Endorsements for cyclists

[tomcryar]

I've been thinking about this for awhile. I sometimes think that cyclists need to have an endorsement on their driver license, like in some states, you need a motorcycle endorsement. I think something like this would go a long way to showing the motorists that cyclists belong on the road. It would also prevent people who don't know how to ride from being on the road. I know--not really, because there are so many unlicensed drivers out there. But maybe if there was such a thing at least we would be third behind motorcycles as a legitimate form of transportation.............

[patc]

WHAT driver's license? Never had one, needed one, nor wanted one.

[markw]

We don't need no steenkin endorsments. Bicycles are human powered, just an extension of walking. Everyone has a right to travel under their own power.

[tomcryar]

But not on the road...........last time I checked, it was stated as a priviledge, not a right.

[markw]

Only to drive a car. Which is why you're not required to have a bicycle license to ride.

[mlts22]

I may be doing a slippery slope argument, but what I am concerned about is that various state and local governments would do, if a bicycle license if put into effect, is make the hurdles to get one quite high in order to force bikes off roads. A lot of city officials in the US would drool at the thought of using a bicycle driver's license as a leverage to make their towns 100% car only.

Plus, we don't want to add more hurdles to people wanting to travel by bike... we want more people bicycling, and forcing people to get an endorsement similar to motorcycles will just get more people not bothering with that, and just driving their cars.

[tomcryar]

But wouldn't it help "legitimize" cyclists and give us another voice, like motorcycles? Look at the big picture--cycling is already prevelent, as years go by, it's going to become even more so, so why not try now to (and I hate this word, too) "regulate" what has so far become a necessity? What I'm saying is, let us decide what's right and wrong, before the jerks in office are forced to. If we could have an advocate help design the law, then, wouldn't it be better than having politicos do it?

[wahoonc]

What do you do for the people that can't get a liscense for various reasons? Not let them ride a bike? FWIW in NC you are supposed to provide proof of automotive liability insurance before you can get a driver's liscense. There are some cases where you can get one if you have the proper afidavits. But given the fact that probably 25% of the drivers in NC are improperly/unliscensed and approximately 30% are uninsured and about 50% are underinsured I can't see how requiring a cycling endorsement is going to make any difference around here. If people won't obey the laws concerning motor vehicles they surely aren't going to obey cycling laws.

Aaron:)

[OH306]

Great! Just what I would want .. more government regulation. No Way!!!!!!!!

[late]

It's a good idea.

[cyclezealot]

Only if it guaranteed cyclist access to the road. I strive for as much equality for cyclists as permissible. Living here in France for awhile, for the time being; I sense we have such equality. And I am enjoying it.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I've been thinking about this for awhile. I sometimes think that cyclists need to have an endorsement on their driver license, like in some states, you need a motorcycle endorsement. I think something like this would go a long way to showing the motorists that cyclists belong on the road. It would also prevent people who don't know how to ride from being on the road. I know--not really, because there are so many unlicensed drivers out there. But maybe if there was such a thing at least we would be third behind motorcycles as a legitimate form of transportation.............
You might get better poll results if you didn't argue with every poster who does not provide the Correct (i.e. agree with your opinion) response.

[CommuterRun]

I went with "Other". I think a better idea than a bicycle endorsement or licensing would be to incorporate bicycle training into driver training. Wouldn't even have to have any practical application in it, just cover the written portion of the LAB Road 1 Course for testable material to be included in the written exam for a DL.

This would reach the broadest base of both cyclists and drivers.

[rajman]

I think that encouraging people to take a course is a good idea. It could even be put in the phys ed curriculum, which might pose some liability issues for school boards (but so does swimming:). Licencing cyclists strikes me as a bit foolish. In any case a good fraction of the cyclists in Calgary are homeless people picking up cans and bottles. You could try and fine them, but with no address, it would be difficult to collect :)

[Tom Stormcrowe]

I've been thinking about this for awhile. I sometimes think that cyclists need to have an endorsement on their driver license, like in some states, you need a motorcycle endorsement. I think something like this would go a long way to showing the motorists that cyclists belong on the road. It would also prevent people who don't know how to ride from being on the road. I know--not really, because there are so many unlicensed drivers out there. But maybe if there was such a thing at least we would be third behind motorcycles as a legitimate form of transportation.............
Instead of imposing hurdles to cyclists, raise the standard of motorist training and awareness. That could actually be done. http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/avatars/ivoted.gif

[kendall]

wrong way to get anything done is to ask the government to require endorsements, you'll have a whole new branch of 'overseers' spring up, then fees and taxes added to support them, and it's only a small step from requireing endorsements to requireing safety inspections/stickers and insurance etc.

safety on a bicycle is a personal thing, I don't expect or want anyone else to look out for my safety, I'm a big boy, I quit needing my butt wiped when I was potty trained.
I don't want laws stating that I need to have a license etc. Far too many unenforced, over enforced or useless regulations in the world as it is, why add more?

no thank you.

Ken.

[EnigManiac]

But not on the road...........last time I checked, it was stated as a priviledge, not a right.

Indeed, but the point is we already have the privelege.

As another member posted in a thread somewhere: we, as cyclists and pedestrians, possess an inherent right to all public spaces and a road is a public space. By virtue of the fact that motorists require a license in order to have the privelege of operating their motor vehicle in a public space, they are guests upon our spaces.

[CommuterRun]

But not on the road...........last time I checked, it was stated as a priviledge, not a right.
Road use is not a priviledge, it is covered under the Right to travel. Driving a motor vehicle is a priviledge regulated by the individual states.

The two are not inseparable.

[Wogsterca]

I think that encouraging people to take a course is a good idea. It could even be put in the phys ed curriculum, which might pose some liability issues for school boards (but so does swimming:). Licencing cyclists strikes me as a bit foolish. In any case a good fraction of the cyclists in Calgary are homeless people picking up cans and bottles. You could try and fine them, but with no address, it would be difficult to collect :)

It was in the PE cirriculum when I was in high-school, along with a few other non-traditional things, and this was in the 1970's in small town Ontario, Canada. As for liability it required a signed waiver from parents in order to participate, and required that participants have their own bicycle, those who didn't want to participate got Greco-Roman wrestling instead (not sure what girls did instead), hmmm an hour with your nose in some guys armpit, or a 15 mile bike ride, no brainer there:D

The issue is, what if you do not have a drivers licence? Probably a better idea, legally, is to require cyclists to show identification if stopped by a police officer. States and Provinces wanting to implement this, could offer an identity card for people who do not have government issued photo ID, could be based on the same mechanism as a driver licence, using the same plastic card even, just where it normally say drivers licence, it would say identity card, Nova Scotia, Canada already offers such a card.

[wahoonc]

~snip~

The issue is, what if you do not have a drivers licence? Probably a better idea, legally, is to require cyclists to show identification if stopped by a police officer. States and Provinces wanting to implement this, could offer an identity card for people who do not have government issued photo ID, could be based on the same mechanism as a driver licence, using the same plastic card even, just where it normally say drivers licence, it would say identity card, Nova Scotia, Canada already offers such a card.

North Carolina has the ID cards also. They look very similar to a liscense but say "NOT FOR DRIVING" in big bold letters across the top. I used to carry one of those when I was cycling to keep the local police from attempting to put points on my liscense for a real or imagined offenses. It worked until NC decided you were only allowed one state issued ID at a time.:rolleyes: In NC if you have a liscense they will assess or attemt to assess points against your liscense and insurance if you are ticketed on a bicycle. Given the total lack of knowledge of the motor vehicle laws in general by police, especially how they pertain to bicycles and their penchant for cracking down unreasonably on cyclists, I think this particular item needs to be changed or at least addressed. I have received tickets for; failure to follow a lawful order, improper equipment, obstruction of traffic, impeding traffic, speeding:D, and unsafe movement resulting in an accident. Each and everyone of them was thrown out of court when I went in with an attorney. It is one hell of a racket, I could have gotten the same tickets for driving a car and gotten off too with the right attorney and enough money. The only ticket I could honestly say was fair was the one for improper equipment, in that the tire I was riding on had threads showing and I should have been riding on it. But they were just looking for anything to right a citation on that day. And possibly the speeding but I was only 7 mph over for about 1/8 mile.


Aaron:)

[Artkansas]

But wouldn't it help "legitimize" cyclists and give us another voice, like motorcycles?

We ARE legitimate! Most motorists don't think motorcyclists are legitimate even with a license. I appreciate the good intentions, but leave us with a few liberties.

It would not "give us a voice". It would only put us more under government control. If we want a voice, then lets have open assembly, email our congressmen and write our local papers.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

I would refuse to comply.

How does Falkon get a few votes to register :eek: ?

[Carusoswi]

But not on the road...........last time I checked, it was stated as a priviledge, not a right.

You need to check again - maybe twice. Sounds to me as though you are merely parroting a phrase that you've heard or read that relates to operators of motor vehicles. Pedestrians have an inherent right to walk upon the earth, whether it be covered in asphalt or grass. That right extends to bicycles as well.

None of us has a right to unduly impede the flow of vehicular traffic, whether we are walking, cycling, or operating a car.

It amazes me how easily we allow freedoms that we have always enjoyed to suddenly be classified as privileges so that some agency may then further restrict us by endorsing or licensing that freedom.

I would be dead set against any such arrangement.

Caruso

[-=£em in Pa=-]

In a society that higher powers of authority have determined to
be strictly auto-centric for our livlihood and survival, driving becomes a right,
NOT a privilege. It is wrong for those who have made us this way to then make
it a hardship for a sizeable amount of people.
Enough with the government profiteering and meddling and more commonsense and
personal responsibility for people who commit offenses of any nature on other people.

[John E]

Instead of imposing hurdles to cyclists, raise the standard of motorist training and awareness. That could actually be done. Concur.

[Dogbait]

I would like less government interference in my life, not more.

[genec]

I went with "Other". I think a better idea than a bicycle endorsement or licensing would be to incorporate bicycle training into driver training. Wouldn't even have to have any practical application in it, just cover the written portion of the LAB Road 1 Course for testable material to be included in the written exam for a DL.

This would reach the broadest base of both cyclists and drivers.

I tend to agree. I think cyclist training should begin in elementary school with the very basics. Then more advanced training in middle school. Finally a full year of drivers ed in high school covering everything from ethics and responsibilities to simulator training to on the road training. A three prong approach to teaching road safety. This last bit followed by a strict test and provisional license.

More time is spent these days on "health" classes. Why shouldn't Americans (who drive more than any other nation) not have driving classes on par with the other education they receive. How many years of "english" do students now get?

[The Human Car]

There is a major problem in our society that few really know what safe cycling looks like. If I were to start requiring or encouraging certificates of knowledge of safe cycling practices I would first start with the police force, then the motoring public and then finally cyclists, all road users have to be on the same page, focusing just on cyclists says only cyclist need to know how to share the road and everyone else can keep doing what they have been doing, even around cyclist, which is wrong.

There are also so many misunderstandings out there on how to ride a bike safely, till we get some national attention and momentum of what really is safe we’ll end up with some misplaced safety promotions like this one: http://www.sharetheroad.us/psa4.html

[patc]

More time is spent these days on "health" classes. Why shouldn't Americans (who drive more than any other nation) not have driving classes on par with the other education they receive. How many years of "english" do students now get?

Literacy rates are falling. Most high school grads in North American can barely write a short paper or balance a checkbook, and have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. Why should we add to the burden of over-worked and under-paid teachers? Things are bad enough that many universities here in Ontario now offer remedial classes to teach what high schools missed!

If you want to teach basic skills in grade school, pedestrian rules and using public transit are enough. Anything else is a privilege people would have to do their own homework for.

[scottmorrison99]

I may be doing a slippery slope argument, but what I am concerned about is that various state and local governments would do, if a bicycle license if put into effect, is make the hurdles to get one quite high in order to force bikes off roads. A lot of city officials in the US would drool at the thought of using a bicycle driver's license as a leverage to make their towns 100% car only.

Plus, we don't want to add more hurdles to people wanting to travel by bike... we want more people bicycling, and forcing people to get an endorsement similar to motorcycles will just get more people not bothering with that, and just driving their cars.


I agree 100%. If riding a bike becomes more difficult, ridership will decrease. Bicycling could effectively be legislated out of existance through laws making it more difficult to ride. Government officials would never do that, would they?:rolleyes:

[genec]

Literacy rates are falling. Most high school grads in North American can barely write a short paper or balance a checkbook, and have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. Why should we add to the burden of over-worked and under-paid teachers? Things are bad enough that many universities here in Ontario now offer remedial classes to teach what high schools missed!

If you want to teach basic skills in grade school, pedestrian rules and using public transit are enough. Anything else is a privilege people would have to do their own homework for.

And yet it was not a problem to teach this in schools when I was growing up. Driver's ed was offered, as were flying classes (as an elective).

So what has changed... Shop and music classes were also offered as well as art. Now you are telling me that the 3 R's are in trouble. Apparently something "has been left behind... "

Is this due to teaching to a test, rather than teaching the basic skills that I aquired in the late 60's and early 70's? (BTW today I am a degreed engineer... so I don't believe I suffered at all in my early education.)

You mentioned Ontario... so I don't know what the situation is up there in The Great North... but here, the government seems currently determined to build up middle eastern countries rather than focus resources on issues at home.

[genec]

There is a major problem in our society that few really know what safe cycling looks like. If I were to start requiring or encouraging certificates of knowledge of safe cycling practices I would first start with the police force, then the motoring public and then finally cyclists, all road users have to be on the same page, focusing just on cyclists says only cyclist need to know how to share the road and everyone else can keep doing what they have been doing, even around cyclist, which is wrong.

There are also so many misunderstandings out there on how to ride a bike safely, till we get some national attention and momentum of what really is safe we’ll end up with some misplaced safety promotions like this one: http://www.sharetheroad.us/psa4.html


Actually my plan starts with cycling and ends up with driving... so it is given as a continuing education situation.

But I do tend to agree that far too many motorist and even enforcement officials seem unaware of the laws regarding street use for all.

[patc]

And yet it was not a problem to teach this in schools when I was growing up. Driver's ed was offered, as were flying classes (as an elective).

It was, and I think still is, offered in high schools here, but it is not part of high school. A driving school just sets up a course, outside of normal hours, which students can register for and pay for.

So what has changed... Shop and music classes were also offered as well as art. Now you are telling me that the 3 R's are in trouble. Apparently something "has been left behind... "

I became interested in this issue several years ago, when I was teaching (part-time) at a local college. I am sure that there many factors, some local and some societal. The biggest issue I saw, however, was a drop in standards. The published curriculum for high schools and the subject matter actually covered in classrooms was grossly out of step. I could not, for example, count on students having learned logs in math class, even though that level of math was required for the program I was teaching in (photography). Add to that extremely poor work getting a passing grade, and you got HS diplomas work little more than, say, a bible-gum wrapper. You have no idea how many college students I saw with high scores in high school flunk out during the first term of college (the overall drop-out/failure rate for the first term was about 30%).

There was also very much a mindset that education was divided by subject, and each subject into distinct blocks. Most of my college students had never written a final exam covering the entire course subject matter! Never mind the concept that you needed to know things from multiple courses to succeed. Students at the "this isn't English class, why should my writing matter?" level have a hard time dealing with a single assignment spanning three courses!

[genec]

It was, and I think still is, offered in high schools here, but it is not part of high school. A driving school just sets up a course, outside of normal hours, which students can register for and pay for.



When I went to high school (not in Canada, obviously) Driver's ed was an elective... that had some special requirements. Much like the pilot's class I mentioned (which was actually a two year program... first year ground school, second year actual flight time).

For the driver's ed, it was a regularly scheduled class with classroom time and simulator time. It required a lab fee that was extra (as did chemistry classes and shop classes).

It was very much like any other class.



I became interested in this issue several years ago, when I was teaching (part-time) at a local college. I am sure that there many factors, some local and some societal. The biggest issue I saw, however, was a drop in standards. The published curriculum for high schools and the subject matter actually covered in classrooms was grossly out of step. I could not, for example, count on students having learned logs in math class, even though that level of math was required for the program I was teaching in (photography). Add to that extremely poor work getting a passing grade, and you got HS diplomas work little more than, say, a bible-gum wrapper. You have no idea how many college students I saw with high scores in high school flunk out during the first term of college (the overall drop-out/failure rate for the first term was about 30%).

There was also very much a mindset that education was divided by subject, and each subject into distinct blocks. Most of my college students had never written a final exam covering the entire course subject matter! Never mind the concept that you needed to know things from multiple courses to succeed. Students at the "this isn't English class, why should my writing matter?" level have a hard time dealing with a single assignment spanning three courses!

I have not looked into this... but I would not be surprised if it was due to lowering of standards here. But I do not know this for sure.

What I do know is that a lot of tax money is spent on things that do not directly benefit us as a nation... Foreign aid for instance. Yet one of our greatest resources are our children, and they are being neglected by the lack of a good quality education.

[CTAC]

No. There are already too many people in the US who knows how others should live.

[LittleBigMan]

I see the point about making bicycles "legitimate," but I don't think licensing is the way to go. We are already given certain privileges under the law, so what's needed is for everyone to be made fully aware of that. A license is provided for drivers of motor vehicles because of the potential risk involved in operating such a vehicle. As far as I know, a license was never needed to ride a horse, drive a carriage, ride a bike or walk anywhere.*

I think the problem is that our roads, which have historically provided people with the ability to travel freely, have been taken over almost completely by motor vehicles, so much so that almost no other form of travel on them is seen as acceptable. I understand the benefits of motor travel, but it's not right to expect that everyone must therefore use only motor travel (which is pretty much what's expected now.)

*EDIT: Whoops! I was wrong...

www.ci.northville.mi.us/referencedesk/Forms/HorseDrawnCarriageApp.pdf

[genec]

*EDIT: Whoops! I was wrong...

www.ci.northville.mi.us/referencedesk/Forms/HorseDrawnCarriageApp.pdf

That looks like an application to run a business as a horse drawn carriage... not just to drive one.

Pedicabs here are regulated too... it takes a business license.

[billh]

There is a major problem in our society that few really know what safe cycling looks like. If I were to start requiring or encouraging certificates of knowledge of safe cycling practices I would first start with the police force, then the motoring public and then finally cyclists, all road users have to be on the same page, focusing just on cyclists says only cyclist need to know how to share the road and everyone else can keep doing what they have been doing, even around cyclist, which is wrong.

There are also so many misunderstandings out there on how to ride a bike safely, till we get some national attention and momentum of what really is safe we’ll end up with some misplaced safety promotions like this one: http://www.sharetheroad.us/psa4.html

I agree but extend the statement to include even LAB-certified bicycle educators! In a Road I class, the LCI critiqued John Forrester's position on the road in a video! I think the confusion about safe cycling practices is inherent in riding a bicycle in the lane. The situation on the road, other drivers, debris, lane width, weather, all change and require much greater judgment and skill. Therefore, a minimum level of judgment and skill should be demonstrated before allowing people to ride bicycles on the road.

If cycling becomes really prevalent, motorists will be clamoring for legislation to regulate bicycle traffic, including license and registration, especially if the level of chaotic riding persists. Most of the cycling behavior I see around here is an embarrassment.

[R-Wells]

I know this is a touchy subject.
And most of the opposers have valid points.

But I really think there is a good idea in here somewhere.
I really don’t know how it could be implemented by I think it could.
Why are so many cyclist opposed to accepting some responsibility.
Why are so many cyclist opposed to having tax money used on cycling related issues?

How is it a hard ship for a cyclist take a written exam to ensure that they no the laws?

[The Human Car]

How is it a hard ship for a cyclist take a written exam to ensure that they no the laws?

First off you have to realize that there is a circular cause and effect that underlies all behavior. As way of a simplified example assuming this assertion is valid; that cars do not stop for pedestrians in crosswalks it would be a valid reaction to cross mid-block as the safest place to cross. If the vast majority of pedestrians yield to cars when crossing (mid-block) it is a valid response to assume that all pedestrians yield to cars so stopping for them in crosswalks is no longer on the radar. Behavior from one type of road user causes or has a strong influence on the behavior of another type of road user. And there is a circular reinforcement of this.

To just crack down on J-walking without enforcing yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks is not promoting safety. I strongly believe that wrong way cycling is the result of cars harassing cyclists by honking or shouting at them so a non safe behavior is chosen to avoid that conflict. You can’t crack down on just the cyclist without dealing with the cause of why the behavior exists in the first place.

Every driver’s manual out there teaches people how to make a turn with a tractor trailer even though they will never drive a tractor trailer. This is done so everyone knows what to expect from their fellow road user and to avoid unsafe behavior. That same principle needs to be applied to cycling as well. Everyone needs to know the basics on how to ride a bike safely just as we need to know how a tractor trailer turns.

For me the complaint would not be that cyclist would have to take an exam but that police and motorists are exempt from learning the basic of basic safe cycling behavior.

[tomcryar]

It wouldn't be a hardship--answer a few questions, then demonstrate basic ability. Where's the hardship?

[R-Wells]

First off you have to realize that there is a circular cause and effect that underlies all behavior. As way of a simplified example assuming this assertion is valid; that cars do not stop for pedestrians in crosswalks it would be a valid reaction to cross mid-block as the safest place to cross. If the vast majority of pedestrians yield to cars when crossing (mid-block) it is a valid response to assume that all pedestrians yield to cars so stopping for them in crosswalks is no longer on the radar. Behavior from one type of road user causes or has a strong influence on the behavior of another type of road user. And there is a circular reinforcement of this.

To just crack down on J-walking without enforcing yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks is not promoting safety. I strongly believe that wrong way cycling is the result of cars harassing cyclists by honking or shouting at them so a non safe behavior is chosen to avoid that conflict. You can’t crack down on just the cyclist without dealing with the cause of why the behavior exists in the first place.

Every driver’s manual out there teaches people how to make a turn with a tractor trailer even though they will never drive a tractor trailer. This is done so everyone knows what to expect from their fellow road user and to avoid unsafe behavior. That same principle needs to be applied to cycling as well. Everyone needs to know the basics on how to ride a bike safely just as we need to know how a tractor trailer turns.

For me the complaint would not be that cyclist would have to take an exam but that police and motorists are exempt from learning the basic of basic safe cycling behavior.

I agree with every thing you have said.

But we are still left with many young children on the roads who don’t know the laws and rules of the road.
We are still left with many adult cyclists who don’t know the laws and rules of the road, and swear up and down that they should not be required to know the laws governing our society.
And were are still left with many motorists who dont know the laws.

So what do we do?

I truly believe there is away to increase awareness by adding more bicycle related questions to the required drivers written exam. If 25-50% of the questions on a motor vehicle driver’s license exam related to cyclists, the examinee would know more about cyclists right to be on the road.

I also believe that allot of cyclist are unaware of their local laws, and that A required written exam would benefit them greatly.

Both of these ideas would pose some inconvenience on motorist and cyclist.
But are our lives not worth a little inconvenience?

[DataJunkie]

I would like less government interference in my life, not more.

+10000000
What dogbait wrote.

[R-Wells]

+10000000
What dogbait wrote.

Do you want more government interference in other peoples lives.
Or is it just you that you are concerened about?

Is safety and education really government interference.
Or do you feel that our government should not be concerened with safety and education?

[R-Wells]

We don't need no steenkin endorsments. Bicycles are human powered, just an extension of walking. Everyone has a right to travel under their own power.

I have seen lots a people who need their walking license revoked:D

[The Human Car]

But we are still left with many young children on the roads who don’t know the laws and rules of the road.


It is truly sad that most children are receiving safe cycling instructions from public schools and the effectiveness of that education is next to useless. Personally I believe why that is happening is because a lot of that training is without the kids practicing what they learned on bikes and/or because their ignorant motor vehicle driving parents undermine what was taught in school.

So what do we do?


MassBike has made a lot of progress

Police training:
http://www.massbike.org/police/TrainingCommitteeRelease.htm

Driver education:
http://www.massbike.org/projects/override.htm

Cyclist education:
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/
(Published by MassBike member John S. Allen )

And there is more:
http://www.massbike.org/about/

[wheel]

Wow,
Let's ask the poster what is the purpose for? If the people who want to be safe already are, and the stupid people well being stupid. I choose other some pepole don't drive because they are stupid.

I can read all the laws I want to, in order to protect myself right online (who wouldn't).
I can google a million ways to ride safely, some even with the diagrams showing what the laws say. (agian who wouldn't). I can mouse over to fourms which provide a 3rd layer safety. I can get free online acess from the library.

The problem is not legal bicyclists; the problem is motor-vehicles and motorists mixing with legal cyclist.
I only have problems when motors are around. Seems to me make the motorists more responsible first. Then worry about the few ednorsed cyclists and a whole lotta cyclists.

[Daily Commute]

Bad cyclists are mainly a menace to themselves. Bad motorists are menaces to everyone. Government shouldn't protect us from ourselves, but it should try to protect us from idiots guiding a ton of steel down the road.

Also, I rode to school on the streets when I was eight. Would you require drivers licenses from eight-year-olds?

[EnigManiac]

But not on the road...........last time I checked, it was stated as a priviledge, not a right.

Roads are public spaces and everyone is entitled to public spaces. By virtue of requiring a license to operate a motor vehicle on a public space, motorists are guests upon the public space.

[R-Wells]

Wow,
Let's ask the poster what is the purpose for? If the people who want to be safe already are, and the stupid people well being stupid. I choose other some pepole don't drive because they are stupid.

I can read all the laws I want to, in order to protect myself right online (who wouldn't).
I can google a million ways to ride safely, some even with the diagrams showing what the laws say. (agian who wouldn't). I can mouse over to fourms which provide a 3rd layer safety. I can get free online acess from the library.

The problem is not legal bicyclists; the problem is motor-vehicles and motorists mixing with legal cyclist.
I only have problems when motors are around. Seems to me make the motorists more responsible first. Then worry about the few ednorsed cyclists and a whole lotta cyclists.

The question is not "can you learn the laws"

The question is "Should it be mandatory for you to know the laws"

I dont seem to have problems with motorists.
But it sure seems a lot of cyclists dont know the laws.