, contrary to popular belief, it is not used directly (and not only) for road maintenance. Learn more here and here.

For simplicity, all taxes go to a “cake”, which is used to cover costs and investments. The tax I pay when buying my bike also helps in the maintenance of roads. And who buys a new bicycle always pays IPI. To the cars, now and then there’s.

I can say that those who use a bicycle, by paying a higher percentage of tax burden who bought a car with IPI tax exemption, has more right to use the streets that the owner of this car? Of course not. All have the same right.

Now, the PROPERTY TAXES is a tax unfair, I agree. Just that for other reasons.

Cycling is a cheap means of transport, accessible and popular, precisely by the low cost of purchase and maintenance. Is an alternative adopted by many low-income citizens, as a way to decrease spending on their commutes. Its use means, for many people, the difference between make or buy some food in the month.

License plate, and the mandatory licensing of all these items incur costs for who acquires and maintains a bicycle, causing it to no longer be an alternative so cheap as it is today. Who joins money with effort to buy a $100 bike will not have money to pay a $20 licensing or a R$40 helmet. Will no longer use the bike, or uses without these items until he is apprehended.

The bike is today one of the cheaper forms of transport after hiking. The go Bike is contrary to transformation of such use in the form of additional tax collections, reaching directly the poorest layers of the population, but also fears the emergence of profiteers that would create kits and low quality products to profit from these legal constraints.

Who runs for more than ten years remember the first aid kits, which became mandatory on grounds they had your requirement dubious revoked after some time – enough for several companies profit a lot from your sale.

See also Understand why cicloativistas and
entities are contrary to the license plate license plate of bicycles in Sao Paulo
was rejected by the Commission of the Transit Traffic Code says
about bicycles and cyclists

Current Scenario

Today the law already requires, through the Traffic code, which bicycles out of the factory with Bell and reflective mirrors. As a result, the low cost usually come with reflective glass breaking and falling off after a short time, bells that barely emit sound and stop working after a few drives and mirrors made with inappropriate material, which reflect an opaque image and distorted.

The supplied accessories only fulfill the legal determination, not helping matters in the safety of the rider. And the reason is simple: if they were material and quality encareceriam the final product would be sold.

Bicycles also suffer a high tax burden, higher than that of cars, such as the study by Bicycle movement for all.


Understand that, in your heart, the reader’s complaint is about the way that bikes are conducted. But it cannot be solved with equipment, imposes obligations and licensing, which only serve to “filter” by economic criteria who uses the bike, without ensuring that these people would lead securely. After all, it didn’t happen with car drivers who continue disrespecting the rules whenever they know that there is no supervision, including putting other people’s lives at risk and killing, in fact, tens of thousands of people every year.

The question that bothers only works with infrastructure and signaling that recognize, include and protect the rider, discouraging infractions as use of oncoming traffic and sidewalks. And with traffic education.

Rarely cyclists are instructed on how to drive the bike safely. On the contrary: they are often instructed to ride against the grain or the sidewalk. Even for people who drive and those pipes a security component to the – or a way to get out of the way of those in cars, in the case of recommending the use of sidewalks. And punish the rider for not respecting rules that he didn’t learn or was encouraged to ignore it’s so unfair how to forgive the driver who hurt someone for breaking the rules that he was forced to learn.

Maybe the solution is to instruct how to behave in traffic, since high school, are in cars, on bicycles or on foot. After all, the traffic is made up of people, not cars.