Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
I voted for licenses because:
1) It would give an actual count of the number of us.
Not really. Last I heard around 20% of call drivers on the road were unlicenced. I see a similar thing happening here, possibly on a greater scale.
Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
2) It acknowledges our right to the highway while we acknowledge our duty to abide by the rules of the highway.
I already do acknowledge the rules of the highway, and many other cyclists do. However, given the number of drivers who fail to do so, I don't believe licencing on the same basis would make any difference to the behaviour of cyclists.
Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
3) It would mean that the police would have to be more aware of the bike rules of the road.
As far as my interactions with the police go, they already are. It isn't the police's lack of knowledge here that poses any kind of threat to cyclists.
Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
4) It would put us on an equal footing with motorists in terms of user fees, strengthening our claim on the road.
What? You mean we'd get heavily subsidised (like $3,000 each)? Do tell how a licence would have that outcome. The fact that I actually pay taxes strengthens my claim for a place on the road as much as I need to.
Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
I am fully aware that this would be just as successful in producing safe cyclists as it is in producing safe motorists.
Yeah, not at all.
Look, it's very simple. A car needs to be licenced because of the effects it's misuse can have on others. A the misuse of a bike is highly unlikely to impact on others on anything like that scale, hence there is no licence necessary.