Home > Other Fun Stuff > Advocacy & Industry News

Proposed New Hampshire Legislation Would Require ALL Bike Owners to Pay Registration Fees

a woman riding an electric cargo bike with kids riding on the back.The proposed bill would require all bike and e-bike owners to pay a registration fee. (photo/Tern)
12 Comments
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

The New Hampshire state motto may be “Live Free or Die,” but House Bill 1703 (HB1703) would make the state’s bike owners “pay fee or get fined.” This news comes a little over a week after New Jersey passed a new law requiring all e-bike owners to be licensed, registered, and insured. It’s hard not to draw parallels, but unlike the New Jersey law, the New Hampshire Bill does not appear to be motivated by safety; rather, it was proposed as a means to increase funding for transportation projects.

From the Analysis section of proposed House Bill 1703: “This bill establishes a required annual registration fee for all bicycles and electric bicycles operating on state or municipally funded paths, trails, and roadways which bicycles and electric bicycles are permitted to be ridden on. The bill also establishes a penalty for failure to register and directs funds from said fees and penalties to the commissioner of the department of transportation for the creation and maintenance of bicycle routes, lanes, paths, or trails in the state.” 

You can read the full HB1703 proposal here.

In its current form, HB1703 would also require paid registration for kids’ bikes, too. (photo/Batch Bikes)

In its proposed form, HB1703 would require ALL bike and e-bike owners to pay an annual $50-per-bike registration fee. That blanket requirement would include everything from kids’ bikes to class 3 electric commuters, and everything in between. Additionally, cyclists who fail to register their bicycles with the DMV would be subject to a $100 fine per violation. Per the quote from the HB1703 proposal, all of the funds generated would be used “for the creation and maintenance of bicycle routes, lanes, paths, or trails in the state.

The primary sponsor of HB1703 is Rep. Thomas Walsh, who is the Chairman of the state’s Transportation Committee. According to reporting by New Hampshire Public Radio, Walsh said the proposal was a way to address a huge funding gap in its long-term transportation plan. And, similar to motor vehicles, bike registration fees could help pay for cycling infrastructure projects, rather than diverting funds from the general transportation budget.  

At the same time, the proposal noted that it would cost between $300,000 and $500,000 in fiscal year 2027 to create the registration program and staff it. That would undoubtedly eat up a large portion of the funds generated right out of the gate, while potentially negatively impacting the finances of many cyclists across the state. 

The Brooklyn Driggs 8 sitting on a college campus.
For larger families or people like me who own lots of bikes, registration fees could add up pretty quickly. (photo/Jeremy Benson)

In the past few days, the HB1703 proposal received significant criticism and pushback from the public. Critics of the bill argued that it would add an additional financial burden on many people who are already having a difficult time in the current economic environment. Others said we should encourage people of all ages to get outside, citing health and environmental benefits, and that this fee would potentially disincentivize biking by creating another hurdle for cyclists or would-be cyclists to jump over. 

At a public hearing on Tuesday, January 27th, Rep Walsh was quoted in an article by the Concord Monitor as saying, “If you’re expecting me to jump up and down and defend the way this bill is currently written, I’m sorry to disappoint you. I will take responsibility for the confusion of the intent.”

According to the Concord Monitor article, Walsh said the bill was never meant to require registration for children’s bicycles. He was quoted as saying, “The bill was simply proposing a reasonable user fee for those who choose this new bicycle infrastructure that we are creating when there is state money involved, very similar to the way we deal with [Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles] and snowmobiles.”

The Concord Monitor article goes on to say that because of its flaws and opposition, Walsh doesn’t think HB1703 has much of a chance of moving forward. In that article, Walsh says, “Personally, because of all these things, I don’t see the bill moving forward either.

For now, it sounds like the people of New Hampshire have spoken. While it isn’t over yet, HB1703 appears likely to die in committee. It seems like New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” spirit is still alive and well.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dockboy
Dockboy
3 months ago

New Hampshire has really been going hard on the second half of their motto, and while this is being sold as a push for infrastructure funding, it’s really just another way for them to legislate poverty out of the state. Who’s going to be fined? Commuters in urban areas where they have frequent interactions with police, people for whom that $100 will actually matter. No way are they going to pull over a paceline and fine a string of accountants and dentists.

Cycling lowers infrastructure costs substantially, so promoting their use is the way to refill coffers, but NH is very pro-car, and there’s no fighting that mentality there.

Last edited 3 months ago by Dockboy
Tim
Tim
3 months ago
Reply to  Dockboy

As a NH resident, I can say that the “free” in “live free or die” has long been the “free, as in beer” version, not “free, as in speech.” But the opposite. Nobody wants anyone to get anything they didn’t personally pay for. The concept of “public good” is lost here.

I’ve registered my disapproval of this latest clown show, as have a great many others. Hopefully it will stick.

Chunk
Chunk
3 months ago
Reply to  Dockboy

I lived in Massachusetts from the mid-70s through the early 90s and mostly Massholes saw New Hampshire as the home of unwashed, uneducated, unsocialized, unpleasant, uncooperative people who would rather see their neighbor die in a fire than pay taxes for a fire department.

And to be clear, when we moved from Manhattan to the South Shore of Massachusetts in the mid-70s, it was pretty clear that we had gone from civilization to a backwater swamp of ignorant, superstitious, narrow-minded, highly parochial people who – and I am not kidding – were surprised to learn that black people have red blood and that Jews don’t have horns.

Guy
Guy
3 months ago

Is New Hampshire the state where motorcyclists don’t have to wear helmets?

Dockboy
Dockboy
3 months ago
Reply to  Guy

Yup

Deputy Dawg
Deputy Dawg
3 months ago

Seems absurd, and economically, will achieve nothing or not much more than making government larger.

Resident Anarchist
Resident Anarchist
3 months ago
Reply to  Deputy Dawg

puts more money in the big mans pockets, the more power it gets the less you have to “live free”

Mike
Mike
3 months ago

This was defeated because of the outrage of many!

Resident Anarchist
Resident Anarchist
3 months ago

if you ever think “the government wouldn’t do that” yes they would. “its not actually going make any money for new infrastructure” its just going to go to the salary of the people running it

Oliver
Oliver
3 months ago

What about cyclists who live in other states?

Billyshoo
Billyshoo
3 months ago

while potentially negatively impacting the finances of many cyclists across the state. Sorry, Jeremy, but I don’t understand your math here. The ONLY cyclists whose finances wouldn’t be adversely impacted are those bike thieves who happen to ride their ill-gotten goods.

Collin S
Collin S
3 months ago

What a dumb bill. Hmm, should I buy another bike from my local bike shop. Naw, I already have 6 bikes so I’m paying $300 a year, why make it another $50. Oh I’m a tourist, I can go to Vermont or New Hamshire to ride with my family of 4… I guess I’ll go to Vermont so I don’t have to spend $200 for one weekend on top of all the normal travel costs.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.