Advocacy & Safety - Should ALL cyclists be on the road?

I'm not trying to kick a dead horse in this forum, just want some opinions on a thought that occured to me. The more I ride, the safer I feel on the road. Granted there are certain roads I try to avoid (for the sake of not inconveniencing a whole traffic system, and to avoid danger).

However, I'm wondering if EVERYONE should be allowed on the road? Obviously drivers need a state issued license to operate a vehicle on the roads, but should the same be necessary for cyclists? I'm comfortable with the idea of a licensed driver (or at least a legally-aged cyclist) on the road, but I must admit I don't like the idea of a minor operating any type of transportation on the road. I've seen kids who looked as young as their early pre-teens trying to ride their bmx bikes in the middle of a busy highway. So my question is if the roads should be open to all, or only a certain age group?

Only adults who have proven themselves through a license test should be riding registered bikes on public roads.

Drivers should need to first qualify for a bicycle license and only be allowed to drive a car after a period of time. Drivers would then have an understanding of what being a cyclist on public roads means. It's the same progression to driving large trucks, first you have to have a car license for a certain period (you do here, anyway) before you can obtain a truck license.

I also think that bicycles that are ridden by adults on public streets should be registered and display an identification plate just like every single other legal road vehichle needs to.

Of course all bicycles and riders should be allowed to use the road, if they wish.

How would you ban a certain segment and still have equal protection under the law? You can't. It's a
preposterous idea.

Registration of cyclists has been looked into many times and been shown to be unviable from an economic perspective. In the end, registration is just another tax, and economics is what decides whether taxes are implemented in the real world. I've also seen enough incompetent, licenced drivers that I'm starting to think of licensing as something similar.

Registration of cyclists has been looked into many times and been shown to be unviable from an economic perspective. In the end, registration is just another tax, and economics is what decides whether taxes are implemented in the real world. I've also seen enough incompetent, licenced drivers that I'm starting to think of licensing as something similar.


I agree.

Licensing doesn't really guarantee that someone knows how to drive, or will drive appropriately.

Just look at all of the incompetent drivers out there every single day :eek:

We can't even get the police and various levels of government to enforce existing traffic regulations with cars much less bicycles. It would merely be another tax grab that would be unenforceable.

IMHO moderating traffic is and should be pretty far down the enforcement totem pole. Around here young kids tend to stick to sidewalks in the city. I agree there are definately some I would agree shouldn't be on the road. That said some might say that about me..:lol:

I would say that it should be up to the individual and/or their legal guardian. If a person acts consistently irresponsible on the road, perhaps they could be banned by a judge.

As for licensing, I feel it would be a serious civil rights violation to regulate who can use public roads and who can't. I can appreciate the need for licensing drivers of motor vehicles because motor vehicles are particularly powerful and dangerous machines but that doesn't extend to bicycles. It's like, we might require someone to be licensed to operate a backhoe, but that doesn't mean they should need a license to use a regular shovel.

I would say that it should be up to the individual and/or their legal guardian. If a person acts consistently irresponsible on the road, perhaps they could be banned by a judge.

As for licensing, I feel it would be a serious civil rights violation to regulate who can use public roads and who can't. I can appreciate the need for licensing drivers of motor vehicles because motor vehicles are particularly powerful and dangerous machines but that doesn't extend to bicycles. It's like, we might require someone to be licensed to operate a backhoe, but that doesn't mean they should need a license to use a regular shovel.

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one!

I beleive anyone using a regular shovel on a public road needs to be licensed, there are far to many instances of shovel users runing red lights:p

The only shovel users I see on the road are just standing there, looking at the ground.

The only shovel users I see on the road are just standing there, looking at the ground.

Yeh but you cant tell what they are thinking,I bet they are daydreaming about speeding down the road, and running red lights with their shovel:o

I expect that "unlicensed" bicyclists would continue to ride on sidewalks, where they are more dangerous to innocent people than on the roadway (according to the stats available). Many police and members of the public falsely believe that licenses and registration are allowed for roadway use but not for travel outside the travel lanes. This is why I see many golf car drivers operating on the sidewalks where I live, with the police looking the other way, as long as they don't try to use the travel lanes. Also, the motoring public will pressure the police to ticket unlicensed cyclists on the roadway, in order to get them off of the roadway for motorists' convenience, but will ignore them on the sidewalks.

I'm not trying to kick a dead horse in this forum, just want some opinions on a thought that occured to me...However, I'm wondering if EVERYONE should be allowed on the road? Obviously drivers need a state issued license to operate a vehicle on the roads, but should the same be necessary for cyclists?
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/deadhorse.gif
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/yawn.gif

Excellent idea. Let's make it so people have to pass a test BEFORE they can ride a bike on the street. That will get the Mexican and other poor riders off the street. Oh wait they already have that for cars and it doesn;t seem to stop poor (economically speaking) drivers from driving without a license and insurance.

But it might reduce people taking their friends out for a ride with them and getting someone into cycling. It will for sure kill businesses htat rent bikes in resort areas. (And with it a major entryway into cycling).

Yes this is a great idea.

IF YOU WANT TO GET RID OF CYCLISTS!

Prevent the next generation of cyclists from getting into cycling. That is all this idea has a chance of doing.

Of course previous posters have the just of what will really happen. It will be one more unenforced law on the books. Likely with only a minimal effect. But that effext will be on the most responsible and law abiding part of society.

Yeh but you cant tell what they are thinking,I bet they are daydreaming about speeding down the road, and running red lights with their shovel:o


shovel-heads............what 'r 'ya gonna do?

I expect that "unlicensed" bicyclists would continue to ride on sidewalks, where they are more dangerous to innocent people than on the roadway (according to the stats available). Many police and members of the public falsely believe that licenses and registration are allowed for roadway use but not for travel outside the travel lanes. This is why I see many golf car drivers operating on the sidewalks where I live, with the police looking the other way, as long as they don't try to use the travel lanes. Also, the motoring public will pressure the police to ticket unlicensed cyclists on the roadway, in order to get them off of the roadway for motorists' convenience, but will ignore them on the sidewalks.

I think you are right except for the "sidewalks, where they are more dangerous to innocent people than on the roadway (according to the stats available)." where are these stats that say this?

I think more would be gotten out of an effort to provide comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle safety instruction to school-age children, perhaps something that would complement any future driver's education they might have. It won't solve the problem of the adults out there right now, but if you really want a long term solution on a large scale, you've got to get to the kids.

I think more would be gotten out of an effort to provide comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle safety instruction to school-age children, perhaps something that would complement any future driver's education they might have. It won't solve the problem of the adults out there right now, but if you really want a long term solution on a large scale, you've got to get to the kids.

I agree with this 200%.
But do we make it mandatory?
And who would pay for it?

However, I'm wondering if EVERYONE should be allowed on the road? Obviously drivers need a state issued license to operate a vehicle on the roads, but should the same be necessary for cyclists?
Getting a license is a joke in the US. Although I've heard of people failing a drivers test, I've never heard of anyone failing to eventually get a license unless they were blind or afflicted by some ailment that specifically precluded getting a license.

There is little value of having a test that everyone passes -- especially if people aren't retested with some regularity. Even if they knew how to drive, an insane number of yak on the phone, read, or watch videos while driving.

Safety comes from using your head, not from credentials.

Getting a license is a joke in the US. Although I've heard of people failing a drivers test, I've never heard of anyone failing to eventually get a license unless they were blind or afflicted by some ailment that specifically precluded getting a license.

There is little value of having a test that everyone passes -- especially if people aren't retested with some regularity. Even if they knew how to drive, an insane number of yak on the phone, read, or watch videos while driving.

Safety comes from using your head, not from credentials.

Hey I knew a guy who was considered legaly blind that got a license.

He was required to wear these special glasses that looked like mini binoculars.
The good thing was he never yelled or honked at or threw things at cyclists.
He couldnt see them:(

I agree with this 200%.
But do we make it mandatory?
And who would pay for it?

The public... the very people wanting licenses.

Yes.
Maybe if some do-gooder wants to try something, perhaps convince insurance companies to give auto insurance price reduction with proof of cycling road certification. They will want data that shows that folks who take road cycling course cost them less (few and/or lower claims)
Al

I think more would be gotten out of an effort to provide comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle safety instruction to school-age children, perhaps something that would complement any future driver's education they might have. It won't solve the problem of the adults out there right now, but if you really want a long term solution on a large scale, you've got to get to the kids.I agree.

BTW, a license is needed to drive heavy motor vehicles because the operation of heavy equipment poses an extraordinary danger to other people and their property. The operation of light equipment (such as human powered vehicles) only poses an ordinary level of danger.

I think a large part of the thinking of having licenses is the danger that people operating heavy machinery on the public thorough fares poses.

I just looked up auto accident fatalities. In 2002, it was 42,000. Pedestrian fatalities were 4,200 in 2001. So why don't we have pedestrian licenses for walking on sidewalks or crossing the street? It is dangerous after all. The reason we don't is I believe that pedestrian fatalities are caused by motorized vehicles turning people into road kills. Even a totally out of it pedestrian is not much of a threat to the public.

Now, poor drivers are a threat to the public. Almost half of the total fatalities on the road ways (17,000) involve drunken drivers.

As for cyclists, there are about 800 cycling fatalities per year. Cyclists do not pose a meaningful threat to motorists or pedestrians. 80% of the cycling fatalities involve motorized vehicles. So while cyclists do manage to kill themselves without the aid of a motorized vehicle most of the time one is involved.

So what point is served by forcing cyclists to get licenses? They pose little if any threat to the public. Also the process of testing cyclists for licenses would cost money which governments do not like to expend. On top of that, many americans would view requiring a license to ride a bicycle to be an unwarranted intrusion of government into personal matters.

I can understand that the impulse to have a license for cyclists is well meaning. Requiring a license and fee might even lesson some of the motorist hostility one encounters on the road. On second thought, given the instances of road rage that I have observed, I think not.

I think a large part of the thinking of having licenses is the danger that people operating heavy machinery on the public thorough fares poses.

I just looked up auto accident fatalities. In 2002, it was 42,000. Pedestrian fatalities were 4,200 in 2001. So why don't we have pedestrian licenses for walking on sidewalks or crossing the street? It is dangerous after all. The reason we don't is I believe that pedestrian fatalities are caused by motorized vehicles turning people into road kills. Even a totally out of it pedestrian is not much of a threat to the public.

Now, poor drivers are a threat to the public. Almost half of the total fatalities on the road ways (17,000) involve drunken drivers.

As for cyclists, there are about 800 cycling fatalities per year. Cyclists do not pose a meaningful threat to motorists or pedestrians. 80% of the cycling fatalities involve motorized vehicles. So while cyclists do manage to kill themselves without the aid of a motorized vehicle most of the time one is involved.

So what point is served by forcing cyclists to get licenses? They pose little if any threat to the public. Also the process of testing cyclists for licenses would cost money which governments do not like to expend. On top of that, many americans would view requiring a license to ride a bicycle to be an unwarranted intrusion of government into personal matters.

I can understand that the impulse to have a license for cyclists is well meaning. Requiring a license and fee might even lesson some of the motorist hostility one encounters on the road. On second thought, given the instances of road rage that I have observed, I think not.

This is a really legitamate argument.

However do you truly believe that would still be the case if we had no cars and every one rode a bike?
What if there were 300 million bikes on the road every day?

The reall objective is to get the vast majority to ride instead of drive.
That means a serious amount of what most cyclist call stupid people would then be riding.
But the concensus seems to be that 300 million stupid people on bikes is a good thing:)

At least then the Darwin winner would take less ppl with them than if they were driving.

At least then the Darwin winner would take less ppl with them than if they were driving.
Guess you missed the thread about pipe bombs and bicycles:p

i must have.

This is a really legitamate argument.

However do you truly believe that would still be the case if we had no cars and every one rode a bike?
What if there were 300 million bikes on the road every day?

The reall objective is to get the vast majority to ride instead of drive.
That means a serious amount of what most cyclist call stupid people would then be riding.
But the concensus seems to be that 300 million stupid people on bikes is a good thing:)

Well based on sheer physics alone, a 3000 lb vehicle moving at 25MPH has an energy mass of 75000 lbs. Where as a 200 lb cyclist and bike moving at 25 MPH has an energy mass of 5000 lbs... 1/15 that of the motor car or about the same as a motor car moving at 1.7MPH.

So if we could get all drivers to only move at 1.7MPH... there would probably be a lot of lives saved. But as it is, drivers have a hard time at 25MPH, and tend to push their speeds at every given opportunity.

While a cyclist can kill a person at even speeds less than 25MPH, the odds of serious injury are considerbly less than if hit at the same speed by a 3000 lb vehicle. Further, the roads would seem very wide open if they were filled with nothing but bikes. There is a lot of empty space being chauffeured about.

We could go from this:
http://www.washington.edu/reports/state/graphics/traffic.jpg

To this:
http://www.velo-city.ca/files/carlane.jpg

and think of the pace lines we could make in the fast lane....yea booi!

Well based on sheer physics alone, a 3000 lb vehicle moving at 25MPH has an energy mass of 75000 lbs. Where as a 200 lb cyclist and bike moving at 25 MPH has an energy mass of 5000 lbs... 1/15 that of the motor car or about the same as a motor car moving at 1.7MPH.

So if we could get all drivers to only move at 1.7MPH... there would probably be a lot of lives saved. But as it is, drivers have a hard time at 25MPH, and tend to push their speeds at every given opportunity.

While a cyclist can kill a person at even speeds less than 25MPH, the odds of serious injury are considerbly less than if hit at the same speed by a 3000 lb vehicle. Further, the roads would seem very wide open if they were filled with nothing but bikes. There is a lot of empty space being chauffeured about.

We could go from this:
http://www.washington.edu/reports/state/graphics/traffic.jpg

To this:
http://www.velo-city.ca/files/carlane.jpg

Now thats a bit misleading,

Wouldnt every one of those cars have to be replaced with a minimum of one bike?
and what about the passengers on those busses?

and how damn many bikes will it take to haul the same loads as those trucks?

Some how you replaced several hundred cars and busses with 3 bikes?

The masses have been miniaturized and are being transported in packs by those three. :lol:

So my question is if the roads should be open to all, or only a certain age group?
Your age group should be excluded for certain until you start care for yourself more then for others.

Now thats a bit misleading,

Wouldnt every one of those cars have to be replaced with a minimum of one bike?
and what about the passengers on those busses?

and how damn many bikes will it take to haul the same loads as those trucks?

Some how you replaced several hundred cars and busses with 3 bikes?

Well since 4 bikes can sit in the same space as one single passenger vehicle... the congestion problem was eliminated and everyone got to where they were going already. :D

The trucks took the truck only route.

More like
this
http://members.cox.net/rusty35/traffic.jpg

To This
http://members.cox.net/rusty35/aag.sized.jpg

What kind of a reaction will we get from the cyclist who has multiple bikes hanging in the garage when the registration bill comes in? What reaction from those who don't ride those bikes stored in the garage?

What kind of a reaction will we get from the cyclist who has multiple bikes hanging in the garage when the registration bill comes in? What reaction from those who don't ride those bikes stored in the garage?
bout the same as a motorist with several cars haning round.

...So if we could get all drivers to only move at 1.7MPH... there would probably be a lot of lives saved....

We could go from this:
http://www.washington.edu/reports/state/graphics/traffic.jpg

But why would we want to if they've already got the safe speed problem nailed? On your second pic, anyone in a car will be able to fly.

Plus, call me a jerk, but there's few things that lift my spirits like blowing by long lines of cars on the highway.

I still want a flying car when they finally make one.

I still want a flying car when they finally make one.
Not me, I will still ride my flying bike:p

ah I do that now....gets me into all sorts of trouble... :lol:

Not me, I will still ride my flying bike:p

Where did you get a flying bike... my LBS says they are never available. They they point to the one 'bent on hand and tell me to "make an offer."

I agree with this 200%.
But do we make it mandatory?
And who would pay for it?

Very good questions. Here in Portland, it's a private/public partnership. I think the Portland schools fork over a little money, and the local bike advocacy group runs the classes. They have a trained, paid employee who runs them. There's a volunteer effort every year to get the bikes used tuned up and ready to go.

I know many school systems don't have mandatory gym anymore, but a lot still do. I remember rotations of certain topics, like exercise routines for a few weeks, then dodge ball in the winter, softball in the spring. With the right set up, you could do a bike/pedestrian safety rotation.

In certain school systems you could save even more money by having one or two sets of equipment and rotating the classes (and instructor) to the various schools at different times of the year. I think that's what they do here. There are also organizations that have grants for these kinds of things. Most school systems have someone who has grantwriting experience.

Eventually, if an area has a program that can demonstrate results, other places take notice. That's when the money (and it wouldn't take much) is found somehow. When spending a small amount of money on a preventative measure can be shown to save a society an enormous amount in the long run, you've got a chance of getting what you want.

I think you are right except for the "sidewalks, where they are more dangerous to innocent people than on the roadway (according to the stats available)." where are these stats that say this?

A few cities have kept stats on bicycle collisions with pedestrians. I think London was one; NYC might be another, or maybe it was Boston that I saw. Anyway, the number serious injuries and fatalities to pedestrians caused by cyclists on sidewalks, compared to cyclists on roadways, was highly disproportionate to the estimate of the miles cycled on each type of facility. (And by comparison, injuries caused by cyclists to motorists are virtually nonexistent, and injuries caused by cyclists to innocent cyclists are rare compared to injuries to pedestrians.)

Motorists who don't like cyclists often make the argument that cyclists in the roadway (acting properly or not) make car-car collisions much more likely when the motorists make evasive maneuvers, but such claims have never been substantiated; only in a few rare cases have car-car collisions been documented as the result of unlawful cyclist behavior (an example was a BUI case in Florida where the cyclist was crossing the road, which sidewalk cyclists do anyway).

Yes.
Maybe if some do-gooder wants to try something, perhaps convince insurance companies to give auto insurance price reduction with proof of cycling road certification. They will want data that shows that folks who take road cycling course cost them less (few and/or lower claims)
Al
That will be a stretch. First finding any credible cycling data that shows anything measurable about folks who take road cycling course; and then extrapolating that to their driving record.

I have not heard of any insurance companies who hire faith based actuaries.

faith based actuaries.

:roflmao: :roflmao: You crack me up!

Where did you get a flying bike... my LBS says they are never available. They they point to the one 'bent on hand and tell me to "make an offer."

Surely if they have flying cars they will have flying bikes.

I mean shoot, Orvile and Wilburs first plane was mostly bike!
So really bikes were flying before planes.

All well and good, but I was promised flying cars as a child and damnit I want one!

Compared with the number of car commuters, cycle commuters are a wee minority. It just isn't a big enough deal to warrant worrying about bike congestion or regulation right now. If more people would get off their butts and start clogging the roads with bikes, then we can deal with the impact through reasonable laws that evolve with cycle traffic's increasing needs over time. For now, we enjoy the freedoms of our outsider status.

Untill the cheap oil runs out nothing is going to change. We will still be an insignificant minority (i.e. easily marginalised by the institutions our taxes pay for) regardless of what is said on a bike forum somewhere on the interweb, so don't hold your breaths.