General Cycling Discussion - Driver Licenses for Bicylcists

Well, Motorcyclist must have a cycle endorsement on their license, so why not bicyclists, all ages, having to pass a written test for a test of knowledge of the rules {Real young kids could be an oral test**. This would increase the accountability method for cycling offenses, and maybe also give cyclists more of a voice in road usage.
:beer:
:D

Dirver licence for bicycles might be a little overkill. But they should start early in school teaching kids about traffic rules and the meaning of each roadsign.

Anders K

No way.

Well In certain places you must have a licence plate on your bike...
But I dont agree with it...
You can be charged under the Highway Traffic Act for violations here in Ontario.
But you don't have to carry ID. And its illegal to lie to the cops... well about your name, you can lie about your weight... or your bike's weight....

NO!!!

I voted 'Yes'. I feel it would affirm the rights and responsibilities of cyclists in the eyes of law enforcement and the public. Perhaps it might, even if indirectly, smooth the way in the matter of 'equal access' -- more bike lanes, public parking/storage.

It wouldn't trouble me to see two-wheeled scoff-laws taken to task for their indifferent safety and discourtesy either.

Licensing fees? Fine. I'd pay them if I was assured the rights and privileges that motorists enjoy, and knew that my place as an operator of a vehicle in traffic was legitimized by the specific letter of the law.

Robert A. Heinlein would say 'TANSTAAFL!' (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!)

-Rob

No. At an early age we should instruct the kids on the rules of the road, and proper etiquitte. Perhaps some adults could use a refresher as well.

Great idea! let's discourage more people from cycling.

I voted for licenses because:
1) It would give an actual count of the number of us.
2) It acknowledges our right to the highway while we acknowledge our duty to abide by the rules of the highway.
3) It would mean that the police would have to be more aware of the bike rules of the road.
4) It would put us on an equal footing with motorists in terms of user fees, strengthening our claim on the road.

I am fully aware that this would be just as successful in producing safe cyclists as it is in producing safe motorists. I am willing to give up the freedom of non-registration for recognition of legal status.

NO. In fact, auto driver’s license tests should possess much more bicycling questions. Such as does a bicyclist possess the same rights to the road as an auto on most roads? Is it a crime to threaten a bicyclist with you automobile? ETC ETC.

Licenses for bicycling?...no. This would be just another way for the states to collect more money from us.

I can only see two reasons a license would be helpful for bicyclists:

1) It would require cyclists to be trained, possibly saving their lives;
2) It would establish cyclists' legal claim to ride on the street.

However, I favor achieving the above two goals without the red tape of licensing.

I vote 'yes' on the condition that it becomes part of the school curriculum - so at about 10-12 you pass your bike test with all the others in your class

I would also like to see a fine/punishment levied on all parents who drive kids to school who have passed their test.

Originally posted by Brains
I vote 'yes' on the condition that it becomes part of the school curriculum - so at about 10-12 you pass your bike test with all the others in your class

I would also like to see a fine/punishment levied on all parents who drive kids to school who have passed their test.

Would never work in the US, the crybabies at the ACLU would find something wrong with it.

the goverment telling me and my kids how to ride.........................I DONT THINK SO

I'm against giving the government the right to regulate EVERY aspect of people's lives.

Anyway, I believe the constitution guarantees people freedom to travel (which is why bikes have the right to use the road.) If the government refuses to give someone a drivers license, then refuses to give them a bike license...what options do they have any more? Walk everywhere? Get a horse? Rollerblade? And if the government starts issuing rollerblade, horse, and walking licenses........????

A driver's license is a privilege in this country. The government should have and does take the licenses away from people. Its called responsibility. Now if they could just figure out a way to get those over 75 off the street it would be even better

Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
I voted for licenses because:
1) It would give an actual count of the number of us.


Not really. Last I heard around 20% of call drivers on the road were unlicenced. I see a similar thing happening here, possibly on a greater scale.


Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
2) It acknowledges our right to the highway while we acknowledge our duty to abide by the rules of the highway.


I already do acknowledge the rules of the highway, and many other cyclists do. However, given the number of drivers who fail to do so, I don't believe licencing on the same basis would make any difference to the behaviour of cyclists.


Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
3) It would mean that the police would have to be more aware of the bike rules of the road.


As far as my interactions with the police go, they already are. It isn't the police's lack of knowledge here that poses any kind of threat to cyclists.


Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
4) It would put us on an equal footing with motorists in terms of user fees, strengthening our claim on the road.


What? You mean we'd get heavily subsidised (like $3,000 each)? Do tell how a licence would have that outcome. The fact that I actually pay taxes strengthens my claim for a place on the road as much as I need to.


Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
I am fully aware that this would be just as successful in producing safe cyclists as it is in producing safe motorists.

Yeah, not at all.

Look, it's very simple. A car needs to be licenced because of the effects it's misuse can have on others. A the misuse of a bike is highly unlikely to impact on others on anything like that scale, hence there is no licence necessary.

No way.

I think it is a great idea. Of course you can't stop at just one type of license -

Tandem - The captain would have to have a class "A" license, and the stoker would have to at least have a learners permit.

21-24-27-30 - Each time Shimano or Campy decides to squeeze in another cog we'd have to prove that we actualy know how to shift, the whole idea of a license is to prove we know how to
ride, we better know how to use our new equipment.

Those bike big Shwinn trikes - commercial license, hey, you could be making 30to40K in as little as 6 weeks.

Unicycles - anyone who rides one of those is just a freak, they should be arrested and the unicycle impounded. (just a joke I ride one)

Next we could license those little crappy scooters and rollerblades and skateboads and sport
shoes - anything that can be operated on the street.

Joe

Effective Cycling should be taught to all elementary school children and it should be taught again at the high school level. But liscensing? NEVER.

Would not a license stop young children from riding? Isn´t that what we want least of all, to dicourage the young ones from riding a bike? Parents saying NO, you cant ride your to young for a license.

Anders K

I voted no because I think it would do no good, and adds to the red-tape that we all must deal with in our daily lives.

However; I remember when I was a kid (30 years ago), that we were encouraged to "license" our bicycles. We would take the bicycle to the local police station and pay a small fee. The police department would give you a sticker to place on the bike. The sticker has a registration number that could be used to return the bike to you if it were lost or stolen. I think this practice went the way of fire alarm boxes at the end of the block, soda fountains and 10-speeds.

Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
I remember when I was a kid (30 years ago), that we were encouraged to "license" our bicycles. We would take the bicycle to the local police station and pay a small fee. The police department would give you a sticker to place on the bike. The sticker has a registration number that could be used to return the bike to you if it were lost or stolen. I think this practice went the way of fire alarm boxes at the end of the block, soda fountains and 10-speeds.

No, they still do this. My bike is licensed with the Seymour police department (License # 16 :D) Something like $3 for two years--well worth it, in my opinion, if it means the police have your serial number already on record in case of theft.

This is a thought provoking question. At least for me it was. My first notion was that perhaps it would somehow ad "legitimacy" to our claim to the road and strengthen our ability to claim resources from the state for bike lanes, law enforcement, etc. I thought perhaps we might get bicycling questions added to driving tests, much like school busses have.

Then, several questions worked their way into my thinking which made me uncomfortable.

If we extend licensing to bicyclists, why not then scooter riders, in-line skaters, pedestrians, joggers and the like?

How quickly would the state move from licensing to things like bicycle registration, taxes, inspections, etc.?

With all that licensing data available, how soon would there be such a thing as mandatory bicycle insurance?

I generally shy away from government involvement, especially when it involves taking my money.

Carl

No, We have way too much government intervention
already.
However, a voluntary certification might not be a
bad thing. Would give some legitimacy to our claiming
our rights to the road if we can prove we know
rules of road etc.

Marty

No. Hell, no.

PS It's nice to see a Heinlein fan out there.

We already have (mostly appropriate) laws governing the proper use of bicycles on the road. We do need more safety education of motorists and bicyclists, and legal accountability for both, but I strongly reject bicycle licensing as a solution. (The licensing question is a bit like mandatory helmet laws, is it not? Many responsible, experienced, "effective" cyclists wear helmets, while opposing a legal mandate to do so.)

Although a bicyclist can cause injury or death, he/she is far less likely to do so than a motorist.

Originally posted by lotek
However, a voluntary certification might not be a
bad thing. Would give some legitimacy to our claiming
our rights to the road if we can prove we know
rules of road etc.


I think this is an idea worth exploring further. While I don't think it should be mandatory, those who have read my posts will know how annoyed I get at motorists who can't tell the difference between me and the cyclist they apparently got pissed off with 5 minutes earlier. Maybe something like this could make it easier for them.

Originally posted by Tarantula


...PS It's nice to see a Heinlein fan out there...

Off-topic a mo'...

I'm rediscovering RAH after not having read him since my teens. Currently in the middle of Tunnel in the Sky and wondering how I could have stayed away so long! :)

Back to our regerlerly-skedjulled programeeng...

-Rob

Why not also have a liscence to use the computer?

People use bicycles for different purposes. You may use it on the road so you feel that there is a need for a liscence, so do the pedestrians who use the roads need liscence too?

Some people do MTB, some kids ride them in their living room( if they are rich and has the space), some do it in the garden.

I don't think there is a need to, but for those who install engines in their bikes I think those should be considered motorbikes and a permit must be obtained.

However I do encourage that all cyclists wear helmets.

As you have been pulled over by the Bike Gestopo---"Papers Please!!"

Sig Heil!!!--Phoenyix

Pardon any spelling errors----as I'm not German---lol------or a Nazi for that matter.

The Bike Gestapo! I like that! :p

"No papers?! Keep your hands where we can see them and step away from the bike. Sergeant, dismantle that bicycle and report any hidden secret messages, ridiculously expensive components, or chocolate mint Clif bars to me immediately. And YOU--stick to rollerblading on the sidewalk." (Whacks offender on the back of the head with a frame pump.)

A driver's license is a privilege in this country. The government should have and does take the licenses away from people. Its called responsibility. Now if they could just figure out a way to get those over 75 off the street it would be even better Scarry!

Well, it looks like alot of you are taking it , more serious than I planned. It doesn't have to be administered by a license bureau, a bike club or a school, or even a responsible Adult. Could even take the form as a sticker to be added to some other form of ID. Unlike a Motorized vehicle drivers license would not be able to be taken away. More like proof that they went through some form of bike safety. The bike clubs and the schools around here all ready do that. The School even gives the kids a brand new helmet.
:beer:

No, thank you .. and again I thank you. I do not wish to have a Bicycle Operator License or for that matter any other license that proves that my rights are now privileges and may be revoked by Big Brother.

How many ID cards does one citizen need ?

I have a "driver license" - a thinly disguised gestapo ID card. I am required by law to produce it on demand - or else .
I am required by law to give a street address (not PO Box address) and report change of address within X days ... or else.

I am required by law to show my Texas CHL if stopped by the polizei. When I applied for Texas Concealed Handgun License they took my fingerprints and I had a proctological exam in depth by both Texas DPS and FBI. (In Texas one does not give the serial number of the pistol(s) one intends to carry concealed.)

PS there is an excellent, hilariously funny, and soberly frightening, old video "Brazil" that depicts a socialist workers paradise carried to its logical extreme. Do see it and reflect

Yesterday I cycled throght this main junction and rode by this motorcyclist who was being pulled over by the police as motorcycles were not allowed on that section.

Well, if motorcycles are not allowed, I am sure that bicycles are not allowed too. Then I was wondering if I had a bicycle liscence I would have been pulled over too. So I better disagree on this issue:)

I vote no. I mean, for all ages? Even kids?? Ridiculous.
So what are they going to do, revoke my license and take my bike away if I run a stop sign? Forget it. What they should do is provide a bicycle law pamphlet with every new bike purchase. They should also, as others have stated, include bike safety in the schools, and the earlier the better.

Originally posted by Bigtime
Forget it. What they should do is provide a bicycle law pamphlet with every new bike purchase. They should also, as others have stated, include bike safety in the schools, and the earlier the better.

As far as I know, they do include "bicycle safety" in most schools around here. The trouble is that what they teach is basically crap. There is no thought whatsoever given to education about road rules and so on. It's just "wear your helmet" or "get out of the way of real traffic at all costs".

I mean, with this sort of garbage being taught, is it any wonder that:

1. Many cyclists have no idea of the road rules

2. Many motorists have some misguided belief that bikes are not supposed to use the road.

It really amazes me that this effort is so pathetic, when one considers the number of government officials who like to talk up the 'benefits of cycling'.

I know I stopped at the Department of Transportation in Green Bay once, and asked for a copy of the bike laws....all they had for cyclists was some Bike Safety coloring book!

Originally posted by Inkwolf
I know I stopped at the Department of Transportation in Green Bay once, and asked for a copy of the bike laws....all they had for cyclists was some Bike Safety coloring book!

Please tell me that isn't true.

I vote yes!

But to a point. I think that you should have a license to ride in some areas, for example the street or on some trails. I think that any person should be able to ride a bike just not on the road in the bike lain. It shouldn't be forced after some age (just like the helment law here in FL) Just my input on this. . . .

Jared

Come on licenses are just another way to get money to do stuff we don't need having the government do.
Joe
:crash:

Originally posted by Chris L


Please tell me that isn't true.

Okay, they had the coloring book AND a pamphlet about wearing helmets.

(The police deptartment seems a better place to ask. I got my photocopied bike laws form the police station in Seymour.)

Originally posted by joeprim
Come on licenses are just another way to get money to do stuff we don't need having the government do.
Joe
:crash:

I could see some sort of certificate program from local police departments or schools for kids though. Perhaps in conjunction with marking the bike and/or recording serial numbers for anti-theft stuff.

Carl

Hell NO! The government doesn't need to take anymore of my money.

Originally posted by sprockets
Hell NO! The government doesn't need to take anymore of my money.

I think I'm setting myself up to get flamed here, but I'll ask this question anyway. Why is everybody so concerned that the evil government is going to steal all their money all of a sudden? Why do the same people then appeal for better roads to ride on and so on? Do they think the funding for this grows on trees or something?

Originally posted by Chris L


I think I'm setting myself up to get flamed here, but I'll ask this question anyway. Why is everybody so concerned that the evil government is going to steal all their money all of a sudden? Why do the same people then appeal for better roads to ride on and so on? Do they think the funding for this grows on trees or something?

It really depends on which government you are talking about. Here, they take your money but you don't get to see any improvement. Recently they are going to raise the public health insurance fees... oh well, it's not as if we get more tax rebates or that the doctors are gonna spend more time understanding what's wrong with their patients.

Well Chris,
Some of us believe that "the governement" does not need anymore money from its citizens through the varied means that they collect it. When it "the government" spends $300 on a hammer just to name one example. Getting more for something as absurd as a bicycle liscence is a little much to handle. And no t does not grow on trees. Money here (non coinage) is a blend of paper and a metal strip which contains electronic info, a hologram, and a certain blend and color of ink. Coins are mere sheet metal pressed into various shapes with art and given a specific denomination. If needed, then more can be made.

Originally posted by Chris L
Why is everybody so concerned that the evil government is going to steal all their money all of a sudden? Why do the same people then appeal for better roads to ride on and so on? Do they think the funding for this grows on trees or something?

Good point, Chris, but:

I already pay taxes, and driver's licensing, and vehicle registration on my car, part of which is slated for maintaining roads. It makes no logical sense for the govt to charge me extra for my using a mode of transportation which causes less road damage and less air pollution than the average.

If governments were to seriously promote bicycling--say have congested parts of big cities accessible by bike only, and provide parking areas around the edge of the city for commuters from further away--many of their major, expensive problems would be seriously reduced. There goes the need for traffic studies, pollution-reduction research, there goes part of the expense of major accidents and drunk driving, there goes a whole lot of urban problems down the drain. Who ever heard of a drive-by bike shooting? Or a kid being abducted by being dragged onto a stranger's bike? Suddenly those desperately poor inner-city people could afford a transportation mode the same as everyone else's. Giving the police mopeds that can go 50mph would end high-speed chases, and ensure that the cops could catch up with the bad guys. Think of the health benefits, too. Sounds to me like the solution to a whole lot of problems...

NO WAY, NO WAY, NO WAY, NO WAY, It would just be another fee to pay and another opportunity to impose another tax. It's one of the only free things we have left. Think about the mechanics of a licese thing, are you going to give a 5 year old a road test. Just what we need, more regulation.