Advocacy & Safety - Poll: Should bike licenses be required in the usa?

The subject of whether people should have a license to ride a bicycle has come up every now and then. While some states do require bicyclists to have a license to operate their bicycles, this is not so in others. In Maine, for example, the state considered having bicyclists have a license for identification, extra revenue, etc., but dropped it. Other states may or may not have used those or other reasons.

Should bicycle licenses be required in the USA? The basic answer is either YES or NO.
If you have further thoughts about the matter, leave them for after the poll.

No.

Nearly all the cities and states that experimented with either mandatory bicycle registration or bicyclist licensing found that the overhead administration costs far outweighed any potential benefit, especially since cyclists pose little danger to others. In most cases, cyclists received no tangible benefits (the programs were not designed in a way that would increase safety) and compliance with the law was very low. Enforcement efforts aimed at increasing compliance caused hardship for on low-income transportation cyclists, and in some cases programs to impound unregistered bikes resulted in police taking more bikes than the local bike thieves. Furthermore, since compliance was extremely low, police would sometimes use the local registration laws as a pretext to stop cyclists in high-crime neighborhoods for interrogation or searches. The regressive effects of such laws and the racially biased appearance of enforcement created public relations problems for police, leading to most communities repealing such laws.

Most communities now realize that the public benefits of cycling so outweigh the public costs that they seek to encourage cycling, and don't want create programs that would act as a disincentive, especially for beginners. Education programs would help protect bicyclists from themselves, but American sentiment about nanny laws is such that these programs are left voluntary for adults. Mandatory cycling education for children, however, might be a very good thing, if enough Americans cared about cycling.

Nearly all the cities and states that experimented with either mandatory bicycle registration or bicyclist licensing found that the overhead administration costs far outweighed any potential benefit, especially since cyclists pose little danger to others. In most cases, cyclists received no tangible benefits (the programs were not designed in a way that would increase safety) and compliance with the law was very low. Enforcement efforts aimed at increasing compliance caused hardship for on low-income transportation cyclists, and in some cases programs to impound unregistered bikes resulted in police taking more bikes than the local bike thieves. Furthermore, since compliance was extremely low, police would sometimes use the local registration laws as a pretext to stop cyclists in high-crime neighborhoods for interrogation or searches. The regressive effects of such laws and the racially biased appearance of enforcement created public relations problems for police, leading to most communities repealing such laws.

Most communities now realize that the public benefits of cycling so outweigh the public costs that they seek to encourage cycling, and don't want create programs that would act as a disincentive, especially for beginners. Education programs would help protect bicyclists from themselves, but American sentiment about nanny laws is such that these programs are left voluntary for adults. Mandatory cycling education for children, however, might be a very good thing, if enough Americans cared about cycling.

Excellent post.

Nearly all the cities and states that experimented with either mandatory bicycle registration or bicyclist licensing found that the overhead administration costs far outweighed any potential benefit, especially since cyclists pose little danger to others. In most cases, cyclists received no tangible benefits (the programs were not designed in a way that would increase safety) and compliance with the law was very low. Enforcement efforts aimed at increasing compliance caused hardship for on low-income transportation cyclists, and in some cases programs to impound unregistered bikes resulted in police taking more bikes than the local bike thieves. Furthermore, since compliance was extremely low, police would sometimes use the local registration laws as a pretext to stop cyclists in high-crime neighborhoods for interrogation or searches. The regressive effects of such laws and the racially biased appearance of enforcement created public relations problems for police, leading to most communities repealing such laws.

Most communities now realize that the public benefits of cycling so outweigh the public costs that they seek to encourage cycling, and don't want create programs that would act as a disincentive, especially for beginners. Education programs would help protect bicyclists from themselves, but American sentiment about nanny laws is such that these programs are left voluntary for adults. Mandatory cycling education for children, however, might be a very good thing, if enough Americans cared about cycling.


What he said ^^^^^^.

or more simply, absolutely NOT.

I can't imagine what would be accomplished by licensing cyclists.

Bicycle licensing, would almost certainly dissuade people from riding a bike, it would dissuade parents from encouraging it over driving. Imagine a little 6yr.-old kid with a bike license, he is riding around his street and a delivery truck hits him. The boy will have proper identification....for the morgue. After the delivery driver has been exonerated and the boy blamed.

While licensing would be good for identification purposes, it is also another avenue for authorities to unjustly affix blame, regardless of responsibility. When is a motorists' BAC taken. When is someone charged with a DUI or DWI in the injury or death of a cyclist, rarely. The cyclist is always the one to be blamed, regardless of legitimate or not. Bicycle licensing is just another avenue to do that with.

No.

Someone should post this in a car forum... I wonder what the results would be.

Someone should post this in a car forum... I wonder what the results would be.

+1

Too much fuss. Besides, where would you put the license plate? It also adds to the weight. We have more than enough id cards.

No!

Why stop at cyclists?
Let's license skateboarders, then rollerbladers, then pedestrians...

No state or country I'm aware of requires a bicycle operator's license, equivalent to a driver's license. We may have some problems in the U.S., but our cyclists are not so uniquely bad among the cyclists of the world that they require licensing.

Bicycle tabs, equivalent to car tabs, have been abandoned by most U.S. jurisdictions that used to have them. They simply aren't economical to enforce, and produce little or no net benefit. Our city code has vestigal bicycle registration language, from sleepy days before cars became the issue they are today. It's been a long time since the Chief of Police personally inspected every bicycle for safety at the time of sale...

Better use the effort to make sure every bike be equipped with lights upon purchase.

Who would benefit?

No.

No, we are licensed and feed enough in this country, government interefers too much already, who wants more? And a stickered license plate like the auto has?

No. I don't see how a old kid riding up and down his street and an adult riding for transportation should be subject to the same standards. Trying to make differentiations would make it too complicated.

Reminds me when years ago I noticed that surfboards out in California had to have a license stuck on them. So now what...make bicycles have them? Sadly enough, this is the way our society is heading. You can be free as long as you have a license.

Are you polling about a federal bike license? Do you guys even have a federal police that would care? USA is a rather large country so I'd think municipalities or at most states could do it.

Bicycle licensing, would almost certainly dissuade people from riding a bike, it would dissuade parents from encouraging it over driving. Imagine a little 6yr.-old kid with a bike license, he is riding around his street and a delivery truck hits him. The boy will have proper identification....for the morgue. After the delivery driver has been exonerated and the boy blamed.

While licensing would be good for identification purposes, it is also another avenue for authorities to unjustly affix blame, regardless of responsibility. When is a motorists' BAC taken. When is someone charged with a DUI or DWI in the injury or death of a cyclist, rarely. The cyclist is always the one to be blamed, regardless of legitimate or not. Bicycle licensing is just another avenue to do that with.

Actually DUI or DWI is one of the few situations that does tend to result in a charge. Otherwise indeed motorists are rarely charged with anything in the death of a cyclist.

Are you polling about a federal bike license? Do you guys even have a federal police that would care? USA is a rather large country so I'd think municipalities or at most states could do it.

I don't recall bike licensing (cyclist) being a requirement in Canada either.

I voted "Yes", with a caveat:

The licensing should be a "license by rule". That's a legal term for granting a license automatically unless certain conditions are met. An example of this is CB Radio, where every citizen, while in areas controlled by the US (And, indirectly, the FCC) are licensed to operate a Citizen's Band Transmitter/Receiver combination; and this license is only revoked when the government has found the operator to be in gross negligence in operating within the rules.

This could be transferred to bicycling, where anyone over the age of say, 10 (Or whatever age deemed at the state/county/city level), is automatically licensed to operate a bicycle on public roadways; until such a time as they have been deemed unsafe (ie, a whole lot of cited violations).

This type of licensing allows for an official "validity" for cyclist to operate on roads, since the assumption by drivers is that they have not been found to be unsafe, lest, they would have had their privilege revoked (Yes, before people jump on me, riding on a public road is indeed a privilege, just like driving is).

Anything but a license by rule set-up I would be opposed to.

Why stop at cyclists?
, then pedestrians...

Down here in the land of the obese we could require them to strap wide load signs to their butts.

.......Otherwise indeed motorists are rarely charged with anything in the death of a cyclist.

And if the motorist is charged, it takes a monumental effort by the cycling community to get a conviction and sentencing that even remotely comes close to fitting the offense, as was the case in the death of a local cyclist resulting in a 1 year sentence in the county jail for the motorist.

In Maine, for example, the state considered having bicyclists have a license for identification, extra revenue, etc., but dropped it.

In ME, the new Republican Governor, who cut taxes for the wealthiest in the state as one of his first official acts, also suggested higher taxes on specifically bikes to make up for resulting budget revenue shortfalls.

Regarding the extra revenue part of it: if bikes are licensed or registered, how long do you think it will take before at least liability insurance is mandated?

So far, everyone has missed the basic point that we (as US citizens) have the "right to travel". Google that phrase, and you'll find that courts have upheld over the years we have a right to move about for our private desires in public places; between state, and within states.

The burden imposed (rights infringed) to our travel by car is barely constitutionally legal, but is widely accepted by citizens (and courts) because the thought is "well at least our other modes of travel (horse, walking, bike, etc) remain unresticted".

This is one of the things that defines US freedom relative to the rest of the world. Zero restrictions on public travel.

I voted "Yes"

Finally, one of the wacky minority has the balls to speak up. Let's do the democratic thing here...GET A ROPE!

I voted "Yes", with a caveat:

The licensing should be a "license by rule". That's a legal term for granting a license automatically unless certain conditions are met. An example of this is CB Radio, where every citizen, while in areas controlled by the US (And, indirectly, the FCC) are licensed to operate a Citizen's Band Transmitter/Receiver combination; and this license is only revoked when the government has found the operator to be in gross negligence in operating within the rules.

This could be transferred to bicycling, where anyone over the age of say, 10 (Or whatever age deemed at the state/county/city level), is automatically licensed to operate a bicycle on public roadways; until such a time as they have been deemed unsafe (ie, a whole lot of cited violations).

This type of licensing allows for an official "validity" for cyclist to operate on roads, since the assumption by drivers is that they have not been found to be unsafe, lest, they would have had their privilege revoked (Yes, before people jump on me, riding on a public road is indeed a privilege, just like driving is).

Anything but a license by rule set-up I would be opposed to.

UberGeek,
Can you tell me where this is stated as a priviledge, and who can revoke that priviledge from me?

Gasoline tax, I payz it, a lot and it seems to mostly go to infrastructure I don't use/want... I think I should be able to use the roads I pay for on any vehicle of my choosing and yes you need a license for a ton of steel... shocking? But when you want to license bicycle traffic on "public roads" that smacks of big brother waving his be good stick at us.. as was said before, what comes next at that point licensing for walking? I don't know about you.. but I tend to pay into all these lovely public road systems etc.. without any choice mind you as do a lot of people who don't drive at all but rather use public transportation/walk/bike.. I don't even want to get into how many people on the roads don't have licenses/valid registrations etc and clog them up and don't pay it forward other then the gasoline taxes...

I voted "Yes", with a caveat:

The licensing should be a "license by rule". That's a legal term for granting a license automatically unless certain conditions are met. An example of this is CB Radio, where every citizen, while in areas controlled by the US (And, indirectly, the FCC) are licensed to operate a Citizen's Band Transmitter/Receiver combination; and this license is only revoked when the government has found the operator to be in gross negligence in operating within the rules.

This could be transferred to bicycling, where anyone over the age of say, 10 (Or whatever age deemed at the state/county/city level), is automatically licensed to operate a bicycle on public roadways; until such a time as they have been deemed unsafe (ie, a whole lot of cited violations).

This type of licensing allows for an official "validity" for cyclist to operate on roads, since the assumption by drivers is that they have not been found to be unsafe, lest, they would have had their privilege revoked (Yes, before people jump on me, riding on a public road is indeed a privilege, just like driving is).

Anything but a license by rule set-up I would be opposed to.
And once the bad-boy cyclist has lots his "license by rule," who the hell will know it? Does he get a big scarlet T on his forehead???

And once the bad-boy cyclist has lots his "license by rule," who the hell will know it? Does he get a big scarlet T on his forehead???

yes.

Finally, one of the wacky minority has the balls to speak up. Let's do the democratic thing here...GET A ROPE!

lol

My caveat was quite lengthy, however :) Most people don't consider themselves "licensed to use a wifi router", but they are in fact. Licensed by rule.

And once the bad-boy cyclist has lots his "license by rule," who the hell will know it? Does he get a big scarlet T on his forehead???

Same way the FCC figures it out: The next time you are caught, you can serve jail time, or face very steep fines (Fines that generally encourage people to not do it anymore).

UberGeek,
Can you tell me where this is stated as a priviledge, and who can revoke that priviledge from me?

Can you point out where this was declared as a human right. I can't seem to find "operate a bicycle on public facilities" in the founding documents of the United States, the founding documents for Canada, the UN charter on human rights, or anywhere else.

Who can revoke this privilege? Any legislator in your state can remove the privilege bicycles have to public roads, by rescinding the appropriate language from the motor vehicle code, through that state's legislative process.

So far, everyone has missed the basic point that we (as US citizens) have the "right to travel". Google that phrase, and you'll find that courts have upheld over the years we have a right to move about for our private desires in public places; between state, and within states.

The burden imposed (rights infringed) to our travel by car is barely constitutionally legal, but is widely accepted by citizens (and courts) because the thought is "well at least our other modes of travel (horse, walking, bike, etc) remain unresticted".

This is one of the things that defines US freedom relative to the rest of the world. Zero restrictions on public travel.

You have the right to travel. You do not have the right to use any particular mode of travel.

While some states do require bicyclists to have a license to operate their bicycles, this is not so in others.
What state in the U.S. requires (or ever required) a license to operate a bicycle?

Quick hint: None, for good reason too.

Gasoline tax, I payz it, a lot and it seems to mostly go to infrastructure I don't use/want...

If you pay gasoline tax, then you are using the infrastructure :lol: Otherwise, why would you be buying gasoline?

Same way the FCC figures it out: The next time you are caught, you can serve jail time, or face very steep fines (Fines that generally encourage people to not do it anymore).
Uh huh. How many cyclists out there do you think should be in jail right now?

If you pay gasoline tax, then you are using the infrastructure :lol: Otherwise, why would you be buying gasoline?

Ahem, I love how people read selectively here I said MOSTLY. I'll clarify even further for you though unless it's 30+ miles I tend to ride, and I don't often need to go 30+. Most of my actual driving is done in the course of a work day sadly.. where I get no say.

Can you point out where this was declared as a human right. I can't seem to find "operate a bicycle on public facilities" in the founding documents of the United States, the founding documents for Canada, the UN charter on human rights, or anywhere else.

Then you didn't read the fine print:


IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The states, not the feds, are your huckleberry, counselor...and even then only for travel within the states on public roads, not between states.

You have the right to travel. You do not have the right to use any particular mode of travel.

That depends on the availability of alternative travel modes and the reasons given to restrict or deny a particular mode.

Restricting people who are incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle from driving one is necessary to protect the safety of other travelers, and there are reasonable safer alternatives available, such as bicycling, walking or hiring a taxi.

Restricting an individual from using an accessible mode of transportation in favor of other modes that are inaccessible to the traveler can sometimes be considered unconstitutional, particularly if the restriction is not clearly in the interest of protecting the rights of the general public.

For instance, when a small town attempted to enforce a local license requirement on every taxi service driving through the town, a North Carolina court ruled the local ordinance unconstitutional because allowing every municipality to do that would create such an impossible regulatory burden on taxi operators such that it would result in an unconstitutional restriction on travel for people who can't drive themselves. The city's motivation for the law - revenue generation - was not considered important enough for the public good to warrant the potential travel hardship it caused.

There are a number of legal precedents on the subject of denying a particular travel mode; most measure the merits of the restriction versus the hardship caused. Mere preference that the public (or particular members of the public) use one mode of travel over another doesn't fare well in the courts; there must usually be a valid, clear public safety concern in addition to accessible, reasonable alternatives.

Uh huh. How many cyclists out there do you think should be in jail right now?

There's at least one I know, who insists on riding a bike while drunk, cutting into traffic often.


Ahem, I love how people read selectively here I said MOSTLY. I'll clarify even further for you though unless it's 30+ miles I tend to ride, and I don't often need to go 30+. Most of my actual driving is done in the course of a work day sadly.. where I get no say.

Well, you only pay commensurate with what you use (You use X gallons of gas per mile, so if you drive Y miles, you pay XY in gas taxes).


Then you didn't read the fine print:


True, it does delegate the right to manage roads down to the states. Not to the citizens.



The states, not the feds, are your huckleberry, counselor...and even then only for travel within the states on public roads, not between states.

I understand that. And nowhere in any state's founding documents, does it read: "You have a right to ride a bicycle on public roads".


That depends on the availability of alternative travel modes and the reasons given to restrict or deny a particular mode.

Restricting people who are incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle from driving one is necessary to protect the safety of other travelers, and there are reasonable safer alternatives available, such as bicycling, walking or hiring a taxi.

Restricting an individual from using an accessible mode of transportation in favor of other modes that are inaccessible to the traveler can sometimes be considered unconstitutional, particularly if the restriction is not clearly in the interest of protecting the rights of the general public.

For instance, when a small town attempted to enforce a local license requirement on every taxi service driving through the town, a North Carolina court ruled the local ordinance unconstitutional because allowing every municipality to do that would create such an impossible regulatory burden on taxi operators such that it would result in an unconstitutional restriction on travel for people who can't drive themselves. The city's motivation for the law - revenue generation - was not considered important enough for the public good to warrant the potential travel hardship it caused.

There are a number of legal precedents on the subject of denying a particular travel mode; most measure the merits of the restriction versus the hardship caused. Mere preference that the public (or particular members of the public) use one mode of travel over another doesn't fare well in the courts; there must usually be a valid, clear public safety concern in addition to accessible, reasonable alternatives.

Yep, it's a measured balance. There is nowhere where it states you have an unfettered right to whatever mode you desire.

Well, you only pay commensurate with what you use (You use X gallons of gas per mile, so if you drive Y miles, you pay XY in gas taxes).

http://cycling.blogs.pressdemocrat.com/10129/you-dont-pay-road-taxes-so/?pa=1&tc=pg
It's long winded but a good read, what's relevant to this conversation we're having though begins on page 3 on the last paragraph.

I understand that. And nowhere in any state's founding documents, does it read: "You have a right to ride a bicycle on public roads".

Some would challenge you there too. Not sure I would be one of them, but there it is
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

And nowhere in any state's founding documents, does it read: "You have a right to ride a bicycle on public roads".


Like the US constitution, most of the state constitutions pre-date the invention of the automobile, and many pre-date the bicycle. The public's fundamental right to use the public roads for travel is well established, since at least as far back as the time of the Magna Carta. But operation of potentially dangerous machinery on those roads is regulated in a manner proportionate to the level of danger posed to other users and potential damage to the roadway. This is the only practical way to protect the public's right to use their roads. Restricting travel by users of harmless modes in favor of users of more dangerous mode would turn over 100 years of traffic law on its head. Only on fully controlled access freeways are non-motorized users restricted from travel, and most states provide exemptions to that restriction in the rare case that the freeway is not redundant to a non-freeway route in terms of access to the same destinations, thus protecting the basic travel rights of non-motorized users.

This is one of the things that defines US freedom relative to the rest of the world. Zero restrictions on public travel.

Except if you're travelling by bus. Or train. Or car. Or airline. Or outside the country. Or in states where they can demand proof of citizenship. Or in the poorer sections of town. And today, they're only letting people with work ID on Wall St.

Some would challenge you there too. Not sure I would be one of them, but there it is
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml


Like the US constitution, most of the state constitutions pre-date the invention of the automobile, and many pre-date the bicycle. The public's fundamental right to use the public roads for travel is well established, since at least as far back as the time of the Magna Carta. But operation of potentially dangerous machinery on those roads is regulated in a manner proportionate to the level of danger posed to other users and potential damage to the roadway. This is the only practical way to protect the public's right to use their roads. Restricting travel by users of harmless modes in favor of users of more dangerous mode would turn over 100 years of traffic law on its head. Only on fully controlled access freeways are non-motorized users restricted from travel, and most states provide exemptions to that restriction in the rare case that the freeway is not redundant to a non-freeway route in terms of access to the same destinations, thus protecting the basic travel rights of non-motorized users.

Those point out the right to use the roads, not a right to the choice of vehicle used on those roads.

Those point out the right to use the roads, not a right to the choice of vehicle used on those roads.

Addressed in the link I provided in the second paragraph:

The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day.

Of course I guess one could make the case that a bicycle isn't "ordinary transportation"

Except if you're travelling by bus. Or train. Or car. Or airline. Or outside the country. Or in states where they can demand proof of citizenship. Or in the poorer sections of town. And today, they're only letting people with work ID on Wall St.

Okay,
Now you are just making stuff up! Anyone (legal citizens that is) who sets out to travel anywhere in this country should be able to proceed on public roads without having to be permitted, licensed, taxed, fined, detained, whatever. Just be able identify yourself, and pay the fare to your merchant of choice (or walk if you are destitute).

And, yes, I can believe NYC'ers give up their rights easily.