I am against bike and pedestrian licenses and permits to use "public" roads. I think that motorists should have licenses because of the damage that they can do to others. If we use cars/motorists as an example, no way does having a license give a person good sense, or even an understanding the laws. I see bike licensing as a regressive tax that hurts growth in the area that is needed.

The state says that no one has a "right to the road" it is a (revocable) privilege granted by the state in the form of a license.

Soon we will have national ID cards and this all will be moot. To me, I would rather loose a random 5000 people, (it is only 1/10 the number of motorists killed every year by cars), than suffer all sorts of privacy losses.

If all people had insurance there would be less litigation but liability insurance for bicyclists-- that is funny. Dogs and kids probably do more damage than bikes.

I think that bicyclists should complain about motorists and others who break the laws we are (still) free to complain. Some bicyclists are after all, voting, taxpaying, licensed drivers. Cars suck and you have been fooled if you believe otherwise.

Who would benefit from the licensing of bikes? Motorists, the state, oil companies but not bicyclists.