Licensing Bicycle riders

[Irishmonk]

I pay for my car and I don't mind paying for my bike...I pay for my indoor cats.....if it helps fix our infrastructure....we all have to pay.

How exactly are cyclists not paying for infrastructure? We all pay taxes in various forms and AFAIK that's where money for infrastructure comes from. There's also the issue of fairness. Does a 70 kg person riding a 15 kg bike puts as much stress on the roads as a 2000 kg SUV driving 80 km/h? Also, the revenue raised by bicycle licenses would probably not even cover the new administration costs. It would also massively discourage recreational and "fair-weather" cycling to such a degree that people would not bother taking it up in the first place.

Other practical issues are: are kids going to have to get licenses? Where do you attach a license plate to an old or used bike? (And what do you do every time it gets stolen? Walk your bike home?) Is it going to apply in rural settings or parks? How enforceable would it be? What would the penalties be? (Are we going to strip 8 year olds of their licenses for cycling on the sidewalk or not properly signalling?) Etc, etc...

However, the main issue I have with the concept is, what would be the point? How would it effectively alter conditions on the road and, beyond that, improve urban life overall? The rules are already in place and it's up to police to enforce them. We don't need a new MINISTRY OF BICYCLES to oversee, control and possibly squelch what is essentially a fun, healthy and enviro-friendly activity.

*Sorry Second-in-Pie, I repeated a lot of your points as we were typing this roughly at the same time but I was a little slower to post. (GMTA!)

 

[Irishmonk]

How exactly are cyclists paying for infrastructure...tell me, I would dearly love to know....

As a middle class citizen of Toronto, Ont, Canada, I pay taxes, including property taxes--as do many other "cyclists". (Can we call them people, please?) If you want to know how general tax revenue is apportioned to specific infrastructure costs, such as roads, feel free to google the info to your heart's content.

As for your general argument regarding this issue, you haven't convinced me how licensing bikes would fix the problems you speak of, or be a net benefit to this city and life in general. Frankly, I just don't see how creating an additional bureaucracy to manage a fairly uncomplicated activity is sensible when an easier alternative already exists--i.e. enforcement of existing rules.

However, I'm not going to press this argument any further as you already seem to be pretty emotional about it and are probably looking for a release valve rather than reasoned discourse.

 

[Maggie]

Wow I was hoping this would turn into an old fashion cock fight, haven't seen one for a while. Here's my two cents I think we should license bikes and have a bike riders rules of the road strictly for those on bikes. Since I have my whimiss, fall arrest, pyro, fishing, boating, auto drivers license, and license to kill. What the hell one more won't kill me. I'll need a bigger wallet now maybe a George Castanza wallet. We could set the Bike Bureau beside the ministry of silly walks.

 

[doady]

If we are willing force bikes to be licensed, then why not shoes, sandals and slippers as well? After all, pedestrians also use the road, don't they? In fact, from purely a cost perspective, one could say the argument for licensing pedestrians is stronger than for licensing cyclists, since pedestrians not only require their own infrastructure, but also hamper motorised traffic flow on roads. This unlike cyclists, who are merely using existing infrastructure designed and built for motorists, and there no extra infrastructure required to accomodate them.

 

[AKS]

So you're saying pedestrians are the problem? Maybe pedestrians shouldn't be using side walks. They should share the road with the cars? If the pedestrian walks slow, the car can't go faster either. They'll have to slow down. Also they should take the whole width of the lane. If cars want or bikes wanna pass by, too bad! They'll just have to slow down. Pedestrians would be using existing infrastructure. There wouldn't be a need for side walks.

 

[AgentOrange]

It is a stupid idea and it will waste resources.

How the hell are they going to enforce it?

 

[dob467]

How about educating drivers on cyclists rights? For example, a cyclist is allowed to take the full lane and drivers don't just automatically get to squeeze cyclists to the side of the road so they can pass. People always seem to automatically blame cyclists, but how many drivers know very little on what cyclists are legally allowed to do??

 

[js97]

^^^ well if you want to be unreasonable and rediculous, just remember next time you're driving behind a bicycle going 10 klicks an hour in the passing lane, it's because cars are parked in the side lane, and you asked for bikes to be treated the same as cars.

license me, fine me, but I will expect a full lane, comfortable lane.

 

[doady]

I'll try this one more time and then I'm through with this thread......a bicycle is a vehicle...it has wheels...people do not.

So if something has wheels, it should be licensed? Like roller blades, shopping carts, baby strollers, etc? I say bring it!

So you're saying pedestrians are the problem? Maybe pedestrians shouldn't be using side walks. They should share the road with the cars? If the pedestrian walks slow, the car can't go faster either. They'll have to slow down. Also they should take the whole width of the lane. If cars want or bikes wanna pass by, too bad! They'll just have to slow down. Pedestrians would be using existing infrastructure. There wouldn't be a need for side walks.

Exactly.

 

[Towered]

^^^ well if you want to be unreasonable and rediculous, just remember next time you're driving behind a bicycle going 10 klicks an hour in the passing lane, it's because cars are parked in the side lane, and you asked for bikes to be treated the same as cars.

license me, fine me, but I will expect a full lane, comfortable lane.

I've actually seen cyclists who ride in the middle of a traffic lane and ignore the fact that they are enraging the car drivers behind them at their peril...

 

[Second_in_pie]

So if something has wheels, it should be licensed? Like roller blades, shopping carts, baby strollers, etc? I say bring it!

Hrm, shopping carts. I like it

Not to mention that if people require bikes be licensed, suddenly people are going to start saying "oh, rollerblades are so dangerous, they should be licensed! I mean look at it, bikes are licensed, so why aren't rollerblades?"

 

[nfitz]

I've actually seen cyclists who ride in the middle of a traffic lane and ignore the fact that they are enraging the car drivers behind them at their peril...

When I cycled, I always drove in the middle of my lane; that's what we were tought to do in driver's ed. It never crossed my mind to do anything else.

Surely not driving in the middle lane, is only encouraging cars to pass, and is putting yourself in more danger. And also you are putting other cyclists in danger, as you start to give cars the impression that bikes shouldn't be in the middle of the lane.

It's like those @#%$ pedestrians who have right of way at the intersection, and when you stop for them, they waive you on. How dare they ... it gives cars the idea that pedestrians stop for moving cars ... and means when I'm a pedestrian, there are times that cars don't stop when I walk into traffic on a green walk signal!

 

[AKS]

Originally Posted by AKS View Post
So you're saying pedestrians are the problem? Maybe pedestrians shouldn't be using side walks. They should share the road with the cars? If the pedestrian walks slow, the car can't go faster either. They'll have to slow down. Also they should take the whole width of the lane. If cars want or bikes wanna pass by, too bad! They'll just have to slow down. Pedestrians would be using existing infrastructure. There wouldn't be a need for side walks.

Exactly.

Do you know what the heck you're talking about?

 

[doady]

Do you know what the heck you're talking about?

I called for sandals and slippers to be licensed and you think I was serious? I am at a loss of words.

 

[dob467]

Hey caez - so you provided the rules that cyclists must follow and because you claim most cyclists don't follow these rules, they should therefore be licensed? Wouldn't police enforcement of those rules do the job? How would licensing cyclists make them know/follow the rules?

Look at car drivers, they're licensed and still don't know the rules regarding cyclists. For example, a cyclist can take the full lane. Here’s how the Ministry of Transportation interprets the Act:

“For cyclists, you must ride far enough out from the curb to maintain a straight line, clear of sewer grates, debris, potholes, and parked car doors. You may occupy any part of a lane when your safety warrants it. Never compromise your safety for the convenience of a motorist behind youâ€

For more on the cyclists’ rules, see http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling-guide/section5.0.shtml

This might frustrate drivers, but it's the law. Did all you licensed drivers know that??