Should e-bikes be licensed?

[Earlscourt_Lad]

^

+1

 

[dunkalunk]

I frankly think ALL bikes should be licensed. If they're going to be on our streets, then a standard ought to be set, and should have been set long, long ago.

I'm sick to death of watching people on bikes looking around to make sure nothing's coming, and then blowing through red lights. Hey, we can do that in cars, too, but that would be irresponsible, wouldn't it?

We should catch jaywalkers and people who spit their gum onto sidewalks as well.

I'm sick of bicyclists demanding the privileges of vehicles and then watching them avail themselves of the rights of pedestrians.

Despite it being technically illegal for cyclists to use the sidewalk, there are time where traffic is going at a speed, or the road is in such a potholed state where riding on the road just ins't safe. I wish more cyclists know of their right to take up an entire lane of traffic if the edge of the road is a hazard instead of being pressured by motorists to move into the dibree filled, cracked gutter.

I'm fed up with watching cyclists drive on the wrong side of the road or whichever way they please up one way streets, or hopping onto sidewalks as it suits them.

Same here. If a cyclist is going to travel on the road, they have to do so in a predictable manner. I shouldn't have to stick out my neck and merge into traffic because some turkey is travelling the wrong direction in a bike lane.

I'm tired of watching cyclists soaring by without helmets while cops run spot-checks to make sure motorists are buckled up.

Helmets have no positive correlation to how safely a cyclist travels. If anything, if someone is wearing a helmet they are more likely to get into an accident because they are either inexperienced, or the helmet creates a sense of false security, causing a cyclist to ride more aggressively.

All this, and yet every time some cyclist winds up a statistic, the others immediately bleat it HAD to have been the fault of some motorist.

I fail to understand why I should be required to respect, as a fellow vehicle on the public roads, something that legally CAN be, and IS being, driven unregistered, by any untrained, unlicensed, uninsured, five-year-old. That's not a vehicle. That's a toy.

When you have to be of certain designated age and responsibility to be on the road, when you have to pay for and hang a plate on your bike, when you have to train for and earn a license to drive it in traffic, when you have to have insurance in case you have or CAUSE an accident, and when you have to -- and DO -- follow the same rules and safety standards hunched over the handlebars that you wouldn't dream of defying sitting behind the wheel, you'll have my respect. Till then, you're just a loose cannon on two wheels, as far as I'm concerned; an unaccountable threat to my safety and yours.

But is the cost of licencing bicycles even worth it? Where are we going to get the money to even implement something like that?

Please don't lump cyclists into one category as if they are all hazardous. There are lots of irresponsible drivers out there, but i don't go around making blanket statements about how they are all bad. Turning it into an us vs. them argument doesn't make the situation better for anyone.

 

[Lone Primate]

Helmets have no positive correlation to how safely a cyclist travels. If anything, if someone is wearing a helmet they are more likely to get into an accident because they are either inexperienced, or the helmet creates a sense of false security, causing a cyclist to ride more aggressively.

The Big Three used to make exactly those same arguments against the implementation of visible safety standards, like seat belts, in the 1960s. I'm not inclined to agree with you. I was on Bloor Street yesterday in heavy traffic, watching the cyclists, and I swear to you, I did not see ONE wearing a helmet. I saw some pretty boneheaded moves, too. These people were not the least concerned for the realities of their safety, or anyone else's, as far as I could tell.

But is the cost of licencing bicycles even worth it?

In my mind, unquestionably. Most of the reason people follow the rules driving cars is that they know if they don't, sooner or later they're going to lose their licenses to drive, and then go to jail if they keep it up. I was watching guys without helmets shooting through convenient gaps in rush hour traffic yesterday, and I was just wondering, when these clowns get killed, what motorist is going to wind up wondering if he's on the hook, and how many years he will have to wake up from nightmares of some careless idiot vaulting over his hood? If these people had to take courses, get licensed, and buy insurance, I guarantee the vast majority of them would start taking the responsibilities they have to themselves and other people more seriously. Right now, the fact that's it's nearly entirely unregulated just underlines in their minds that it's not a real responsibility... it's just a lark.

Where are we going to get the money to even implement something like that?

MTO. If they were wise, they'd see to it that most of the fees were channeled to the urban municipalities to pay for bike lanes and other cycling facilities.

Please don't lump cyclists into one category as if they are all hazardous.

Look, I was in heavy traffic watching dozens of these people yesterday. Crossing traffic, unhelmeted, going the wrong way, defying signals, taking to the sidewalk -- doing things that would have seen them in court if they'd pulled stunts like that in anything with a plate on it, no matter how humble. I'm tired of the idea that they should have all the rights and privileges of vehicular access but none of the onuses or responsibilities. This is a huge city with a lot of dangerous traffic and it's time it got serious about one unregulated aspect of it.

There are lots of irresponsible drivers out there

Yeah, and when the cops see them, they chase them. They arrest them. They prosecute them. And if they can't catch them they can take note of the plates and go knocking. I would like the same thing for the jerk on the bike who runs the red as we expect for the jerk in the car who does it.

Turning it into an us vs. them argument doesn't make the situation better for anyone.

As soon as "them" joins "us" in having and observing legal and moral responsibilities on the road, I'll have no issue. till then, yeah, I do.

 

[dunkalunk]

The merits of mandatory helmet laws for all is an ongoing debate, but in jurisdictions which have them, a fewer proportion of people ride bicycles than in those with more relaxed or no helmet laws. There is actually a net health benefit from increased bicycle ridership despite greater chances for collisions.

I agree that there needs to be some sort of charge for reckless endangerment written up specifically for bicycles, and if caught should have to pay some sort of fine and face prosecution. There is no reason why people on bicycles need to be licensed in order to be responsible for their actions. Requiring an additional license would only create another layer of red tape

If you think that the cost of licensing every cyclist in Toronto (or more likely Ontario if such a thing were to come to pass) would be offset by fines for unsafe cycling, think again.

The people who make these dangerous traffic movements are also the people who have the most experience and comfort riding in mixed traffic. Cyclists want to get from point A to point B just as fast as everyone else. You wouldn't be able to catch them in a cruiser, especially in rush hour traffic, you would have to pursue them on a bike. In order for police to keep up, they would have to make equally hazardous manoeuvres just to catch the hazardous people threading their way through traffic. The collateral and the risk to the officer is just not worth the effort or payoff. Sure a cop will get lucky occasionally and stumble into the path of a reckless cyclist, but these meetings would never be able to generate enough income to cover the cost of the people working to license and catch these cyclists.

The City of Toronto has already concluded that the cost of licensing bicycles isn't worth it, and I can't see the situation changing any time soon.

 

[Lone Primate]

If you think that the cost of licensing every cyclist in Toronto (or more likely Ontario if such a thing were to come to pass) would be offset by fines for unsafe cycling, think again.

Frankly, I don't care if they're offset or not. I care about accountability for the people with whom I'm obliged to share the road.

You wouldn't be able to catch them in a cruiser, especially in rush hour traffic, you would have to pursue them on a bike. In order for police to keep up, they would have to make equally hazardous manoeuvres...

Would any of these arguments wash if we were talking about careless drivers of motorized vehicles? I don't see why they should for cyclists. If they expect to use the roads, they must expect to be obliged by the rules of the roads. If they're not, there should be methods of enforcement established. And if that's impractical, then they do not belong on the roads. Would you champion the rights of certain bankers or businessmen to do whatever they pleased, simply because they'd found methods of behaving illegally that were difficult for regulators to enforce?

Transponders are an answer. They would have two benefits. Cyclists would know if they weren't toeing the line, any cop could press a button and bring up the sheet for the bike. And, it would be a piece of cake for cops to recover stolen bikes.

The City of Toronto has already concluded that the cost of licensing bicycles isn't worth it, and I can't see the situation changing any time soon.

Neither can I, frankly. But the political inertia doesn't persuade me it's not a good idea.

 

[dunkalunk]

I'm not going to actively debate this any more past this post because its clear that we'll never find agreement. I just wanted to point out that I do not condone the actions of unsafe cyclists, but the impracticality and drain on resources chasing down cyclists and checking for licenses would put on the police force, especially when there is little improvement in the way a cyclist rides.

In the Ontario highway traffic act, bicycles are considered a vehicle and as such must follow the same rules of the road as vehicles do and that police are allowed to stop anyone operating a bicycle and that person must identify themselves. The police already have all the tools they need to enforce the traffic rules without requiring cyclists to get a license.

If you want some more information, feel free to read through the City of Toronto's cycling liscense website, in particular the sections on the purpose of bicycle licensing and the issues page. They honestly put it better than I ever could.
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/safety/lisencing/purpose.htm#hta
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/safety/lisencing/issues.htm

 

[Lone Primate]

So today you say:

The police already have all the tools they need to enforce the traffic rules without requiring cyclists to get a license.

Whereas previously, you held that:

Cyclists want to get from point A to point B just as fast as everyone else. You wouldn't be able to catch them in a cruiser, especially in rush hour traffic, you would have to pursue them on a bike. In order for police to keep up, they would have to make equally hazardous manoeuvres just to catch the hazardous people threading their way through traffic. The collateral and the risk to the officer is just not worth the effort or payoff.

So which is it? Are the cops falling down on the job, as you seem to want to claim today, or are the means to do it presently unavailable to them (and, according to you, beyond practical reach), as you said previously?

I don't agree the police have the means to make cyclists toe the line as they do with motorists, and I've said so, and said why (and, in fact, you yourself have buttressed those points, in the second quote). As for the means, I've suggested that too. That you don't care to see cyclists have to adopt similar onuses as motorists is, I suppose, understandable, if colossally hypocritical and self-serving, but it doesn't constitute a satisfactory argument, nor does the response of a single municipality that feels the effort is beyond its means. It's not their business anyway. It's the province's business to license and regulate vehicles and the standards for their use, not Toronto's.

 

[cacruden]

Police on bikes, sounds like LA Yes, regulation and licensing can solve everything - take care of all operator irresponsibility etc. License ebikes, bikes, carts, and even pedestrians because we know some of them can be completely irresponsible. Then we can give people food rations, because some people just don't buy the right food, etc. etc. etc. Next we can license blog operators, news organizations, etc. I mean some people can be irresponsible.

 

[dunkalunk]

So which is it? Are the cops falling down on the job, as you seem to want to claim today, or are the means to do it presently unavailable to them (and, according to you, beyond practical reach), as you said previously?

Both.

]I don't agree the police have the means to make cyclists toe the line as they do with motorists, and I've said so, and said why (and, in fact, you yourself have buttressed those points, in the second quote). As for the means, I've suggested that too. That you don't care to see cyclists have to adopt similar onuses as motorists is, I suppose, understandable, if colossally hypocritical and self-serving, but it doesn't constitute a satisfactory argument, nor does the response of a single municipality that feels the effort is beyond its means. It's not their business anyway. It's the province's business to license and regulate vehicles and the standards for their use, not Toronto's.

The province rejected the idea of bicycle licensing too.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Seriously, a bicycle licensing program is exactly the kind of 'gravy train' wasteful spending we're supposed to be getting away from. It'd be incredibly costly and difficult to enforce.

I think a lot of this is driven by spite. We want people who commute via bike to have to deal with the same bureaucracies and regulatory costs that drivers do.

 

[junctionist]

I think a lot of this is driven by spite. We want people who commute via bike to have to deal with the same bureaucracies and regulatory costs that drivers do.

There are too many self-righteous drivers who are so critical of cyclists but oblivious to the bad driving habits of motorists despite licensing and police enforcement. Go to any intersection and see that yellow seems to mean "speed up", and people end up making left turns on reds all the time because of those who don't stop for yellow lights even when they can. Stop signs are typically disregarded in favour of rolling stops. The speed limit seems to be a rough suggestion.

At the end of the day, a bicycle uses very little road space and can cause very little damage. Most of the liberties taken by cyclists don't put anyone's life in danger. How many motorists have been killed in the last few years by cyclists? How many hydro poles and buildings have been been severely damaged by cyclists? Cyclists may merely annoy some motorists who are spiteful and jealous of the privileges that are rightly theirs.

 

[JWBF]

In my experience, auto drivers, cyclists, nor pedestrians follow the rules that exist. It seems to me that it is human stupidity to think that it's only illegal if you get caught. And since people are pushing for more Darwin Awards there has to be an actual response from police, it's there job so they should do it; we don't have a need for more pricey bureaucracy.

It has become to easy for the majority of people in Toronto to lay blame on someone else than take responsibility for ones actions. No over us are saints (that I know of ) but I hope that we do have some tad of maturity to solve the situations at hand.

 

[W. K. Lis]

In my experience, auto drivers, cyclists, nor pedestrians follow the rules that exist. It seems to me that it is human stupidity to think that it's only illegal if you get caught. And since people are pushing for more Darwin Awards there has to be an actual response from police, it's there job so they should do it; we don't have a need for more pricey bureaucracy.

It has become to easy for the majority of people in Toronto to lay blame on someone else than take responsibility for ones actions. No over us are saints (that I know of ) but I hope that we do have some tad of maturity to solve the situations at hand.

My wife got stopped by the police for not stopping at a stop sign... at 3 AM in the morning, with no traffic anywhere. She just did a rolling stop, but I guess a racoon may have been out doing its rounds, so that must have been why she was stopped.

 

[Lone Primate]

Both.

So given that you've conceded these points, as well as tacitly admitting to the unaccountability of an entire vehicular class on our roads, what's your issue with the steps I've suggested to giving traffic police the ability to do the job, and, parenthetically, the corresponding drive to do the job as well?

The province rejected the idea of bicycle licensing too.

That's self-evident, or else they'd be doing it. But that's not to say that an idea rejected at one juncture isn't, and shouldn't be, revisited and effected later. John Robarts originally opposed a comprehensive medicare system, but he came around. He, and Leslie Frost, both opposed extending funding to the Catholic school system to grade 13; so did Bill Davis himself for most of his tenure; one of the last things Davis did was change his mind and put the ball in motion. Don't mistake "not now" for "never".

 

[Lone Primate]

Seriously, a bicycle licensing program is exactly the kind of 'gravy train' wasteful spending we're supposed to be getting away from. It'd be incredibly costly and difficult to enforce.

Fine; all I'm asking for is a level playing field. If we're all equal on the road, then take away the obligation for the rest of us to license our vehicles and our driving privilege, to have insurance, and to follow the rules of the road whenever there's not actually a cop on site to keep us in line. Think of the money we'd save on regulation and enforcement.

Does the principle still stand, Matt?

I think a lot of this is driven by spite. We want people who commute via bike to have to deal with the same bureaucracies and regulatory costs that drivers do.

I think it's driven by wanting to have your bike and eat it, too.