Advocacy & Safety - Mandatory licensing to ride a bike legally?

Even though I've been riding for over 30 years, I feel that anyone who uses public streets should be licensed for all the basic reasons and tested for the following basic riding skills like how to:

- actually ride a bike without falling.
- ride with one hand.
- ride with no hands.
- ability to look 180 degrees behind you in both directions.
- how to swerve
- how to bunny hop over obsticles
- how to use the brakes properly and efficiently
- how to take a corner effeciently without sliding out into the lane
- ability to perform a panic stop without falling
- ability to perform a evasive sprint... don't laugh
- getting in and out of clipless pedals properly without lurching into traffic
- how to fall properly.... because you're going to anyway.
- how to get out of a mess (riding in gravel and sand, recovering from catching a small ridge.

Hint: I just got a motorcycle, and I need to get training in order to get the license to ride it. I would do it even if it wasn't mandatory. It's made me keenly aware of the true risk of cycling, by comparison, to the motorcycle. and it's freakin' spooky.

Bicycles aren't that much different except for the motor.... and the speed, which is relative to how careless and stupid you want to be.....

Actually, motorcycles have two advantages over a bike:

1. They're power can SOMETIMES get you out of a literal death trap (yes, I know.... as well as in one)

2. For better or worse, at least your part of the "normal" traffic flow. It doesn't really buy you any less risk, I suppose, but at least you have a legal place on the road that isn't a debris filled bike lane up against the curb.

Don't take this the wrong way. I love cycling... much more than the motorized counterpart. But I think people should have to pass a basic skills test, similar to the motorcycle test. I don't think anyone of sound mind would have a problem with a proof of skill test which would afford them a license.

ALSO: A mandatory helmet LAW for bicyclist. No excuses.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, though I don't think you're going to get a lot of agreement on either count. Have you thought about where the money for all this testing and licensing would come from? I'm a little murky on that part of it.

are you a socialist?

The Coast Guard is recommending the same thing for recreational boat users.

However rec boat users are saying that they have rights to the waterways, and that licensing is not the answer. When Driver's licenses are mentioned as an example, the response is that "driving is a privilege not a right;" sound familiar?

Education is one thing, licensing is altogether different.

I think that pedestrians should also be required to pass a test before they can use the public roads, or operate a public restroom. I'd add a, "ride a wheelie for at least 25 feet", requirement to your list.

Is this really a problem? More people drown than are killed in bicycle accidents.

Well, if your suggested rules were in use, then that would disqualify many people, including the majorly overweight, handicapped, and the poor.

you show me how you do a bunny hop on a Harley, and I'll put it under consideration.

otherwise, I wonder how long the OP has been biking, how populist the OP considers bicycling, who does it, who could be considering bicycling, what types of bikes will be used, the skill levels of average riders, and what direction the OP wants to see cycling go in this country.

I can understand the OPs way of thinking. But I think there is a better way to go about it.

This will sound harsh, but pretty much all of those skills are to preserve the bikers safety, not anyone elses (a bike isn't going to hurt a person in a car, and those won't help bikes hitting pedestrians much). Since that's the case, I see it as pretty much up to the biker to ensure his own safety; if he doesn't know what he's doing and gets himself injured or killed, that's his own fault, and if he survives, hopefully he'll get the right training before trying again. Same with helmets; anyone who doesn't wear one is taking an awful risk, but not wearing a helmet won't hurt anyone else.

he just wants to ban overweight riders, kids, the special needs crowd, the elderly, and people on recumbents.

Philmcb, I feel the exact opposite about motorcycles and bicycles than you do. Motorcycles operate at a much faster speed, which in turn, give you and the other motorist less time to react to each other, You're going to put more miles on a motorcycle, and greatly increasing you're chances for a accident. Comparing my crashes between the bicycle and motorcycle, the motorcycle crashes were the hardest ones. Oh, they don't make you take a motorcycle test one handed or no handed, at least not when I took mine. ;)

Even though I've been riding for over 30 years, I feel that anyone who uses public streets should be licensed for all the basic reasons and tested for the following basic riding skills like how to:

- actually ride a bike without falling.
- how to get out of a mess (riding in gravel and sand, recovering from catching a small ridge.
- how to fall properly.... because you're going to anyway.
This one won't fly because: **** happens, falls happen, accidents happen, sometimes there isn't enough time to react. What the hell is falling properly? Why should it be a legal requirment to ride a bike. This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted here.


- ride with one hand.
Not a good idea. What happens when you have to brake suddenly & shift suddenly & you only have one hand on the handle bars? This is also more difficult on certain syles of bicycles. Like short wheel base recumbents. I should know I ride one & have tried this. Or would you exclude 'ben't from riding on the roadways & only allow wedgies in your exclusive little world?


- ride with no hands.
Can not, not more difficult, but can not be done with certain types of bicycles. Like recumbents. Again are you planning on only allowing what you deem fit as a bicycle on the roadways in your exclusive little world?


- ability to look 180 degrees behind you in both directions.
Again see above about recumbents. Are you noticing a pattern here? Are you purposly trying to exclude what you deem as a bicycle?


- how to swerve.
Don't think needs to be a requirment to legally ride a bike on the roadways. Granted it is a good idea to have this skill. It does work when used properly.


- how to bunny hop over obsticles
Again can not be done on a recumbent. Why are you trying to only include what you deem as appropriate as a bicycle?


- how to use the brakes properly and efficiently
- how to take a corner effeciently without sliding out into the lane
- ability to perform a panic stop without falling
- getting in and out of clipless pedals properly without lurching into traffic
- ability to perform a evasive sprint... don't laugh
If you can't do this you should not be riding a bike period, never mind making it a legal requirment.


Bicycles aren't that much different except for the motor.... and the speed, which is relative to how careless and stupid you want to be......
I don't agree. I do not think the speed at which you travel makes you any more or less careless on a bicycle.By this logic when I go riding down a hill at 40 mph, when the speed limit is 45 mph, I am being careless. When I have complete control of my bike & am holding my line, not swerving all over the place, etc.



For better or worse, at least your part of the "normal" traffic flow. It doesn't really buy you any less risk, I suppose, but at least you have a legal place on the road that isn't a debris filled bike lane up against the curb.
So now you're saying bicycles are not part of the normal traffic flow? Then what is? Only vehicles that can travel at the posted limit or faster? If we let you be in charge you'd exlude us all from the roadways with this stupid logic, never mind only exluding recumbents because they can't bunny hop or be ridden with no hands.


Don't take this the wrong way. I love cycling... much more than the motorized counterpart. But I think people should have to pass a basic skills test, similar to the motorcycle test. I don't think anyone of sound mind would have a problem with a proof of skill test which would afford them a license.
A proof of skills test, maybe. But not the one you propose & not with you in charge or having anything to do with it. What kind of idiot says you can't legally ride a bike on the roadways if you can not bunny hop or ride with no hands? What if the person has a recumbent? Oh let me guess you're going to say because they are lower to the ground they are dangerous & should never be ridden on the road, right?

hahahahahhaha
good job N_C, I needed a laugh right now

hahahahahhaha
good job N_C, I needed a laugh right now

Glad I could make you laugh, but I wasn't joking.

lame.

Glad I could make you laugh, but I wasn't joking.
Oh I know you were serious.
It's just the way you had a retor to every_single_thing that I found amusing... not in a sarcastic way, but an actual "I agree totally" kind of way.

I don't think I'd like the idea of mandatory licensing for bikes. First of all, as has been mentioned, bad bicycling skills and/or poor judgement are mostly just a menace to the bad bicyclist. Second of all, one of the real attractions of cycling for me is its utter simplicity and purity, and I'd hate to see that diminished by a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. Finally, I don't want to pay for it. A fee for licensing bicycling would be the ultimate regressive tax, and the very idea of it gives rise to strong Bolshevik feelings within my soul. Let those SUV-driving fascists pay for licensing, not the poor proles on bikes!!! (OK, not very many workers are actually on bikes just yet, but give it time...)

I don't think I'd like the idea of mandatory licensing for bikes. First of all, as has been mentioned, bad bicycling skills and/or poor judgement are mostly just a menace to the bad bicyclist. Second of all, one of the real attractions of cycling for me is its utter simplicity and purity, and I'd hate to see that diminished by a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. Finally, I don't want to pay for it. A fee for licensing bicycling would be the ultimate regressive tax, and the very idea of it gives rise to strong Bolshevik feelings within my soul. Let those SUV-driving fascists pay for licensing, not the poor proles on bikes!!! (OK, not very many workers are actually on bikes just yet, but give it time...)

Personally I think mandatory licensing for breeding humans with drug and acohol testing would be a better gift to society as a whole, but I suppose that is for another forum.

When would kids need the license? After the training wheels come off? For their first day riding to the first grade? Then where do you stop? Razor scooters next? Maybe a rollerbladers and skateboarders should get a license too?

The beauty of bikes is their simplicity and ease of use. Let's not mess with that. I think this is very well the worst idea I've ever heard in my entire life.

I don't need a license to validate my cycling :lol:

" - getting in and out of clipless pedals properly without lurching into traffic"

If you can't do this you should not be riding a bike period, never mind making it a legal requirment.


Why are you trying to only include what you deem as appropriate as a pedal?

Good one. I give you +1 for guts on posting that.

D

While I agree that bicycles and motorcycles share very much the same hazards, these are hazards that are often caused by other motor vehicles. Motor vehicles whose drivers are already required to be licensed. If the driver of the motor vehicle is required to have a license and the motorcyclist is required to have a license, but still has the highest crash rate of any vehicle, requiring the bicyclist, which is the safest mode of road transportation only behind school buses, to have a license not going to help anything.

The mandatory helmet thing is rediculous. Both points would prove to be an unenforceable burden on individuals, law enforcement and the licensing entities.

A consequence of mandatory licensing, and the adjoining mandatory vehicle insurance for a bicycle, would be that many riders and commuters would drop out. They might decide that it costs so much to ride they might as well scrap the bike and drive. I would certainly consider this. Casual riders who ride around the block once in a while on their K-Mart special wouldn't even own a bike.

Sounds like another, "You should have to have one, because I have to have one."

Both points would prove to be an unenforceable burden on individuals, law enforcement and the licensing entities.

Exactly. It is certainly arguable that as users of public facilities, it is in the interest of the public to require some kind of licensing for bicyclists; to 'ensure' they know the rules of the road and to 'ensure' the safety of other users.

In practice, however, very little is gained by such a requirement. Just look at how well drivers' licenses 'ensure' the safety of others. Add to that the likelihood of a cyclist injuring others compared to getting injured him or herself. If enforced, it would place so large of a burden on bicyclists (as well as the 'controlling legal authorities') that bicycle use would plummet.

Helmet laws...I won't go there...

I would not say I favor licensing. But, I think it wise schools encourage alternative transportation like cycling. Why should not cycling be incorporated somehow into high school sports curriculum.

Anyone that would be in favor of this hates poor people.

Good one. I give you +1 for guts on posting that.

D
"Guts"? Is that what you call the inspiration for the OP's suggestions. I'd call it something else far less flattering.

- actually ride a bike without falling.
- ride with one hand.
- ride with no hands.
- ability to look 180 degrees behind you in both directions.
- how to swerve
- how to bunny hop over obsticles
- how to use the brakes properly and efficiently
- how to take a corner effeciently without sliding out into the lane
- ability to perform a panic stop without falling
- ability to perform a evasive sprint... don't laugh
- getting in and out of clipless pedals properly without lurching into traffic
- how to fall properly.... because you're going to anyway.
- how to get out of a mess (riding in gravel and sand, recovering from catching a small ridge.

ALSO: A mandatory helmet LAW for bicyclist. No excuses.

Tell me you aren't serious. When is the last time you saw someone riding on the road who was incapable of riding without falling down? Why don't you explain to us "how to swerve?" As others have asked, what sort of bike might one be riding to be able to bunny hop over obstacles, and, frankly, under what circumstances would you consider this more safe when riding on the road than simply altering your course to avoid said obstacles? Describe "efficient" cornering for us. Oh, and do explain that bit about an evasive sprint - under what conditions would you advocate that maneuver - what might we cyclists be evading? I could justify such a maneuver if I encountered a bear, but, if you are talking about evading cars, I doubt sprinting would be my choice - I'd probably slow down or stop. I gave up football because I didn't really care for the pain associated with "learning how to fall." I've fallen my fair share of times on my bike - no major injuries - but I certainly am not going to participate in some mandatory exercise that requires me to fall on purpose. I'll just rely on the reflexes with which nature provided me - they have served me well over the years. As for getting out of a mess, the best way would be to avoid getting into one. Why would you ride at speeds that would endanger you in conditions in gravel and sand or in proximity to a ridge that might cause you to lose control? Again, to me, the better approach is to learn to recognizes the danger that those situations can pose and take appropriate steps to minimize your exposure - as in altering your course or your speed.

From your list, I would imagine you ride some sort of MTB (if you ride at all). While it isn't impossible for us roadies to bunny hop, I can think of very few times when I would attempt that for safety reasons, and that skill is certainly not high enough on the prerequisite list that it should be a requirement for all riders.

I really doubt you are serious. I believe you started this thread just to see how many of us would respond. Responding and reading other responses has been fun, to be sure, but I know you are not serious.

Caruso

<swims up to bait, smells a troll, swims on without eating hook, line and sinker> :rolleyes:

Why are you trying to only include what you deem as appropriate as a pedal?

I have seen people lurch forward with toe straps & platform pedals too. So the same could be interprited by others for other pedals as well. It does not need to be a legal requirment, but you should have the skill to control your bike when stopping & putting your foot down from the pedal & starting & putting your foot on the pedal.

you show me how you do a bunny hop on a Harley, and I'll put it under consideration.



or teach me how to do one on my bent:eek:

I think that pedestrians should also be required to pass a test before they can use the public roads, or operate a public restroom. I'd add a, "ride a wheelie for at least 25 feet", requirement to your list.

Is this really a problem? More people drown than are killed in bicycle accidents.

Well, duh. Liscense to swim!

+1 on the wheelie requirement!!

I can't bunny hop effectively on some of my bikes.

No need to further add to the 'stupid idea' discussion - others did the job.

Al

How many times can a thread get Godwinned before it's officially dead?

Even though I've been riding for over 30 years, I feel that anyone who uses public streets should be licensed for all the basic reasons and tested for the following basic riding skills like how to:
...

ALSO: A mandatory helmet LAW for bicyclist. No excuses.

Ummmm..... no...

That won't do, no sympathy from me. Out the right door now... Not that one, it's locked, the other one... Okay, nice try. Goodbye. Better luck next time...

I would not say I favor licensing. But, I think it wise schools encourage alternative transportation like cycling. Why should not cycling be incorporated somehow into high school sports curriculum.



?????????????????? I thought getting driven to school in a motor vehicle was alternative transportation.

?????????????????? I thought getting driven to school in a motor vehicle was alternative transportation.

You're showing your age. Naw... Most kids are driven or drive to school nowadays, at least in the suburbs. Have you seen the parking lots of the new highschools?

Have you seen the parking lots of the new highschools?
Not just the parking lots but the excessive lines of single driver students linining up to park during the AM or early PM commute.

I was told that high schools here don't have busses, its city bus, get a ride or drive yourself.

Al

"Since that's the case, I see it as pretty much up to the biker to ensure his own safety; if he doesn't know what he's doing and gets himself injured or killed, that's his own fault, and if he survives, hopefully he'll get the right training before trying again. Same with helmets; anyone who doesn't wear one is taking an awful risk, but not wearing a helmet won't hurt anyone else."

That's a pretty narrow view of things. If you are a bicyclist, and can't ride in a straight line, it is concieveable that you might weave into the path of a car coming up behind you. That driver might just try and avoid killing you by swerving around you, and as a result, find themselves involved in an accident with injuries. Thus, the lack of basic riding skills has caused injury to someone other than the rider. Basic riding skills are not a bad idea if you are going to be riding a bicycle on the public highways and byways. The question is how to insure cyclists possess these basic skills.

Michael

IMO licensing for bikes will lead to nothing. The cagers have their JAMs and Cyclists will have their ninja's. All licensing will do is force the ninja's to start driving which will just contribute to more JAMs. Besides, cagers are required to get a license and "know" the law, :rolleyes: . But that doesn't stop them from being JAMs.

...it is concieveable that you might weave into the path of a car coming up behind you. That driver might just try and avoid killing you by swerving around you, and as a result, find themselves involved in an accident with injuries. Thus, the lack of basic riding skills has caused injury to someone other than the rider...The question is how to insure cyclists possess these basic skills.

IMO, the question is: How far fetched a scenario will the various trollers and do gooder nannies dream up to justify their BS schemes for harassment of the "other"cyclists?

Even though I've been riding for over 30 years, I feel that anyone who uses public streets should be licensed for all the basic reasons and tested for the following basic riding skills like how to:

- actually ride a bike without falling.
- ride with one hand.
- ride with no hands.
- ability to look 180 degrees behind you in both directions.
- how to swerve
- how to bunny hop over obsticles
- how to use the brakes properly and efficiently
- how to take a corner effeciently without sliding out into the lane
- ability to perform a panic stop without falling
- ability to perform a evasive sprint... don't laugh
- getting in and out of clipless pedals properly without lurching into traffic
- how to fall properly.... because you're going to anyway.
- how to get out of a mess (riding in gravel and sand, recovering from catching a small ridge.

Hint: I just got a motorcycle, and I need to get training in order to get the license to ride it. I would do it even if it wasn't mandatory. It's made me keenly aware of the true risk of cycling, by comparison, to the motorcycle. and it's freakin' spooky.

Bicycles aren't that much different except for the motor.... and the speed, which is relative to how careless and stupid you want to be.....

Actually, motorcycles have two advantages over a bike:

1. They're power can SOMETIMES get you out of a literal death trap (yes, I know.... as well as in one)

2. For better or worse, at least your part of the "normal" traffic flow. It doesn't really buy you any less risk, I suppose, but at least you have a legal place on the road that isn't a debris filled bike lane up against the curb.

Don't take this the wrong way. I love cycling... much more than the motorized counterpart. But I think people should have to pass a basic skills test, similar to the motorcycle test. I don't think anyone of sound mind would have a problem with a proof of skill test which would afford them a license.

ALSO: A mandatory helmet LAW for bicyclist. No excuses.

Great idea, if we want to be treated like a vehicle we should be taxed and registered like one. So license and registration and mandatory liabilitiy insurance just in case you scratch a car or run over a pedestrian. If you ride only on the mup or sidewalk you are exampt since you're not a vehicle. Sounds like a plan.

You're showing your age. Naw... Most kids are driven or drive to school nowadays, at least in the suburbs. Have you seen the parking lots of the new highschools?

Yeah, that age thingy gets me every time. I was actually trying to make a point between the lines that even we refer to getting around by human power as "alternative".
Here's something that was posted on a local advocacy site today.


"I watched somebody drive 100 yards this morning. I was cycling down ****** Road
in ********* when I watched a woman back her car out of a driveway, drive
past two houses and then across the street to an elementary school, pull
into the staff parking lot and get out of her car.

I considered that maybe the driver stopped at a friend's house on the way,
but the windows were covered in dew -- the driver had a hard time backing
out because she couldn't see behind her -- and the exhaust was heavy with
just-started-the-engine gasoline smell (I was right behind the car on my
bike)."

let's worry about proper driver education in the US first.

Yeah, that age thingy gets me every time. I was actually trying to make a point between the lines that even we refer to getting around by human power as "alternative".
Here's something that was posted on a local advocacy site today.


"I watched somebody drive 100 yards this morning. I was cycling down ****** Road
in ********* when I watched a woman back her car out of a driveway, drive
past two houses and then across the street to an elementary school, pull
into the staff parking lot and get out of her car.

I considered that maybe the driver stopped at a friend's house on the way,
but the windows were covered in dew -- the driver had a hard time backing
out because she couldn't see behind her -- and the exhaust was heavy with
just-started-the-engine gasoline smell (I was right behind the car on my
bike)."

There's a fitness center across the street from my neighborhood. I regularly see people drive out of the neighborhood and into the fitness center parking lot. The walk there would take maybe 15 minutes from the furthest point in the neighborhood and less than 5 on a bike. I'm sure they go inside and "warm up" on some stationary equipment. It's confusing to me, especially on a 70 degree sunny day.

Yeah, that age thingy gets me every time. I was actually trying to make a point between the lines that even we refer to getting around by human power as "alternative".
Here's something that was posted on a local advocacy site today.


"I watched somebody drive 100 yards this morning. I was cycling down ****** Road
in ********* when I watched a woman back her car out of a driveway, drive
past two houses and then across the street to an elementary school, pull
into the staff parking lot and get out of her car.

I considered that maybe the driver stopped at a friend's house on the way,
but the windows were covered in dew -- the driver had a hard time backing
out because she couldn't see behind her -- and the exhaust was heavy with
just-started-the-engine gasoline smell (I was right behind the car on my
bike)."


It's possible, that they:

A) Needed the car for work during the day.
B) Had somewhere they needed to go later in the day.
C) Were making a stop at the school, then going elsewhere.
D) The person has a medical problem, so that they can not walk very far
E) They are too freakin' lazy to walk further.

Pick one.

let's worry about proper driver education in the US first.
+1

Whooooa......... PLEASE......... I retract EVERYTHING.... Continue as usual..... I think I had a brain malfunction or something....

Forgive me????

Whooooa......... PLEASE......... I retract EVERYTHING.... Continue as usual..... I think I had a brain malfunction or something....

That would explain it. Or maybe you overtightened your helmet straps.

It's possible, that they:

A) Needed the car for work during the day.
B) Had somewhere they needed to go later in the day.
C) Were making a stop at the school, then going elsewhere.
D) The person has a medical problem, so that they can not walk very far
E) They are too freakin' lazy to walk further.

Pick one.

I pick E. In follow-up posts, he said it was a 30ish woman, not overweight, and in apparent good health. She parked in the staff parking lot. Two doors down is almost the same distance as to the parking lot. I was thinking maybe the school nurse, who went to other schools also.