Licensing Bicycle riders

[Design Wallah]

licensing cyclists strikes me as dumb and bureaucratic.

clearly what's needed is simply more, many more, protected pathways.

i think the city's war on cars/war on bikes phony debate is bady hurting the city's global reputation for progressiveness, and i suspect we'll see something of a slip it's ranking of best places to live.

here's an interesting snippet from the times:

Who Causes Cyclists’ Deaths?
By Freakonomics

More than 52,000 bicyclists have been killed in bicycle traffic accidents in the U.S. over the 80 years the federal government has been keeping records. When it comes to sharing the road with cars, many people seem to assume that such accidents are usually the cyclist’s fault — a result of reckless or aggressive riding. But an analysis of police reports on 2,752 bike-car accidents in Toronto found that clumsy or inattentive driving by motorists was the cause of 90 percent of these crashes. Among the leading causes: running a stop sign or traffic light, turning into a cyclist’s path, or opening a door on a biker. This shouldn’t come as too big a surprise: motorists cause roughly 75 percent of motorcycle crashes too.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

This summer alone, I had the pleasure of meeting over many people who are not residents of Toronto, biking in Toronto. People from Alberta, people from New York City, people from South Africa, Montreal, etc.

Are you telling me that they should have each been stopped at the city boundaries and acquired a Toronto license, despite the fact they have traveled quite happily and legally through other cities in Canada?

No. However I'd suggest that the vast majority of the problems we are experiencing lie with regular cyclists in Toronto, there are tens of thousands of us and which is largely what needs to be addressed. I'm willing to bet that although out of town folks may not necessarily know the rules of the road for cycling in Toronto, they're at least cycling with some degree of caution. If I were from a smaller city like Calgary cycling in a busy, aggressive, traffic congested area like downtown Toronto, I think I'd be pretty cautious. Conversely, if I were to take up cycling while in NYC (which I'd love to do next time I'm there as a means of getting around) I'd be very cautious as I move around plus I'd learn ahead of time how to get around the city on a bike and what rules and regulations I should be aware of for both my own safety, and the safety of others.

One step at a time.

 

[kettal]

So then you understand why I say municipal licensing is impractical?

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

So then you understand why I say municipal licensing is impractical?

If the vast majority of cyclists creating anarchy on the roads and sidewalks are locals, which I believe they are, then no.
Let's say for a moment that cyclists over 18 are licensed in Toronto. If the odd visitor/tourist who cycles in the city are stopped for an infraction with no cycling license, I think it would be easy to prove that they are from out of town by showing ID to prove such and off they go with a warning. It doesn't eliminate problems completely, but it greatly reduces them. When bicycle rentals become more common and tourists rent them to them to say, ride the Martin Goodman trail along the lake they could be handed a flier briefing them on the rules of the road, hand signals etc. for cyclists. I really think there's a workable solution in there somehow.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If the vast majority of cyclists creating anarchy on the roads and sidewalks are locals, which I believe they are, then no.
Let's say for a moment that cyclists over 18 are licensed in Toronto. If the odd visitor/tourist who cycles in the city are stopped for an infraction with no cycling license, I think it would be easy to prove that they are from out of town by showing ID to prove such and off they go with a warning. It doesn't eliminate problems completely, but it greatly reduces them. When bicycle rentals become more common and tourists rent them to them to say, ride the Martin Goodman trail along the lake they could be handed a flier briefing them on the rules of the road, hand signals etc. for cyclists. I really think there's a workable solution in there somehow.

Why should I carry my ID, if I live in Vaughan but ride in Toronto?

 

[waterloowarrior]

Why should I carry my ID, if I live in Vaughan but ride in Toronto?

What if you are riding west on Steeles... will you need a cycling license for your return trip?

 

[TOinTO]

Why should I carry my ID, if I live in Vaughan but ride in Toronto?

Because the plan to license cyclists a just a pretense for introducing a mandatory photo Id requirements. Come on! Whenever someone is proposing something so excessive and unworkable, you've got to know there is a hidden agenda:

Want to ride the Martin Goodman trail? I'm sorry, that crosses a few major arterial roads, you'll need to demonstrate one of the following:

1. You are a minor. Photo identification showing your date of birth will be required. A passport, or valid drivers license, will suffice.
2. You are a visitor to Toronto - this includes residents of the '905', Canadians from 'the regions', and foreigners. A valid Canadian drivers license showing a non-Toronto address will be accepted. A foreign passport is not sufficient proof of non-residency. You must also provide some evidence of residency in a foreign country. For example, a foreign tax return (previous tax year only), or a recent utility bill with your name on it showing a foreign address.

In either of cases 1 and 2, cycling infractions will be met with a stern wag-of-the-finger.

3. You are an appropriately licensed adult, Toronto resident cyclist. A valid Toronto Cyclists license with rfid, biometric data chip and will be required. In this case, any infraction of cycling laws will be severely punished.

Any adult, Toronto resident riding the trail without a valid cycling license had better be ready to do some serious time!

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

City Councillor Wants Helmets And Licenses Made Mandatory For Cyclists

This is by no means a done deal, it would have to be approved by Council and then the Province.

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...mets-and-licenses-made-mandatory-for-cyclists

 

[Tacoma]

Why should I carry my ID, if I live in Vaughan but ride in Toronto?

If your intention is to ride in Toronto (on major streets but not trails or private property or residential roads, etc. as I previously said) then the rule should be you will need a licence even if you live in Vaughan.

If you're from way out of town like NYC and don't have a license (obviously) and don't have any ID with you either (not so obviously) and you, say, run a red light and get caught, then the Officer can use his judgement to either let you off with a warning or take down your info and require you to send in proof that you're in fact from NYC. I don't see this as a big deal at all.

The point of licensing in my mind is to ensure cyclists who use Toronto's major roads know and respect the rules of the road (as they apply to cyclists) because many of them claim they don't or choose to ignore them. There are obviously administrative issues that has to be ironed out, but that should not be the reason for not licensing.

And it's not like all cyclists will be randomly stopped for no reason. You will normally only be at risk for being stopped if you break a traffic law, like run a red light or cycle on a busy sidewalk, etc.

And, TOinTO, besides the photo ID, passport and foreign tax return you mentioned, the city will also require 2 blood / DNA samples and you must name your 1st child after the sitting mayor.

 

[vic]

And it's not like all cyclists will be randomly stopped for no reason. You will normally only be at risk for being stopped if you break a traffic law, like run a red light or cycle on a busy sidewalk, etc.

This is what we have now. I agree. A license just adds bureaucracy.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Perhaps bike couriers should be required to have licenses.

AoD

 

[salvius]

The point of licensing in my mind is to ensure cyclists who use Toronto's major roads know and respect the rules of the road (as they apply to cyclists) because many of them claim they don't or choose to ignore them. There are obviously administrative issues that has to be ironed out, but that should not be the reason for not licensing.

I don't get this -- has car licensing really meant that car drivers know and respect the rules of the road? As a driver using the GTA roads often for work-related purpose, I cannot see much evidence of that. Yeah, people who get licensed learn how to 'drive' (a task considerably more complicated AND potentially dangerous to others than riding a bike) but they sure don't respect the rules of the road. Swerving in and out of lanes, following too close, aggressive passing, non-usage of signals appears to me to be a) FAR more dangerous than anything cyclists do b) Alarmingly common. I can't say I see much enforcement, either. I'm not even going to bring up the rolling stops -- those seem to be ingrained as the unofficial rule.

Licensing bikes is a waste of time -- enforce the laws, and do it for drivers on the GTA highways, too, for that matter.

 

[TOinTO]

If you're from way out of town like NYC and don't have a license (obviously) and don't have any ID with you either (not so obviously) and you, say, run a red light and get caught, then the Officer can use his judgement to either let you off with a warning or take down your info and require you to send in proof that you're in fact from NYC. I don't see this as a big deal at all.

Require you to send in proof? That's comical. "Promise officer, as soon as I'm back in NYC, I'll mail you a photo of my ID...really" Or what?

And you seem to think the primary issue in that case should be whether the person has a valid excuse for no license. The issue is that they ran a red light! They should be charged. It's an offence whether they are from out of town or not. Tourists are not allowed to break the law.

The point of licensing in my mind is to ensure cyclists who use Toronto's major roads know and respect the rules of the road (as they apply to cyclists) because many of them claim they don't or choose to ignore them. There are obviously administrative issues that has to be ironed out, but that should not be the reason for not licensing.

A foundation of the Law is that ignorance of the law is never an excuse. Besides, I don't believe it has anything to do with cyclists who violate traffic laws. They know what a red light means and what a one way street is. However, they choose to ignore those laws because they think the won't get caught, or that even if they are, they won't be charged because it is (to them) such a minor issue.

Licensing them won't remove those rationalizations. Enforcement of existing laws will. But enforcement is expensive so we let it slide. When the average speed on your highways is 20km/hr over the speed limit, you've got a long way to go on enforcement.

I would even be okay with serious cycling violations resulting in demerit points on your drivers license (if you have one) because THAT has some real teeth and some real financial consequences (and it doesn't require a new bureaucracy). So although it will still be extremely unlikely that you will be caught, the seriousness of those increased insurance premiums will make people think twice.

But requiring cyclists to be licensed - regardless of your silly list of exceptions based on type of road or where you live - would be a real barrier to cycling, especially casual cycling. That's the point of a licensing system: to stop people from doing something until they get official permission. The only certainty about a license requirement is that it will deter people from cycling, whereas the best way to improve the safety of cyclists is to have more cyclists.

 

[Mystic Point]

If Michael Bryant loses his court case and goes up the river, they'll clamp down on cyclists like there's no tomorrow. They will shut down all the bikes, insist on licensing the few remaining cyclists and ban cycling from vast sections of the city.

The establishment does not like to see one of its own punished. But in the Bryant story, it may be inevitable. And he may serve time. But not much.

If he wins the case, he'll run for Mayor.

And win, because if there's one thing most Torontonians hate, it's cyclists.

And the majority of Torontonians are drivers. And they want their roads back.

 

[gristle]

If Michael Bryant loses his court case and goes up the river, they'll clamp down on cyclists like there's no tomorrow. They will shut down all the bikes, insist on licensing the few remaining cyclists and ban cycling from vast sections of the city.

The establishment does not like to see one of its own punished. But in the Bryant story, it may be inevitable. And he may serve time. But not much.

If he wins the case, he'll run for Mayor.

And win, because if there's one thing most Torontonians hate, it's cyclists.

And the majority of Torontonians are drivers. And they want their roads back.

This is a little over the top, don't ya think?

Bike use is going up, which means the incidence of poor cycling practices will become more evident. What needs to happen is for more clear rules to be created concerning how and where bikes are to be used. These rules must be enforced. Cyclists have to be educated on the rules of the road - along with car drivers.

As for "shutting down all the bikes" and then insisting on licensing, that makes no sense. It's just pure fantasy to think that bikes would be banned. It's not gonna happen. As for licensing, the question is to what end? What is the purpose or aim of licensing? If there is no rationale, then there will be no licensing simply because it will cost the city too much money.

I highly doubt Michael Bryant will run for mayor. I think his ambition was for the Liberal leadership should McGuinty decide to move on. Why don't you let the court case take place before you weigh in with paranoia about the "establishment?"

Can you prove that Torontonians hate cyclists? I actually hear more rants about cars than cyclists. The real issue isn't one or the other, but the problem of poor cycling a or driving practices. Why not focus your energy on that rather than getting wound up over some conspiracy about the establishment coming down on all cyclists?