Advocacy & Safety - Should there be a bicycle class to state drivers license?

Well, what do you think? Just as motorcycles have a special class and special class license for operating on state roads, should there be a similar class for people using bikes as transportation vehicles?

Well since 5 already responded, let's flesh out the idea a bit more. Why have a license? Not to generate income, nor because unlicensed riders don't pay for roads. Here are some reasons why it might be beneficial:

1. for data metrics, there are #### cyclists who commute to work each year
2. for special treatment in driver education. Since this is a special class of vehicle on the roads, non cyclists have to give them special consideration. Say like air vehicles or water vehicles. The general rule of thumb is the slower and less moverable vehicles has right of way over faster vehicles.
3. for jump starting cycle commuting. A state tax credit of $1.00 for mile cyclocommuters log commuting to work in a year. A state tax credit to businesses of $1.00 each cyclocommuter mile employees log during the year.
4. as a foot in the door for increasing penalities for motor vehicle drivers ignoring the rights of the cyclist.

For what purpose? The habits of motorists go largely unchecked. I doubt a license requirement would drive much enforcement. Or would it be a driver for education of cyclists?

I'm leery of getting government involved in any more than government is now. Government can't handle everything they've piled on their plates at the moment. Why add more?

Less government is what we need. Stop wondering if you can improve things by getting them involved with anything.

No. Cars and such require licenses because they are dangerous, both to their occupants and other people who may be run over, or into, when the driver looses control.
Bicycles, removing cars from the equation, are an extremely safe mode of transportation. Even considering cars in the equation, bicycles are still favorable compared to cars.

No.Just No.We pay enough to license everything from our pets to our peckers.its time the guberment went on a cash flow diet anyway!!

No. Slow moving vehicles should not need a license. The Amish would just ignore this requirement anyway.

No. Cars and such require licenses because they are dangerous, both to their occupants and other people who may be run over, or into, when the driver looses control.
Bicycles, removing cars from the equation, are an extremely safe mode of transportation. Even considering cars in the equation, bicycles are still favorable compared to cars.

Please give me some data to back up the last sentance.

I think mandatory Cycling (could replace a year of Phys Ed) in High School would be better

Here are some reasons why it might be beneficial:

1. for data metrics, there are #### cyclists who commute to work each year
2. for special treatment in driver education. Since this is a special class of vehicle on the roads, non cyclists have to give them special consideration. Say like air vehicles or water vehicles. The general rule of thumb is the slower and less moverable vehicles has right of way over faster vehicles.
3. for jump starting cycle commuting. A state tax credit of $1.00 for mile cyclocommuters log commuting to work in a year. A state tax credit to businesses of $1.00 each cyclocommuter mile employees log during the year.
4. as a foot in the door for increasing penalities for motor vehicle drivers ignoring the rights of the cyclist.

The "reasons" above (AKA your desired goals) would in no way be furthered or affected by special bicycle classes nor special licenses. The only benefits would accrue to those making a buck or those bicycling "educators" looking to boost their self esteem by practicing their craft on an unwilling public.

So only people who commute to work would be required to have a license? What about my kids? Do they need a license? How often does it need to be renewed? As was said earlier this is more government where government doesn't need to be. The reality is this would be seen as another tax on the poorest among us (for the most part). This is a foolish idea.

Even if the licenses were free, I think a lot of cyclists wouldn't like the idea because the tickets for running signs and lights could add points to their license, and the rider could eventually lose their privilege to ride as their licenses could be suspended. I don't want to see people paid to ride either. It can pay for itself if you're a thrifty commuter, or it's an alternative to a car or public transit which you fund yourself. Besides that, a license will only discourage riding anyway. If it is required to have a license, many people simply won't go to the DMV to get it done because it won't be worth the effort to them.

And a lot of riders ride because it's about the most utilitarian way of getting around outside of walking.

That's a fantastic idea, cyclist should have licenses! But first cyclist should have learner's permits where you can only cycle with another cyclist who is fully licensed. Then once a written and practical exam has been taken there should be graduated license whereby newly licensed cyclist must abide by certain restrictions such as riding only on streets with lower speed traffic and strictly during daylight hours. Cyclists should also have to register their bikes (for a fee of course) and have them inspected yearly for saftey compliance with legislated standards. Non conforming bicylces would have to be repaired and then reinspected. Finally cyclists should have to insure thier bikes for 3rd party liability. Cyclists should have to carry thier license and registration and insurance at all times.

Please give me some data to back up the last sentance.

How about this, see if you can figure it out.

43,000>700

No No No No No No No, and......No.

Only if it means I can take the whole lane whenever I want like the next licensed person.

Only if it means I can take the whole lane whenever I want like the next licensed person.

....on any and every single road, highway, or freeway.

And occupy one parking spot on the side of the road just like a car would, anywhere that it's legal to park a vehichle.

Most cyclists drive cars. Most drivers have a Driver License.

I think a much better idea would be to incorporate bicycling specific questions into the written portion of the DL test. This way the cyclists who drive would get the training, and the motorists who don't ride would get the same training. This would help motorists who don't ride understand why a cyclist may choose a specific course of action for the sake of safety rather than, "Just look at that sanctimonious *******. He's just doing that to be in the way and slow traffic."

Great idea! But why stop there? Pedestrians should also be required to get a license to use any public highway, even the sidewalk in front of their house. Better yet, how about a license to leave ones home. That would certainly help protect, quantify and get us special treatment.

Al

^^^ vote for any current republican and you will get this wish !

Much better to require all learner drivers to spend a year as a member of a cycling club with a minimum year's mileage fo, say, 3000 miles, before being given their provisional (or whatever you call it over there) licence.

Plus insisting that all school children take a basic cycling road safety course in the last year at primary school (ages 9/10/11-ish), followed by a more advanced course at about 15/16.

Tomorrow I shall post my plans for taking over the world

This was just proposed yesterday in Iowa. See the other thread in this forum. I have no idea what's going on with it or even who this lawmaker is...I'm checking that. I am going to write my district representative on this.

Bicycling is one of the few remaining things you can do without asking for permission from the government. I will never get a bicycle license, I will never register a bicycle. I don't care what laws are passed, I will refuse to acknowledge any such laws.

Most cyclists drive cars. Most drivers have a Driver License.

I think a much better idea would be to incorporate bicycling specific questions into the written portion of the DL test. This way the cyclists who drive would get the training, and the motorists who don't ride would get the same training. This would help motorists who don't ride understand why a cyclist may choose a specific course of action for the sake of safety rather than, "Just look at that sanctimonious *******. He's just doing that to be in the way and slow traffic."

We already have this in BC.

We also have graduated licensing with an incentive to get a full license earlier by passing an approved drivers course.

I've pushed to let new drivers receive a learners permit earlier by having the applicant pass a cycling course that could be taught in schools.

Hasn't happened yet because of lack of funds.

I think mandatory Cycling (could replace a year of Phys Ed) in High School would be better

A High School class teaching bicycling should be a Pre-Requisite for taking Driver's Ed.
Think about it... It would solve a Lot of problems.

^^^ vote for any current republican and you will get this wish !

Ron Paul? Get a life and actually check what you are saying before spewing your stereotypical bunk.

Great idea! But why stop there? Pedestrians should also be required to get a license to use any public highway, even the sidewalk in front of their house. Better yet, how about a license to leave ones home. That would certainly help protect, quantify and get us special treatment.

Al

Well ...

We should ask ourselves whether we think car drivers should get licenses and why. Then ask whether those conditions apply to cyclists or -- as you farcically suggest -- pedestrians.

Prima facie, such a proposal could be reasonable. But it would be interesting to see what the data suggests and the specifics of any licensing program.

-G

Ron Paul? Get a life and actually check what you are saying before spewing your stereotypical bunk.

:lol:


Angry are we.....
:roflmao: ha ha

I've pushed to let new drivers receive a learners permit earlier by having the applicant pass a cycling course that could be taught in schools.

Get any positive feedback from any decision maker on this proposal?

Well ...

Prima facie, such a proposal could be reasonable. But it would be interesting to see what the data suggests and the specifics of any licensing program.


In fact, such a proposal is invariably an unreasonable attempt to harass cyclists by a rural legislator with a hard on for cyclists (ala Sen. Putney the Iowa legislator in the news), or an attempt to create a demand for a cycling education program by cyclists with an agenda to create a demand for their hobbyhorse.

:lol:


Angry are we.....
:roflmao: ha ha

Not really...you?

Get any positive feedback from any decision maker on this proposal?

sort of. People want to do it, but to find funding for it is difficult.

One positive out of this negative (the inability to give the opportunity for kids to be taught on a wide spread level) is the development of a much less wide spread (and much less expensive) focused in areas where cycling is better suited (and practiced), is a free course for commuter cyclists that is proving to be far more popular than the more extensive (and costly) regular cycling education courses.

sort of. People want to do it, but to find funding for it is difficult.
To be a little more specific, is anybody in the government offices responsible for issuing drivers' licenses interested in your proposal for giving credit of any kind for bicycling courses?

I've heard some positive responses, but bottom line, no one's done anything. For as much as I'd like to think it'll happen sometime, I'm not holding my breath.

I am in the camp of keep government out of this, there is not practical reason to require a license to ride a bike. As another poster already stated it is one of the few things we can do with out permission from the government and I for one would like to keep it that way. I would accomplish absolutely nothing as far as getting a bike recognized by motorists as a legitimate vehicle on the road and would only give the police a reason to stop and harass us....

Chief

Require a license to ride a bicycle and the number of cyclists - riding to work or otherwise - will decrease, not increase. Riding a bicycle isn't operating a motor vehicle, or heavy equipment or an airplane or a rocket...it's riding a bike - a very simple mode of transportation that most anyone can do at any time with minimal fuss, preparation, skill and cost. Let's keep it that way.

In fact, such a proposal is invariably an unreasonable attempt to harass cyclists by a rural legislator with a hard on for cyclists (ala Sen. Putney the Iowa legislator in the news), or an attempt to create a demand for a cycling education program by cyclists with an agenda to create a demand for their hobbyhorse.

I disagree. It really depends on the specifics. Since one's road use natural inhibits the use of the road by another, there is a natural argument for some regulation of its use. We begin by having laws governing the use of roads. Following up with a test or something of the sort such that we increase the likelihood that its users are aware and capable of following those rules can be worthwhile. For instance, we seem to think that licensing auto use is justifiable for a host of reasons. Whether the expense of a licensing program is justified by the risk associated with cycling and the impact -- if any -- from a licensing program is unknown. Or more accurately, I have not seen data that allows me to make a strong conclusion regarding its cost-benefit. Moreover, I suspect that the impact would depend on the specifics of the program and its enforcement.

I would rather see on all new and renewal drivers licenses a test section everyone must pass concerning bicycles. Why not educate or at least make a try at it.

I disagree. It really depends on the specifics.

OK. Please provide an example of a specific introduced proposal for bicyclist licensing legislation that was meant as anything other than an attempt to hassle cyclists for offending the pick up truck sensibilities of some rural politician.

OK. Please provide an example of a specific introduced proposal for bicyclist licensing legislation that was meant as anything other than an attempt to hassle cyclists for offending the pick up truck sensibilities of some rural politician.

As far as I know, there are few serious proposals in the first place. Generally, cyclists are pretty low on the pecking order of issues. So there doesn't seem to be much purpose in the proposed exercise. Nonetheless, there are reasons to think that licensing can produce positive results for cyclists.

However, I am wondering whether you were ever going to elaborate on your wild speculation below.


The only benefits would accrue to those making a buck or those bicycling "educators" looking to boost their self esteem by practicing their craft on an unwilling public.

^^^ vote for any current republican and you will get this wish !
While I don't have access to P&R, and since you started it... You have your parties reversed. Although the neocon Republicans definitely have some fascist tendencies, you see much more of it among the "liberals" in the Democratic party.

Here is the synopsis of a new book... Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning .


Book Description

“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385511841

While I don't have access to P&R, and since you started it... You have your parties reversed. Although the neocon Republicans definitely have some fascist tendencies, you see much more of it among the "liberals" in the Democratic party.

Here is the synopsis of a new book... Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning .


Book Description

“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385511841

Hilarious stuff, thanks.

I would rather see on all new and renewal drivers licenses a test section everyone must pass concerning bicycles. Why not educate or at least make a try at it.

Brilliant. Simple, easy and involving a process that is already paid for and in place. And since most adult cyclists are already drivers... odds are you will involve most cyclists too.

In fact, if most adult cyclists become more aware of the rules, chances are they will pass this on to their children too.

:beer::beer::beer:

However, I am wondering whether you were ever going to elaborate on your wild speculation below.

Look for the LCI credentials (or at least Forester acolyte status) of almost every poster who claims there is a crying need for licensing programs or a "need" for establishing "education courses", or better yet-both tied together. Or the credentials of those ranting about taxpayer funds that they feel should be diverted from bike lane facilities to the establishment of formal bicycling education programs. Seems to me to be a direct correlation.

Look for the LCI credentials (or at least Forester acolyte status) of almost every poster who claims there is a crying need for licensing programs or a "need" for establishing "education courses", or better yet-both tied together. Or the credentials of those ranting about taxpayer funds that they feel should be diverted from bike lane facilities to the establishment of formal bicycling education programs. Seems to me to be a direct correlation.

There is still a leap from this to ...

'The only benefits would accrue to those making a buck or those bicycling "educators" looking to boost their self esteem by practicing their craft on an unwilling public.'

I would rather see on all new and renewal drivers licenses a test section everyone must pass concerning bicycles. Why not educate or at least make a try at it.

Yes, there should be a bicycle license, but it should not be mandatory for cyclists. It should be a mandatory prerequisite for getting a driver's license and it should also be a required penalty for cyclists who repeatedly violate traffic laws.

Perhaps it should also entitle holders to the privledge of highway cycling.

Perhaps it should also entitle holders to the privledge of highway cycling.

If you mean highway=interstate freeway, many cyclists already have that 'privilege' if they live or cycle in the right place. If you mean the legal definition of highway, just about everyone has that right already.

But I ask why a license to cycle on a highway (of the interstate freeway kind) which one could argue takes less skill, less situational awareness and is very likely statistically safer than cycling on 25mph residential streets.

Al

There is still a leap from this to ...

'The only benefits would accrue to those making a buck or those bicycling "educators" looking to boost their self esteem by practicing their craft on an unwilling public.'

Maybe it is a big leap for you since you still imagine some mystical silver lining might be found in this black cloud of hot air.

Maybe it is a big leap for you since you still imagine some mystical silver lining might be found in this black cloud of hot air.

Yes ... flawless logic. I am impressed.

Well, what do you think? Just as motorcycles have a special class and special class license for operating on state roads, should there be a similar class for people using bikes as transportation vehicles?

Well since 5 already responded, let's flesh out the idea a bit more. Why have a license? Not to generate income, nor because unlicensed riders don't pay for roads. Here are some reasons why it might be beneficial:

1. for data metrics, there are #### cyclists who commute to work each year
2. for special treatment in driver education. Since this is a special class of vehicle on the roads, non cyclists have to give them special consideration. Say like air vehicles or water vehicles. The general rule of thumb is the slower and less moverable vehicles has right of way over faster vehicles.
3. for jump starting cycle commuting. A state tax credit of $1.00 for mile cyclocommuters log commuting to work in a year. A state tax credit to businesses of $1.00 each cyclocommuter mile employees log during the year.
4. as a foot in the door for increasing penalities for motor vehicle drivers ignoring the rights of the cyclist.

I'm trying to figure out what any of your reasons have to do with licensing.

1 - Doesn't work because of the ### of non-commuters who would have to get the license (weekend warriors, etc)
2 - Should already be the case, bikes are included in many states' vehicle codes and where they aren't the laws should be adapted to include them.
3 - I don't commute for a tax credit. I get an effective credit by not paying gas tax based on the reduced driving. Charging cyclists a license fee just to credit it back seems like one of the greatest "government for the sake of government" situations I can imagine.
4 - Refer to #2. Bikes already have certain rights on the roads, laws on the books, and rather than trying to get new ones we need to be working to get full enforcement of the old ones. If the laws in some areas are insufficient - like the places without a vehicular homicide law - that needs to change, not just for cars hitting cyclists but cars hitting anyone.

Maybe it's my general dislike of expanded regulation/licensing/intrusion coming out, but it really does seem to me that licensing cyclists is just going to throw more hurdles in the way of expanding the size of the community rather than serve in any way to improve our lot.

public roads are paid for by the public on public land and are for the public's use.

Not everybody needs to be licensed to use them. Usually, the ones who have the potential for greater harm require licensing and insurance to try to reduce the carnage they inflict on others.

In Vancouver, when cycle couriers became popular, there was an outcry from the public over their outlaw ways. City council decided to require the couriers to pass a course and then would grant them a license to ride a bike as a courier. A friend of mine was a courier and did the examinations that led to the licenses. He said, the couriers rode exactly the same after the examination, but because these couriers were now licensed, the complaints from the public ceased.

Just because someone has a license doesn't mean they are going to ride safely. There are already laws that enforce the rules of the road. Maybe what's needed are for the police to enforce the laws already in place?