Korina

There's using asphalt art to slow traffic and a NACTO document about 'reevaluating the laws that prevent safe and inclusive biking'.

jon c. 

I would agree with the NACTO conclusions and recommendations, but unfortunately I don't think it will address the underlying problem.

Paul Barnard

I am of the opinion that until we make mandatory bicycle safety education and testing a part of the driver's license acquisition and renewal process and part of law enforcement training, that things won't get appreciably better.

bikebikebike

The unfortunate consequence of the NACTO proposals would be the withdrawal of of police enforcement of all ordinances regulating bicycle use for fear of profiling.
If bicycles are going to share the street then they need to have the same regulatory safety involvement as powered vehicles.
Training licensing and insurance. That requires enforcement as some 15% of folks simply require it to "buy in".

As examples:
The local homeless community's is deeply involved in theft of and possession of stolen bicycles.
Dallas no longer has a helmet ordnance because it's "not cool".
50+% of the cyclists I see street riding here at night have no lights few with reflectors.

I don't see where promotion of and withdrawal of police enforcement of the ordinances and state statutes produces a positive benefit my community.

livedarklions

I don't agree with anything you just said. Motor vehicles are regulated more heavily because of the much higher risks imposed on others by unsafe operation-- a car can take out many people at once, cyclists can harm others, but the risk is much, much lower.

The notion of "licensing" cyclists is absurd, no one is seriously considering it anywhere. If you want to debate it, fine, I'll be happy to list many reasons why it's impractical, counter-productive and generally considered a crackpot idea.

You're completely missing the point on the profiling issue--what those statistics are really demonstrating is that the bicycle regulations that exist are systematically not being enforced except for reasons of population control having little or nothing to do with safety. You seem to be arguing that the solution to that is more regulation of cyclists, which I find to be a bizarre stretch. If the laws that exist aren't really being enforced (and where do you expect the resources to do so to come from?), why would we expect that the more strict regulation would be enforced either?

bikebikebike

appreciate your reply.
I agree that the differential selective application of the law has been used as oppression.
I am seeing the police sort of self defunding with reduced enforcement globally, to our detriment, as it is done as badly and with the same capacity for bias as the abuse was done.

I would posit that we need the same tools with which we brought down the roadway slaughter that surged when the automobile was introduced.
(And is currently surging)
Tools like: Better design, broad engagement and discourse about the issue, collective action and active monitoring for improvement.
What tools do we have for that now?

The solution is not going to spring up from nowhere, fertilized by our natural wisdom, good heartedness and native cooperation. /s

How would you propose protecting those across the spectrum of differential speed and vulnerability in a crowded commons?


I would put forth that licensure , can be an affirmation of working together, developing and sharing of best practices and a powerful tool in the service of safety and utility.

Daniel4

There's already a history of bicycle licence studies all over major North American cities.

So I wouldn't mind bicycle licenses provided all of the following are offered:

1) Optional;

2) paid by motorists during drivers licence and plate renewals;
3) no fault- all fault automatically attributed to the nearest motorist(s);
4) municipal, provincial and federal tax breaks to cyclists;
5) perks offered by merchants and hotels on top of other promotions and membership prices you already are entitled.
6) Mandatory road test every two years for motorists;
7) install separated bike lanes wherever motor vehicles are legally allowed to drive;
8) bike racks at all public and commercial places.

We already know that bike licensing are a waste of taxpayers money. So if you don't like any of these conditions, don't ask for bicycle licensing.

livedarklions

I think you are referring to licensing the bicycle, which essentially is just a tax on bicycles, with a sticker to be affixed to the bike to indicate the tax has been paid. Enforcing the requirement is invariably more expensive than any revenues that can be collected, so it is no wonder that this scheme always fails. I believe that the poster was suggesting licensing bicyclists as we do drivers, which I don't believe has been tried anywhere. Considering the fact that it's very normal for 6 year olds to be operating bicycles, imposing a training, examination and certification requirement to ride a bike is an absurdly radical proposal.

#3 on your list is absurd,btw, but your list is generally in the "A Modest Proposal" level of plausibility anyway. You certainly can't demand all those goodies but make the tax optional. I just don't see how you could be remotely serious when the obvious implication of #3 is that I'd be liable for fault if I just happened to be driving a half block away from a cyclist when he decided to run into a lamp post.

livedarklions

I don't get it. When is the licensing examination supposed to occur? When the child graduates from a balance bike? This is basically like imposing a licensing requirement for running.

The purpose of licensure is to limit the people who can engage in an activity. If the problem is that people are already discouraged from riding, all that would be affirmed by licensure is telling people it's too hard to get started without the personalized intervention of the state.

bikebikebike

Licensing cost of riders and bikes might be offset by its impact on theft reduction and an anticipated improvement in safety with injury reduction.
Discount or tax offset could provide incentive and the license itself is a revocable enforceable evidence of training and review of safety and bike law.

Is cycling/ebiking just something done by those with driver's license revocation? Hmmm kinda statement about safety focus there.
How about a note on a drivers license like I get for me moto.
Kids certainly don't need a license or helmets or lights. They are only 14% of the injury/fatalities, hardly enough for concern.

I'm for encouraging cycling, but as they say, "Anyone can cook, but not everyone should."

livedarklions

For the umpteenth time, it is perfectly rational from a safety standpoint that drivers are licensed while cyclists are not. If, for example, someone drives a car into a crowd or plows into a school bus, lots of people can die. There's no bicycle equivalent.

Bicyclist licensing isn't a thing and it's not going to be a thing.