Originally Posted by koffee brown
When I was living in Australia, folks were working to get their license. It took more than taking a straight from the book, easy exam and driving around the corner.
Not sure which part of Australia you were in, but it certainly wasn't New South Wales or Queensland.
Having said this, a good start would be to simply enforce the laws of the road more tightly (with increased penalties), and have some kind of re-testing every two years. The big farce of all this is that I could get a licence tomorrow and not drive again for 50 years. As long as I keep paying the small fee to have my photo encased in plastic every year, the only thing anybody knows about me is that I've "never had an accident". I'd probably also get cheaper insurance for supposedly being a "good driver". Of course, should I then go out on the road again after that 50 years has elapsed, I'd be a menace to just about everyone in sight. Yes, I know it's an extreme example, but there are plenty of less extreme examples of the same principle out there.
Originally Posted by IronHorse
it's arguable that, with the exception of of riding sleep deprived, _some_ cyclists are guilty of the things you describe.
The issue here is how often is it fatal for an innocent third-party? Yes, I know it can happen, but how often does it happen? When you're dealing with an issue of accountability (which is what licencing is supposed to be, although I'm becoming more cynical about that by the day), you need to consider just how much damage that person can do when deciding how you're going to test them. After all, I see plenty of pedestrians do stupid things too, but there's never been any thought of making someone take a licence for walking -- probably because it's generally a harmless activity.
If you have a problem with a cyclist breaking the law, call the cops.
__________________
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.
That is all.