Licensing Bicycle riders

[TOinTO]

Couldn't a written test and licensing of all cyclists over 18 create jobs and income for the City? Think bicycle licensing centres located in the east, west, north and central areas of the City which administer similar procedures as motor vehicle centres with a cycling license similar to a drivers license. Add that to a prominently displayed license plate on the rear of the bicycle and enforcement by law officials and this could be not only a cash cow for the City, but drastically cut down the anarchy which currently exists on the roads (and sidewalks) today.

Of course, if you only license cyclists over 18, you're licensing a population that, overwhelmingly, already have driver's licenses. You can expect that they know the rules of the road as well as they ever will. Where is the benefit? I guess you'll get the 905'ers and tourists off our streets.

Enforcement is already an option. That we don't have police on every corner ticketing cyclists suggests that there are more important public safety issues to be dealt with.

That's all good in an ideal world but there needs to be regulation as bicycle ridership increases dramatically each year. Over 1000 reported cycling accidents in 2008 says to me that there's a problem in paradise.

My post was pretty explicit that we are in no transportation paradise. We have laws that govern how you should ride a bicycle on the road. We have more laws that apply to cars and we license drivers. Yet we still have a lot of bad driving and many automobile deaths every year.

You're calling for increased regulation without a shred of evidence that it is necessary to reduce the number of car vs bike accidents. I think the only contribution it would make to reducing the number of accidents is by reducing the number of cyclists.

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that improving bicycle infrastructure will reduce the number of those accidents.

 

[nfitz]

I can understand an argument to consider licensing bike couriers but a license for regular bike riders is ridiculous. I would simply refuse to get one if it became law.

But it's okay to licence indoor house pets?

 

[confusion]

All I know is that if they do this, I promise to drive to work every day in a car instead of riding my bicycle, and I am going to convince as many people as I possibly can to do the same. Want to see what real gridlock feels like? Toronto traffic isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Appreciate the cyclists on the road already, one more cyclist on the road is an extra car gone.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Enforcement is already an option. That we don't have police on every corner ticketing cyclists suggests that there are more important public safety issues to be dealt with.

No, there's definitely enough people to enforce it. The problem is that they don't.

My post was pretty explicit that we are in no transportation paradise.

This sentence wins understatement of the year award.

We have more laws that apply to cars and we license drivers. Yet we still have a lot of bad driving and many automobile deaths every year.

Yes, but cars weight about 4 times as much as a bicycle does. On a bicycle, you have much better visibility and control comes a lot more naturally than driving a car does.

I would assume that most bike deaths are much different from car deaths. Pedestrian deaths caused by cars are usually due to either internal injuries caused by the massive impact or concussions and lacerations caused by extreme change in inertia or by collision with the vehicle.
Quite simply, bikes don't carry enough inertia to create those injuries. I would expect that a large majority of the very few pedestrian deaths caused by bikes are people getting hit by bikes and falling awkwardly, probably on their head. Now this is unfortunate and could probably easily be prevented, but it's nowhere near the severity of a car crash. Most people that get killed by bikes are probably either children or old people, where they are more fragile and have worse reflexes. As I said, they could probably all be prevented, but the same injury could be caused by falling down stairs or tripping over a branch at the park. I'm sure that more people have died falling down stairs or tripping over a branch than by the hands of a biker.

You're calling for increased regulation without a shred of evidence that it is necessary to reduce the number of car vs bike accidents. I think the only contribution it would make to reducing the number of accidents is by reducing the number of cyclists.

I'd rather reduce the number of cars. There are several times the number of car-related accidents that there are bike-related ones, and that's not even counting deaths. If you think people will be saved by putting more cars on the road, well...

On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that improving bicycle infrastructure will reduce the number of those accidents.

Oh, ok


In general, I think that bike licenses are just a stupid idea. The point of a driver's license is mostly to make sure you know how to drive a car properly. Driving a car is much more complicated than riding a bicycle is. Driving a car comes a lot less naturally, and cars are much more dangerous than bikes are. Requiring a license to use a bike will just discourage more people from biking, and probably won't even solve the issue of dangerous biking anyways. Sure, some people will learn a new rule or two, but I'm sure that the majority will just keep doing what they're doing. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't even get a license.

The real way to make biking safer is to improve biking infrastructure and enforce biking laws more. If people knew they'd actually get ticketed for biking recklessly, the masses would suddenly be enticed to learn how to bike more safely. It shouldn't be strict; enforcers should be lenient if someone's biking on a sidewalk but is being extra-careful, staying slow and steering well clear of pedestrians.

And if bikers actually had their own lanes in traffic, there would be a ton less people bicycling on the sidewalk and dodging through traffic and behaving unsafely.

 

[AKS]

Quite simply, bikes don't carry enough inertia to create those injuries. I would expect that a large majority of the very few pedestrian deaths caused by bikes are people getting hit by bikes and falling awkwardly, probably on their head. Now this is unfortunate and could probably easily be prevented, but it's nowhere near the severity of a car crash. Most people that get killed by bikes are probably either children or old people, where they are more fragile and have worse reflexes. As I said, they could probably all be prevented, but the same injury could be caused by falling down stairs or tripping over a branch at the park. I'm sure that more people have died falling down stairs or tripping over a branch than by the hands of a biker.

So you're saying old people and children should stay off the sidewalks because they wouldn't be flexible enough to not get killed by bikes? Sure anyone can die from falling down the stairs or tripping if they aren't flexible to protect themselves. But having someone hit you with a bike causing you to fall or die from heart attack is different than someone falling down and getting themselves killed.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ Yes, and I said that these easily preventable deaths should not happen.

What I was trying to point out is the fact that cars are big, heavy things (bolded to show how big and heavy they are.) You'd have to be insanely lucky to walk away from a head on collision with a car barreling at you, no matter how old or young you are. A head on collision with a bike, on the other hand, usually just leaves someone with a bruise, at worst a broken bone or two. It's only in the rarest of situations that someone will actually die of a bike collision alone.

Again, I'm not saying that "oh it's like getting struck by lighting so it doesn't matter," or "see, people are just getting bruised as they get mowed down by rogue cyclists, so it's all okay." I clearly stated that we need to crack down on maniac cyclists, and continued to present more information why licensing isn't the best way to go about doing that.

 

[TOinTO]

So you're saying old people and children should stay off the sidewalks because they wouldn't be flexible enough to not get killed by bikes?

You're really stretching to put words in his mouth there. He was clearly just contrasting a bicycle's capacity to harm with a car's

Or perhaps when you read reports from health officials the fact that "people who die from H1N1 tend to have existing medical conditions", you think they mean "Who cares! All the people it kills are already sick anyways!"

 

[W. K. Lis]

From the Star:

Most motorists aren't educated enough, even in their driver's handbook. ... A cyclist has the right to an entire lane, even though they only occupy part of it. And it's up to them to dictate when they want to share.

Some cyclists don't understand that. If it's narrow, they have to push to the left and say, `No. I'm a slow-moving vehicle. Go around me.' But they tend to ride in that small area to the right.

 

[AKS]

You're really stretching to put words in his mouth there. He was clearly just contrasting a bicycle's capacity to harm with a car's

Or perhaps when you read reports from health officials the fact that "people who die from H1N1 tend to have existing medical conditions", you think they mean "Who cares! All the people it kills are already sick anyways!"

no...it would be because of this quote that seems to indicate that "more people have died from falling down stairs or tripping over a branch than by the hands of a biker" seems to imply it's not often bikers kill pedestrians so they are not a big issue as cars. Death is death. How often people die from a certain cause depending on the vehicle is not important. 10 deaths by car, 1 death by bicycle. So 10 is important and 1 we can ignore? That was what I was getting at.

 

[Paleo]

A cyclist crossed on a red right in front of the bus that I was on earlier today.

 

[AKS]

A cyclist crossed on a red right in front of the bus that I was on earlier today.

Well, that's not a first. I've seen bicycles drive past red lights quite a few times. When all cars have stopped, they continue on. I guess they think they can get across faster than a car.

 

[ganjavih]

At the risk of generalising, I am far more annoyed by cyclists than pedestrians or motorists. Not a single day goes by where I don't see a cyclist recklessly weaving through traffic, running stop signs, running red lights, etc. I'm not sure licensing is necessary, but please enforce traffic rules. Does a cyclist ever get a ticket for not coming to a full stop at a stop sign?

 

[doady]

Forcing all cyclists to always come to full stop at stop signs is pointless. Bikes are much slower than cars. Remember the spirit of the law, not just the letter. A cyclist don't need to come to a full stop to check for opposing traffic and pedestrians.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

At the risk of generalising, I am far more annoyed by cyclists than pedestrians or motorists. Not a single day goes by where I don't see a cyclist recklessly weaving through traffic, running stop signs, running red lights, etc. I'm not sure licensing is necessary, but please enforce traffic rules. Does a cyclist ever get a ticket for not coming to a full stop at a stop sign?

Education, in this case reading and learning a handbook with rules of the road for cyclists followed by an exam then upon successful passing of the test, a license is issued. This won't stop what you describe, I see it all the time too, but it would help reduce the madness.
As you state, enforcement is clearly lacking. Police have their hands full as it is, aside from blitzes here and there I can't see an increase with police presence monitoring cyclists and laying fines.
I was reading the Ontario Highway Traffic Act Bicycle Violations (http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/pdf/hta.pdf) and there are a few terms there that I don't even understand myself after over 20 years of cycling! I thought I knew what I needed to know to cycle safely but it appears I don't.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I just read this. Who knew?

Cyclists entitled to whole lane, bicycle cop says

Source