Google sponsored links
While my relatives were visiting for Thanksgiving, my uncle told me that a law is being/has been passed in Chicago that all cyclists must have a valid drivers license. I find this absolutely unbelievable to the point where I told him he must have misunderstood the law. I mean, what about all the DUIcycles, homeless people, messengers, etc? Are we trying to completely immobilize poor people and penalize cyclists? Do you guys need proof of insurance and a valid IL registration on your bike at all times too? Sorry if this was brought up before, but it came as news to me.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
While my relatives were visiting for Thanksgiving, my uncle told me that a law is being/has been passed in Chicago that all cyclists must have a valid drivers license. I find this absolutely unbelievable to the point where I told him he must have misunderstood the law. I mean, what about all the DUIcycles, homeless people, messengers, etc? Are we trying to completely immobilize poor people and penalize cyclists? Do you guys need proof of insurance and a valid IL registration on your bike at all times too? Sorry if this was brought up before, but it came as news to me.
I have not heard of this law, but that certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. When you register your bike with the City, though, I don't believe that it requires a driver's license number. It doesn't seem possible - what about all the kids with bikes? Can they not be registered just because they're too young to drive? Doesn't make sense.
So whaddya gonna do, have to take your 5yr old to get a learner's permit?
No deal. Your 5 year old can not bike until the age of 16 at which time he or she can apply for a permit.
Sorry. Kid's got to reach the age of consent, there's no biking under 18 because kids can't get sued!
I smell urban myth.
Google news has NOTHING on this.
While my relatives were visiting for Thanksgiving, my uncle told me that a law is being/has been passed in Chicago that all cyclists must have a valid drivers license. I find this absolutely unbelievable to the point where I told him he must have misunderstood the law. I mean, what about all the DUIcycles, homeless people, messengers, etc? Are we trying to completely immobilize poor people and penalize cyclists? Do you guys need proof of insurance and a valid IL registration on your bike at all times too? Sorry if this was brought up before, but it came as news to me.
I heard from a witch doctor that a DL is only required if the cyclist has too many blinkies.
Maybe it's the same in every state, and I've just never known about it, but when we moved to North Carolina, there was a guy in front of me in line at the DMV, and he wanted to get a motorcycle license. He was moving from another state where he already had a motorcycle license, so he was going to apply for one by endorsement. He was informed that he has to have a car driver's license before he can get a motorcycle driver's license. He told them he doesn't own a car, nor does he drive one or have an automobile license, so he was told that he would have to take the written test (NC requires all drivers do this, even if you already have a DL from another state.) and do the driving skills test to get his automobile license, so he could take the written test for the motorcycle license! He wasn't happy. Anyway, I wonder if this is what it's coming to in Chicago?
Maybe it's the same in every state, and I've just never known about it, but when we moved to North Carolina, there was a guy in front of me in line at the DMV, and he wanted to get a motorcycle license. He was moving from another state where he already had a motorcycle license, so he was going to apply for one by endorsement. He was informed that he has to have a car driver's license before he can get a motorcycle driver's license. He told them he doesn't own a car, nor does he drive one or have an automobile license, so he was told that he would have to take the written test (NC requires all drivers do this, even if you already have a DL from another state.) and do the driving skills test to get his automobile license, so he could take the written test for the motorcycle license! He wasn't happy. Anyway, I wonder if this is what it's coming to in Chicago?
Ohio is the same, you have to get a motorcycle endorsment on your regular drivers license, but I can't for the life of me imagine any state doing this for bicycles - even politicians can't be that stupid.
I heard from a witch doctor that a DL is only required if the cyclist has too many blinkies.
Witch doctor was that? :p
Could it be that under the law a person has to have some sort of state issued photo ID on them, even while riding bike? Motor vehicle or not?
My Uncle upon arriving home claimed it was in the newspaper as having passed. I'm not making this up, and I don't know why he would. It sounds bizarre to me, but I have no reason not to believe him?
My Uncle upon arriving home claimed it was in the newspaper as having passed. I'm not making this up, and I don't know why he would. It sounds bizarre to me, but I have no reason not to believe him?
Most likely the newspaper was just making it up. Wouldn't be the first time.
Could it be that under the law a person has to have some sort of state issued photo ID on them, even while riding bike? Motor vehicle or not?
In Denver, you need one to ride the bus:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3253063
Welcome to Amerika the 'Free.' I'm pretty sure it applies to just walking, as well...
Link from http://cycledog.blogspot.com/
even politicians can't be that stupid.
...you can't be serious! :) Oh yea of little faith... politicians can and have indeed been that stupiid :)
My Uncle upon arriving home claimed it was in the newspaper as having passed. I'm not making this up, and I don't know why he would. It sounds bizarre to me, but I have no reason not to believe him?
Which newspaper did the article come from?
Many towns have requirements that bicycles display local licenses/registrations. The rules are never enforced until some cyclist annoys a cop.
Many towns have requirements that bicycles display local licenses/registrations. The rules are never enforced until some cyclist annoys a cop.
Bicycle license plates are NOT driver/operator licenses; Unless you think you read/heard "somewhere" that someone might think they are the same.
My Uncle upon arriving home claimed it was in the newspaper as having passed. I'm not making this up, and I don't know why he would. It sounds bizarre to me, but I have no reason not to believe him?
I do not doubt you are repeating what your uncle said to you.
I just do not place as much credence in uncle's reading ability and/or the BS detection ability of those who repeat or get worked up over tabloids headlines heard or read, "somewhere".
Both Chicago and Illinois bike laws can be found here:
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalEntityHomeAction.do?entityName=Chicago+Bike+Program&entityNameEnumValue=127
I see nothing that mentions anything about a drivers license, or even registration for that matter. A Google search finds nothing as well.
Your uncle is confused, though many places in the States require you walk/ride about with some verifiable form of identification i.e. state-issued.
Those laws usually apply to everyone wherever they are outside of their home, even poor people. Messengers in the States almost all carry ID, often multiple forms(DL & company ID or local messenger license), in order to access any local, state or federal courthouses or other secured facility they need to complete a task for a client. God Itself doesn't get past the Federal Marshalls at a courthouse without valid state-issued ID since OKcity
Both Chicago and Illinois bike laws can be found here:
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalEntityHomeAction.do?entityName=Chicago+Bike+Program&entityNameEnumValue=127
I see nothing that mentions anything about a drivers license, or even registration for that matter. A Google search finds nothing as well.
If it just passed, it might not be listed until it takes affect.
If it just passed, it might not be listed until it takes affect.
If UFO's just landed in Chicago, it might not be posted yet. I've seen headlines about UFOs before. Yea, moonmen; maybe it's true, could be, prove it's not! Yes that's the ticket!
If there was a proposal to require some sort of "license" to ride a bike in Chicago (or anywhere else) there would have been a great uproar about it long before it would have been passed.
Some minor details that nobody seems to know:
Who is required to have sucha a license?
Are non-residents required to have one?
What are the requirments to get one?
How much does it cost?
How long does it last?
What is the penalty for not having one?
If you have a license to drive a motor vehicle, do you also need a cycling license?
Where do you get one?
Is there a 'road test' required? A written test?
Do people who only ride on trails need one?
Does the City of Chicago have the authority to establish a license requirement for operating any vehicles on the public roadways? This may be a state responsibility.
All of these issues would have needed to be discussed and debated long before any ordinance requiring a license to ride a bike could be implemented. The fact that there has been zero discussion here from the Chicago cycling organizations is a pretty good indication that there has been no such ordinance passed.
If it just passed, it might not be listed until it takes affect.
Nothing in the Chicago Tribune either - you'd think they would have had the story within 24 hours of passage.
If there was a proposal to require some sort of "license" to ride a bike in Chicago (or anywhere else) there would have been a great uproar about it long before it would have been passed.
* * *
My point above was trying to give a plausible explanation for the rumor. Check your city code's bicycle section. There's a good chance it requires registration and/or the display of a registration. There's an even better chance the requirement is not enforced except for cyclists who annoy cops.
My point above was trying to give a plausible explanation for the rumor. Check your city code's bicycle section. There's a good chance it requires registration and/or the display of a registration. There's an even better chance the requirement is not enforced except for cyclists who annoy cops.
I believe that most cities have abandoned registration requirements as having too little benefit to justify the cost of implementation.
Let me take a big risk here by saying that if we really want to be able to "take the lane" and make left hand turns, and only use the bike lane when it suits us, then why shouldn't we be required to have licenses?
In other words, no license means that you stay in the bike lane, and use the crosswalk at intersections (after dismounting, of course).
I hate to say this, but much of what keeps me safe on my bike are things I learned way back in driver's education.
Yeah, I heard of it out here in LA where we read newspapers. But it refers to those small bicycles with motors--those midget things. It doesn't refer to bicycles with no motors.
Yeah, I heard of it out here in LA where we read newspapers. But it refers to those small bicycles with motors--those midget things. It doesn't refer to bicycles with no motors.
B-b-b-but, that makes this a "stupid" law and calls for wailing and gnashing of teeth because some law enforcement official, insurance agent, or other big meanie MIGHT misinterpret this law to mean bicycles. After all somebody, somewhere did read it that way.
I believe that most cities have abandoned registration requirements as having too little benefit to justify the cost of implementation.
To legally ride across Columbus and its suburbs, you technically have to display multiple registrations. I wouldn't object as much if the localities permitted registration in the cyclist's home city as a substitute for registration in every town the cyclist rides through.
But I'm glad the lawmakers in your area have gotten rid of the registration requirements. If cities don't want to enforce a law, they shouldn't keep it on the books.
To legally ride across Columbus and its suburbs, you technically have to display multiple registrations. I wouldn't object as much if the localities permitted registration in the cyclist's home city as a substitute for registration in every town the cyclist rides through.
But I'm glad the lawmakers in your area have gotten rid of the registration requirements. If cities don't want to enforce a law, they shouldn't keep it on the books.
A common provision in registration ordinances was to exempt a bike from registration in one city if it was properly registered in the owners home city. Perhaps such a provision exists in the various jurisdictions of the Columbus area?
To legally ride across Columbus and its suburbs, you technically have to display multiple registrations. I wouldn't object as much if the localities permitted registration in the cyclist's home city as a substitute for registration in every town the cyclist rides through.
But I'm glad the lawmakers in your area have gotten rid of the registration requirements. If cities don't want to enforce a law, they shouldn't keep it on the books.
F them, I ain't registering a bicycle for nobody. Everytime I come back home to Ohio I swear the place has gotten stupider. Fricken commie state. I can't wait to get back out to the great southwest, where men are men and sheep are scared!
Let me take a big risk here by saying that if we really want to be able to "take the lane" and make left hand turns, and only use the bike lane when it suits us, then why shouldn't we be required to have licenses?
In other words, no license means that you stay in the bike lane, and use the crosswalk at intersections (after dismounting, of course).
Because prohibiting cyclists from leaving bike lanes or from making vehicular left turns will likely reduce safety for cyclists and pedestrians while needlessly reducing the efficiency of cycling as well. The only legitimate reason to require a license is if the safety advantages of a license program outweigh the many disadvantages.
Let me take a big risk here by saying that if we really want to be able to "take the lane" and make left hand turns, and only use the bike lane when it suits us, then why shouldn't we be required to have licenses?
In other words, no license means that you stay in the bike lane, and use the crosswalk at intersections (after dismounting, of course).
I hate to say this, but much of what keeps me safe on my bike are things I learned way back in driver's education.
Please note that Mr Jolsen hails from Davis, CA, the First Platinum-level Bicycle Friendly Community Recognized (http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/October2005awards.htm).
I believe the mentality implied by Mr Jolsen's comments, that cyclists shouldn't be able to "take the lane", make left hand turns, and "only use the bike lane when it suits" without first fulfilling a license requirement, is probably typical of most people living in a "Platinum-level Bicycle Friendly Community".
Is this what we want to be advocating for in all U.S. cities?
You have been warned.
For more info and discussion on this issue, please see the VC advocacy thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=156352) I just started.
... Everytime I come back home to Ohio I swear the place has gotten stupider. Fricken commie state...
Kwitcher whinin' -- things could be much worse. You have to have a license just to be a dog in many localities. When you consider that the skills to be a human or a dog are very similar (dog: kisses butt to keep clean; human: kisses butt to keep job), it's amazing that more humans aren't forced to be licensed ;)
Kwitcher whinin' -- things could be much worse. You have to have a license just to be a dog in many localities. When you consider that the skills to be a human or a dog are very similar (dog: kisses butt to keep clean; human: kisses butt to keep job), it's amazing that more humans aren't forced to be licensed ;)
In our good ole USA we already are - SSN required at birth! Frickin commies I tell ya! ;)
http://www.ci.la-verne.ca.us/municode/_DATA/TITLE10/Chapter_10_56_BICYCLES/10_56_020_License__Required_.html
10.56.020 License--Required.
It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or use a bicycle upon any street, alley or public highway within the city without first obtaining a bicycle license therefor. This section shall not apply to a nonresident bicyclist who is passing through the city. (Prior code § 4800)
Perhaps a license should be required to use bike specific facilties to ensure the users are made aware by the providers of the unique safety issues they may create. ;)
Al
F them, I ain't registering a bicycle for nobody. Everytime I come back home to Ohio I swear the place has gotten stupider. Fricken commie state. I can't wait to get back out to the great southwest, where men are men and sheep are scared!
What you said.
I have inlaws that live in Ohio so I can't say it but damn you say it good.
Please note that Mr Jolsen hails from Davis, CA, the First Platinum-level Bicycle Friendly Community Recognized (http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/October2005awards.htm).
I believe the mentality implied by Mr Jolsen's comments, that cyclists shouldn't be able to "take the lane", make left hand turns, and "only use the bike lane when it suits" without first fulfilling a license requirement, is probably typical of most people living in a "Platinum-level Bicycle Friendly Community".
Is this what we want to be advocating for in all U.S. cities?
You have been warned.
.
But there are two sides to the coin. You see, I believe that any cyclist with a drivers license (that thing you got in high school that lets you drive a car) has an absolute right to use the roads and to be able to use the bike lane only at his or her discretion.
After all, a drivers license is not so much a license to drive a car, but rather a license to use the roads. Anyone who grew up on a farm knows that one does not need a drivers license to drive on private property. Likewise, to drive a motorized scooter on a public street requires a license. And a scooter is hardly more intrusive or dangerous to motorists or pedistrians than a bicycle.
When you go VC, you are using the roads. And it's not unreasonable for the State to consider that use of the roads by a bike consititutes "driving" and warrants a license.
Something such as this would have drawn the attention of the League of American Bicyclists, and there is no mention of it on the League's website. Is it possible that Chicago has passed a mandatory registration law, and that it's being misunderstood?
This sounds like misinformation, in the same general category as "You're supposed to ride six inches from the curb!!" This is to say, it's what a lot of people want to hear, so it "sticks".
Fact: In Massachusetts, cities and towns can require bicycles to be registered with the local PD. They may charge up to $2.50 for this registration. Fact Check: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/85-11a.htm.
Very few cities and towns in the state do anything with this, however. Boston used it to require messengers to register their bikes. Most working messengers I've seen in the area of Post office square, Milk street, and Battery March have the plate wired into their spokes. This seems to pass muster with the Boston PD. (But they will issue a citation for no brakes, and a few other things) I have been told that the ultra-rich island communities of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard require it, but enforcement is virtually nonexistent.
Note that this is a state law, but handled at the local level.
As I've mentioned before, the state legislature toyed with the idea of requiring bicyclists to be licensed, during the bike boom of the early to mid 70's. It never went anywhere, and those various representatives and senators are long gone. But, I'm sure that if there were another bike boom, they'd dust it off once again. No potential source of revenue escapes the eyes of the Massachusetts state legislature.
[...] a drivers license is not so much a license to drive a car, but rather a license to use the roads.
Q. Why is the following statement (http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm) true?
"In all states, motor vehicle operators, but not cyclists, must meet additional requirements such as driver licensing, vehicle registration, and liability insurance."
A. From a state Supreme Court decision (http://www.wisbar.org/res/sup/1996/93-2842.html):
The right to travel has long been recognized by the courts as inherent in our constitutional concepts of personal liberty...
Because that right is fundamental, the [U.S. Supreme] Court reasoned, "any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional."
U.S. courts have consistently held that the extraordinary danger to others and their property posed by heavy equipment operation (including driving heavy motor vehicles) in a public area (such as a road) is such a compelling government interest. In contrast, human powered travel (whether on foot or wheel) has not been held to create a level of danger to others that would allow the state (i.e., government) to infringe upon a person's right to travel on that basis.
"Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society ...
once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer."
-- Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.