Councillor Michael Walker is trying hard to appear to be the reasonable voice for citizens of Toronto plagued by cyclists. The solution is to make it harder to be a cyclist. The City's public works and infrastructure meeting will be discussing mandatory helmets and mandatory licensing for cyclists.
"We can't stick our heads in the sand and revert to this idyllic view of cyclists" he said. "We've moved a quantum leap from there. Bicyclists are much more prominently recognized as an alternative form of transportation - that's been in government policy and taxpayers' money."
Pro-cycling councillors are entertaining the ideas for now, perhaps because they can see where the wind is blowing. There's a significant proportion of the citizenry that likes to put the blame on cyclists.
"There are aggressive cyclists who don't show enough respect for pedestrians or vehicular traffic," he said. "And when they show that disrespect, whether they injure pedestrians or bang on a hood or act in some irresponsible manner they can ride off and you can't catch them - they just weave through traffic."
Minnan-Wong said a clear license plate displayed on a bicycle would act as a deterent to bad behaviour.
The idea of licensing bicycles isn't being rejected out of hand by pro-cycling councillors - but questions remain before council makes the request of the province.
Scarborough Southwest Councillor Adrian Heaps, the chair of Toronto's cycling committee, said the idea might have merit - but only insofar as it's tied to public education, and incentives for cyclists to learn the rules of the road. City staff are currently working on a comprehensive cycling policy called Changing Gears, that will be released later this year.
So would a helmet and a driver's license have helped Mr. Sheppard? He might have already been wearing a helmet for all I know.
Comments
Rich (not verified)
That's good;
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 18:37On top of being an entirely awful city to ride a bike in, they're now talking about licensing cyclists. Despite the facts that motor vehicles are the cause in the vast majority of cycling accidents, and despite the fact that the city rarely accomodates cyclists in any way at all (bike lanes on Bloor street, the busiest cycling corridor in the city anyone?), and despite the fact that you would have a hard time demonstrating ANY measurable negative impact from "reckless cyclists" either economically or in terms of causing accidents, they want us to PAY for the privilege to ride in this cess pool?
Unbelievable. We're well on our way to being the least bike friendly city in North America. Way to go Toronto
za (not verified)
if...
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 19:01if I am asked to have a cyclist's license then I will ride in the middle of my lane -- no shyness baby.
Cyclists: we need to work in unison to get bike lanes. Can't we just go out and paint lanes?
dash (not verified)
I'm thinking us having
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 14:10I'm thinking us having licenses and paying for the dubious honour of it, may be of great help actually. As a card carrying, paying cyclist, I suddenly have a much stronger platform to stand on when I'm demanding justice and infrastructure. The union will get a hell of a boost too in terms of political influence.
This kind of stuff is universal when it comes to making someone understand your rights. Forget depending on the greater good of mankind. Wave a laminated card in their face and you're suddenly getting somewhere.
anthill
Including cycling training in
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 19:18Including cycling training in high school phys. ed. and cyclist behavior as part of motor vehicle licensing seems totally reasonable. Licensing bicycle riding though... man, what next, licensing roller skates? Skateboards? 'razor' scooters?
Just out of curiosity I calculated kinetic energy (1/2 m v^2) for different vehicles, as a rough maximum on the collision damage they can cause.
Fully loaded cement truck: 30,000kg @ 50km/h = 3000 kJ
Passenger car, 400-series: 1700kg @ 120km/h = 944 kJ
Passenger car, arterial: 1700kg @ 50km/h = 164 kJ
Heavy man on bicycle: 100kg bike @ 32km/h = 4 kJ
This gives you a good idea of why vehicles are licensed the way they are, why bicycle-caused fatalities are so low, and why many cyclists are killed by trucks. A car hitting a pedestrian has the potential to deliver 40 times more impact energy than a bike. A cement truck, 732 times more.
It's too bad this discussion isn't about safety, economics, or risk.
electric
Lack of licenses is just an excuse to pigeon-hole cyclists
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 19:26I'm sure all the problems will be solved by a laminated card. If they aren't well, then, hey maybe Mr. Bryant could get his old job back and bring an anti-cyclist-road racing bill into effect to get tough on those cyclists.
Although, at least with the licenses, I must admit, it will be easier for the police to identify the bodies pulled from under the ttc buses, streetcars, and private automobiles on our poorly managed public roads.
I guess Toronto's secret agenda to wipe cyclists out of existence is coming out into the light. It's the city's only possible motive left.
luke (not verified)
If you ever get asked to
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 23:26If you ever get asked to present your license, just say you're from Mississauga. Unless city hall thinks they can licence everybody in the province, this will never see the light of day.
In other words, don't worry, it's not gonna happen.
Katrina (not verified)
I am from T.O but now live in
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 05:44I am from T.O but now live in Copenhagen. Here the municipality's attitude towards creating a law about wearing helmets is that, it gives a message that cycling in Cph is not safe. Why spend energy and money on this?
Instead, they rather focus on ideas and on actions that better the basic cycling infrastructure **as part **and not an afterthought of the Danish transport system. In this way, no one fights for road space and road rage thus reduced. Cyclists don't just feel safe, they are safe.
One cannot eliminate road rage by the enforcement of additional cycle regulations. Instead how about dealing with the inherent reasons why cyclists, car drivers and pedestrians have such a lack of respect for each other in the first place?
teacher (not verified)
Licensing is good
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 08:31Dear readers,
Licensing is a good idea. It is about education. Many of us already have driver's licences, it proves we have taken training, passed an exam (both theoretical and practical) and have read, retained, and understood the rules of the road and skills we need as proficient road users.
If bicycles, already defined by HTA as part of the road user hierarchy, are to be fully equal and included, then it only stands to reason that they and their operators are held to the same standard as all other road users.
There are waaaaay too many cyclists who just don't understand their rights, obligations, and responsibilities as road users. A bicycle is not just a toy; it is a vehicle, a tool for using the transportation infrastructure we all pay for and are welcome to use, provided we give respect, behave cooperatively, and use skill appropriately.
Licensing will ensure that all cyclists have at least been educated in what they need to know, and what is expected from them. It is from a place of whole education that awareness and enforcement can then truly be carried out. Education means nothing if retention and understanding are not measured or evaluated. This is what licensing means.
Separate from operator competency, there is currently no way of ensuring mechanical fitness and road worthyness of any bicycle in Ontario. This is a huge problem, especially for newbies and novices who buy their bikes from Big Box retailers or who don't know any better. A warped wheel, dysfunctional brakes, or other mechanical deficiency can all lead to loss of control, collision, damage, injury; no matter how smooth the pavement, or how separated from traffic the bike lane is. Builders and mechanics should be licensed as well, so that good bikes are built and repaired by someone with specific knowledge and experience, exactly the same as autos, trucks, buses, transports, etc.
Not only will licensing help correct this problem, it will improve the cycling experience for the vast majority of riders by teaching proper skills, behaviours, and expectations to those who are not expert, advanced, or professional.
With regard and respect for those who do have significant experience and skill, it should be no problem for you to pass an exam and practical test. For those who do have a concern about being tested, perhaps you would consider it an opportunity to prove yourself, by showing your skill and ability, resolving the question once and for all that you know what you are doing, and can do it repeatedly, with ease. For those of you who continue to rail against standards and evaluation, perhaps you should rethink whether you are choosing to be part of the problem, or part of the solution.
In my opinion, there are far too many vocal critics in the cycling community that clamour for attention and exceptional treatment, which is plainly unfair. Asking for special recognition, exceptions to the rules, and dedicated infrastructure really is about avoiding evaluation and being tested; moreover, it's about asking for no measurement, an automatic pass, an entitlement, an ask for something to be given, rather than earned. How is this right?
Licensing will provide the means to solve some of the problems we currently face.
Respectfully,
a teacher
Random cyclist (not verified)
Point by point rebuttal.
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 12:22"Many of us already have driver's licences, it proves we have taken training, passed an exam (both theoretical and practical) and have read, retained, and understood the rules of the road and skills we need as proficient road users."
And yet there are constant collisions, examples of bad driving, and breaking of minor infractions. How many drivers do you know that refuse to drive over the speed limit ever, even on highways?
"If bicycles, already defined by HTA as part of the road user hierarchy, are to be fully equal and included, then it only stands to reason that they and their operators are held to the same standard as all other road users."
Bicycles are simply not the same as other vehicles, no matter what the law says. Cars aren't allowed on multiuse pathways. Children are not allowed to drive cars, not even on the sidewalk. Bikes get special lanes, and sometimes allowed to turn left where cars are not. Bikes are allowed to be parked on the sidewalk. Cyclists can easily dismount, walk their bikes and become legally pedestrians. There are plenty of differences, and licensing is another one. Car licensing is also mandatory everywhere in the world, whereas bike licensing is not. That's another major difference.
"There are waaaaay too many cyclists who just don't understand their rights, obligations, and responsibilities as road users."
What kind of study have you undertaken to gain this knowledge? How does cyclist ignorance compare with pedestrian ignorance? Rollerblader ignorance?
"A bicycle is not just a toy; it is a vehicle, a tool for using the transportation infrastructure we all pay for and are welcome to use, provided we give respect, behave cooperatively, and use skill appropriately."
Agreed.
"Licensing will ensure that all cyclists have at least been educated in what they need to know, and what is expected from them. It is from a place of whole education that awareness and enforcement can then truly be carried out. Education means nothing if retention and understanding are not measured or evaluated. This is what licensing means."
People can be educated in a great number of ways without licensing. I know I'm supposed to walk across an intersection, and that it's illegal for me to drink in public, but I've never had a license to walk or to drink.
And how often are you suggesting we test cyclists? I've had a drivers license for over a decade, and I've only been tested once. Licensing will ensure that all licensed cyclists have been educated, but it won't do much for underage cyclists, or any cyclists visiting from out of town. Unless licensing is mandatory for them, which will no doubt deter most of these groups from cycling at all.
"Separate from operator competency, there is currently no way of ensuring mechanical fitness and road worthyness of any bicycle in Ontario. This is a huge problem, especially for newbies and novices who buy their bikes from Big Box retailers or who don't know any better. A warped wheel, dysfunctional brakes, or other mechanical deficiency can all lead to loss of control, collision, damage, injury; no matter how smooth the pavement, or how separated from traffic the bike lane is. Builders and mechanics should be licensed as well, so that good bikes are built and repaired by someone with specific knowledge and experience, exactly the same as autos, trucks, buses, transports, etc."
Not only is this argument ridiculous, but you clearly know nothing about bike mechanics. Wheels naturally become warped over time as spokes are weakened from riding. Break pads wear away through use. Licensing is going to stop the laws of nature? Or licensing will require monthly bike checkups? People can fix their own bikes far more easily than they can fix their own cars, and licensing mechanics will increase costs, and make DIY repairs even more likely.
"Not only will licensing help correct this problem, it will improve the cycling experience for the vast majority of riders by teaching proper skills, behaviours, and expectations to those who are not expert, advanced, or professional."
No, it will make cycling a lot more expensive and inconvenient which will help deter cyclists who are not expert, advanced, or professional from even riding.
"For those of you who continue to rail against standards and evaluation, perhaps you should rethink whether you are choosing to be part of the problem, or part of the solution."
You are defining the problem and the solution incorrectly. The lack of ramps and elevators will not be eliminated by mandatory licensing for wheelchairs.
"In my opinion, there are far too many vocal critics in the cycling community that clamour for attention and exceptional treatment, which is plainly unfair. Asking for special recognition, exceptions to the rules, and dedicated infrastructure really is about avoiding evaluation and being tested; moreover, it's about asking for no measurement, an automatic pass, an entitlement, an ask for something to be given, rather than earned. How is this right?"
Does everything have to be earned? Do we need to earn the right to go running along the beach? Do we need the earn the right to feel safe while walking down the street? Cars, guns, airplanes have licensing because of the massive amount of damage they are capable of inflicting. Boats, it seems, are less likely to damage innocent by-standards and general property, but are dangerous that they require insurance, if not licenses. Bikes do not pose the same kid of general threat, and unlike any of the above, actually benefit society in terms of greater physical fitness and mobility without massive air pollution. That is why they are different. That is why we demand special treatment. And that is why licensing is totally ridiculous.
With all due respect, your arguments behind licensing are so weak that it takes all of my faith to believe that they are not just an excuse to discourage cycling and continue the status quo. While as cyclists we should be happy to discuss all options which benefit the wider community, this kind of idiotic suggestion does little to encourage openness and discussion.
Respectfully,
A student.
anthony
Whom to licence
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 13:39Dear Teacher,
If we're talking about ill-assembled bikes, then license the bike assemblers and bike mechanics; licensing the bike rider won't help. Also, increase the liability that store owners face for letting bikes in bad repair face if they let them out their doors. This will go farther to making the bikes in better condition to start with.
Waaay too many drivers take unnecessary risks on the road by driving too fast; by driving while drunk, by driving while tired; and by driving whilst distracted by telephones, radios, GPSs, other gadgets, and kids. Licensing might have helped, but still too many people die in crashes and collisions caused by these bad (and licensed) drivers.
Licensed drivers cause the majority of the crashes and collisions with unlicensed cyclists. Licensing cyclists will not change this.
Unlicensed and un-insured drivers account for a disproportionate number of crashes and collisions on our roads. What's even more frightening is that they account for a disproportionate number of crashes and collision involving serious injuries and fatal outcomes, including those with cyclists. Licensing cyclists will not change this.
Bicycle couriers are under-represented in all types of crashes and collisions, despite their seemingly reckless and law-less behaviour on our roads. Perhaps we should be mimicking their ways, not teaching cyclists to follow obviously flawed laws.
Licensing cycling would be a barrier to getting people to ride. And yet we know that our roads, and especially the cyclists using them, are safer when more people on bikes take to our streets. Giving incentives to encourage more people to ride bikes is a better way to increasing safety; not throwing unnecessary barriers, like licensing, in the way.
But, if we’re looking to employ more teachers and instructors and testers, then licensing IS good -- for them; As long as there are people want to ride bikes, and have places to ride.
I am a certified instructor, and a certified CAN-BIKE instructor to boot. And after carefully looking over the evidence and research, and after trying to teach the unwilling, I can tell you that licensing cycling will not help. What helps is fostering a cycling culture, building better roads, removing cars and car parking from our public spaces and using that pace to add separated bike lanes and paths, and also adding new and additional and better bike parking.
Cyclists may pose a risk to themselves, but as a society we don’t, and can’t afford to, care. People jump out of planes with parachutes, climb cliff walls and buildings, fire themselves out of cannons, walk on tightropes, and engage in all sorts of personally dangerous behaviours. When we care is when people’s behaviour start to pose a significant risk to others. The amount of injuries and deaths of people involved in collisions with those riding bicycles is so small, so insignificant, as to not warrant our collective attention. And the rider of a bike faces a significant disincentive to avoid collisions with others, as they are as much as risk of injury or death as the people that they would collide with. Car occupants, on the other hand, face a near zero chance of being injured in a collision with a pedestrian or cyclists, whereas the pedestrian or cyclist faces significant chances of injury or death if involved in a collision with a car.
Most licensed drivers have only a vague concept of the HTA, barely understand the rules of “right of way,” have almost zero empathy for the challenges that drivers of vehicles different than their own face (and have almost as much for any other road user,) do not understand the social contract that made licensing of motor-vehicles necessary in the first place (and the very fact that you are bringing up these points means that you are also likely unaware and don’t understand both the historical context, and/or the concept of “social contract.”)
Education, as you should be well aware, is ongoing. But licensing, at least as we’ve implemented it, is a one-time deal. Retention is merely long enough to pass the test to earn the licence. We’d have to change our concept of licensing if education were to truly be the intent, we would have to continually re-train and re-test all of our road users if this were truly the goal, as your profession does to you (that is if you are truly a teacher, as you claim.)
Additionally, in the hierarchy of road users, motor vehicles are at the bottom. They have only the privilege of being on the road, whereas the rest of us have the right to be there. Roads are public spaces for the movement of people and goods; they are not exclusive spaces for the movement and storage of motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are tolerated on our roads as long as the vehicles and their drivers are both licenses and insured, and that they behave according to the HTA and the posted limitations; the conditions are much less onerous for those of us outside a motor vehicle.
Lastly, very young kids can learn the skills to ride a bike, and by the age of nine or ten almost all can learn to ride traffic competently. So answer me this: Why should my kids not have to be licensed to use the same roads in the same way, yet I would only be able to ride with them if I were licensed?
jamesmallon (not verified)
typo
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 13:48I think 'a teacher' made a typo, and meant to sign off as 'ill-informed fatuous ass'.
geoffrey
Thankyou
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 19:30Thankyou randomcyclist, jamesmallon and especially anthony.
As much as I'd like to hope "teacher" might take a lesson home, I doubt that lesson is other than the "natives are revolting and smelly".
Thankyou for trying. Motorholics won't get it. Might by right and all that.
locutas_of_spragge
Licensing...
Mon, 09/07/2009 - 13:15will simply move us one step closer to a "papers, please!" society, in which what our granparents and great-grandparents recognized as a right going back to Magna Carta has somehow degenerated into a privilege granted at the pleasure of the state. I don't care what motives the government claims to have for appropriating this power, either. Education sounds fine in theory (although I would think twice about taking it from someone who thinks they can "carry out" a noun like "awareness"), but I still don't trust anyone, including teachers, enough to allow them to limit essential freedoms, especially when they make the case that we must "earn" our basic freedoms (earn them from whom?).
I also question the premise. I think that of cyclists who actually break the laws, only a vanishingly small percentage do so out of ignorance.
Ed (not verified)
It's Walker's agenda, not the city's (yet)
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 10:18"I guess Toronto's secret agenda to wipe cyclists out of existence is coming out into the light. It's the city's only possible motive left."
This is Councillor Walker's not-so-secret agenda. His secret agenda, I suspect (not living in his ward) is to appear relevant and involved, even though he must be way, way beyond his best-by date. He was first elected in 1982, and he's trying to be a free-thinking maverick. That's kind of hard to hold up after more than 25 years. His interview on Metro Morning this week was largely incoherent; pity Matt Galloway didn't go for the jugular some more.
I hope that the City as a whole is smart enough not to pick up on Walker's sillyness. I don't see any evidence that the City itself has an anti-bike agenda, although there certainly are anti-bike factions, and clueless crappy-facility-constructing departments.
jamesmallon (not verified)
Yeah, I'm a teacher too.
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 10:21Who cares what your profession is, you're wrong.
Let's assume there is a similar proportion of stupid and selfish cyclists to drivers (which I doubt, btw). If I have to be hit by an idiot in traffic, let it be by an idiot on a bike: I like the idea of 1/40th the kinetic energy, thanks. Perhaps you are not a teacher of physics? Do you want to be hit by a hammer, or a roll of toilet paper?
If you want most idiots to drive vehicles that will put you in hospital, or the ground, if you are hit: make transit lousy, inadequately police traffic, and build a city as spread-out as LA (yes, Toronto is). If you want to ensure all idiots drive vehicles that will put you in a hospital, mandate licensing. You'll also manage to make our kids even fatter, and less independent.
I'm moving.
Yet another non... (not verified)
Saying this probably won't gain me any popularity...
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 17:13We don't need licensing for cyclists, we need more enforcement of the law. I'll admit that I do go the wrong way on one way streets, or hop onto an empty sidewalk to avoid some jerk in a car hogging the last few inches beside the curb, but I welcome the cops to start cracking down in cyclists.
If we want to be respected on the road we have to follow the rules. And the rules have to be enforced. Hit me with a the same ticket a car would get for going the wrong way down a street, and you can be sure I won't ever do that again. But until that starts happening I just can't see cyclists changing their habits.
And while they're at it, we really need an "Idaho Stop" sort of law here... ****
Yet another non... (not verified)
Huh, not sure what those
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 17:18Huh, not sure what those asterisks are at the end there... I promise I wasn't swearing!
Bojan (not verified)
Licensing is simply a
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 17:21Licensing is simply a desperate attempt by our government to control yet another aspect of our lives and extract our money. Biking is a free transportation method that leads to a more independent and healthier lifestyle. They can't let that go, and have to find a way of making us pay. On top of that you have all these petty car people who pay through their noses for their gas guzzlers and are inclined to see others share the same fate so they support such idiotic proposals. That is at the core of this issue. The concern about bad bikes on the road, "wild" cyclists and "education thorough licensing" - give me a break.
Also a teacher
electric
I'd rather pay a specific bike tax on new bicycles.
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 20:06At least the money could be traced and put to a specific use, education and proper infrastructure.
Speaking of education and infrastructure, the reason there are so many cyclists not following the rules of the road is because there is no space for them on the road. My idea here is akin to the "broken windows" theory of crime in NYC.
So much of Toronto's cycling infrastructure consists of broken windows, it is dysfunctional and "broken", this disenfranchises many cyclists. A real reason cyclists don't care is because Toronto has proven that it doesn't care for them. It has proven it through it's actions - which speak louder than soothing words about a still-born plan. The city has sown the seeds of discontent by not paying enough attention to cycling and now we are reaping the negative rewards.
Why haven't other cities had to "educate" cyclists through threat of punishment (punishment by authority through licensing)? I'd bet it's because they provided a proper arena, cues and opportunity for the right things to happen.
Punishment is a poor way to get people to do the right thing. There are better ways the city can get people to respect cycling and that is by legitimizing it through showing support in the area where it counts most, infrastructure, not by slapping a plate on the back of a 14yr olds bicycle and handing them a manual.
timbnyc (not verified)
I agree electric, bikers are
Sat, 09/05/2009 - 21:24I agree electric, bikers are scapegoats for bad planning and roadways. Licensing will not fix those things.
dash (not verified)
The licensing cyclists issue
Wed, 09/09/2009 - 15:41The licensing cyclists issue comes up every 10 years or so. Once again, it's going to be eventually struck down because every single time, someone eventually realizes/remembers that if they license us, they are turning us into a stronger political entity, which means we would have a lot more "oomph" in terms of getting the things we need like infrastructure.
Laka Dukus (not verified)
cyclists are the problem
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 07:23Cyclists ARE the problem. How many Cyclists pass red lights?
How many of them run over pedestrians? don't obey the laws of our roads? how many don't wear helmets? I have seen over 80 issues in august.
Cyclists stop blaming everyone else and acting like you are all angels when you are not.
Random cyclist (not verified)
Don't feed the trolls
Sun, 09/06/2009 - 08:49No need to respond to this message.
herb
motor vehicles are the problem
Mon, 09/07/2009 - 14:50It's not clear what you mean by "problem". Do you mean fatalities? Crashes? Annoyances to drivers?
When it comes to fatalities, size and weight is a very important factor. Far more fatalities result when a car or truck are involved than without.
It's not clear that the things that seem to annoy drivers such as running red lights, not wearing helmets or riding on the sidewalk (more of an annoyance to pedestrians) are actually the cause of fatalities. Some moves such as running red lights do increase the risk, but only if it happens to be a road with lots of cross traffic. Not wearing helmets doesn't "cause" collisions though they do increase the chance of head injuries. There has only been one death of a pedestrian because of a cyclist in the last 5 years while there have been 172 deaths because of motorists during the same time period (http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/index.htm#data).
While I don't believe your comment is a troll (as others might), I do think it is born of ignorance, bias, or a misplaced self-righteousness rather than looking at the facts of the matter. Whether cyclists are religiously obeying all the traffic laws or not has less to do with overall traffic fatalities than motor vehicle speed, weight and size. Simply reducing the speed limit of motor vehicles has an exponential effect on traffic deaths. (from Tom Vanderbilt's book Traffic; also this article explains how increasing speed limits led to more traffic deaths). With lower speeds traffic mistakes and collisions are much less likely to lead to death.
Andy (not verified)
Bike and Child Tax
Mon, 09/07/2009 - 11:44I heard Mr. Walker on CBC suggesting that even children should be required to have a license. Considering that the vast majority of all Toronto citizens ride a bike at least once during the year, what licensing will amount to is an additional tax on every man, woman and child in the city. The right wing on council may be reflexively against bike infrastructure, but they surely don't want to vote for what amounts to a "child tax."
jamesmallon (not verified)
Bad laws and ineffective enforcement
Mon, 09/07/2009 - 12:56Cyclists disobey the law for a few simple reasons:
- the laws aren't well enforced against bikes or cars
- the laws treat a person well protected in a car the same as one exposed
- the laws assume cyclists and drivers have the same needs in traffic
- the laws presume a cyclist or a driver presents the same danger to the public
- the laws presume a cyclist has as poor a sightline as a driver
- the laws do nothing to discourage city and environment destroying vehicles
In other words, a thinking cyclist cannot help but have contempt for the laws.
The long term solution is complicated, but the short term solution is not: start enforcing traffic laws on ALL users and ruthlessly. I'll be happy to pay for rolling through a stop sign, if the same officer has ticketed a half-dozen drivers on the same day for endangering road users, because then Toronto traffic will be as sane as it was a dozen years ago.
Tom Flaherty
License to ILL
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 21:20I have some fundamental problems with the licensing cyclists:
The last question is obviously the most important, and the most suspect. This debate has been initiated by those who would seek to limit or eliminate bike traffic on city roads, and these people have not done their homework; instead the strategy seems to have more to do with tapping into a misinformed public.
In my opinion, all we need to do is step up enforcement, and expand driver training. But that doesn't carry a lot of political mojo now does it?
Bike Cycling Reviews (not verified)
A Good Legal Move
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 03:50Well.. I feel that Licensing is something that would make the traffic ethics in control. The question of helmets being taken into consideration is to ensure cyclists safety.
Great Going!
Chuck (not verified)
Just another tax for us and more rights lost
Mon, 09/14/2009 - 12:52So they introduced the graduated licensing a while back for drivers
this system only made more red tape and increased fees by at least 300%
it was pushed driving schools (hmmm no self interest there uh?) and by M.A.D a lobby group that actually gets some fund from our government (hmmm interesting)
So reckless driving must be a thing pass...right? Answer NO
Drunk driving never happens anymore....right? Answer a big fat NO
In fact accidents on the road have increased as our population has also increased
and this city still has the same crappy infrastructure.
more people = more cars on the road + bad roads = more jam packed road ways = more road rage more accidents and so on.
Bottom line it nothing at all
now recently we have the new ebikes hit the roads (You've seen the adds NO LICENSING required) there was hard push for licensing by government. ($$$) But the people fought against it and it became unpopular so it passed a trial period and now you can ride the ebike without a licensing.
ahhh but what happens now if they pass this law on regular bikes does not it stands to reason they will force ebike user into some form of licensing.
The government really does not care about the bikers of this city (drivers or people in general)
they know this will do nothing to help the situation. Bikers will still get run over by some drivers in cars who don't pay attention or share the road and some bikers will still dart into traffic thinking they will never be hit.
In end it's all about $$$ money the 1 million or so bike users of this times say $50 licensing fee equals $ 50 million dollars.....money trumps all
FreeSovereign (not verified)
Problem, Reaction, Solution
Mon, 09/14/2009 - 20:44Problem, Reaction, Solution. The Hegelian dialectic.
A high-profile accident involving a bike makes the front page and puts bike safety on everyone's minds. Politicians play it up through the media because they see $$ in the form of licensing and ticketing revenues. They probably also have helmet manufacturers paying them off and pressuring them for a helmet law... but licensing and helmet laws are crammed down your throat in the form of "bicycle safety", "better infrastructure", or some such verbal crutch.
As others have pointed out on here very well; government involvement in any aspect of your life does nothing to enhance your life. Quite the opposite.
A license is not proof of competency. It is a method of control, and a trick to get you to trade a god-given-right for a government controlled "privilege" (like they did with driving a car, or selling your own labour). It's a method of control because now a person can be denied a means of travel - and all bike riders will be catalogued and tracked.
People ride bikes for pleasure, and as an affordable alternative to the gas/cash guzzling automobile(a lot of the expense with cars can be traced right back to your government)... so let's make it prohibitively expensive to ride a bike? Not all at once, incrementally. Let's start with a "reasonable" licensing fee, then hit em up with blitzkrieg ticketing campaigns, then run the problem reaction solution bit again and find a new "bike-tax" in there... This game is old, we've seen it a million times before, and if you can't recognize it by now you are ridiculous.
If on the other hand you do recognize it, but go along with it anyway... you are selling out your future generations to a fate worse than any facist state in history.
Brave New World, 1984... these were warnings, not blue prints.
Maybe walking should be licensed? But better than a plastic card we could just tattoo the walker's license onto their forearm? We all said never again, and then got complacent. Well guess what it's happening again, little by little, your freedoms are collectively dying a slow agonizing death.
locutas_of_spragge
Despite...
Wed, 09/23/2009 - 09:57the melodrama, to say nothing of the Godwin violation, this argument sums up the essential problem with bicycle licenses. The government can, and should, regulate privileges, but it must never dare claim authority over rights. If we allow governments to claim the authority to license cyclists, we set out on a downward slope with few distinct boundaries, and at the bottom lies a society in which our children can only exercise by government permission what thirty generations of our ancestors held as a right: the right to move about freely.
Seymore Bikes
Councillor Walker Hates Cyclists
Tue, 09/15/2009 - 20:13The fact that the debate for mandatory helmet use and bicycle licensing is being introduced by a City Councillor strikes me as odd.
Why hasn't the MTO, or the Ont. Cycling Association, or the Toronto Cyclists Union, or any other organization requested these changes?
I suspect that politically charged tactics are at the heart of the matter; and if so, I must ask, is that good for cycling? Or, is this debate being hashed out of an interest to obstruct and limit cycling on our roads?
Something is not right with this, and that much is obvious to me.
Councillor Walker hates Cyclists.
Dragonstar
Link to Members motion
Wed, 09/16/2009 - 21:10Here is a link to Councillor Walker's motion
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-22591.pdf
I read it a couple of times and it just doesn't sound right. I'm bad with words and don't have the means to speak my thoughts clearly sometimes. Maybe somebody else has a better way to say what this motion is about.
Right now all I could say is that these councillor's should have their cars and limos taken away and given bikes to ride for the next month or two and see how much licensing would be useless. Just another money grab with no guarantee of safety, education or better roads.
The Pedaller (not verified)
Biopsy Results on Walker's Proposal
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 00:33Some of the points of the Councillor Walker's proposal register as authentic Bull Shit., I refer to the following:
1) Now that the City of Toronto has adopted a formal and aggressive policy to dedicate more of the city streets to cyclists and Toronto has never had such a policy in the past, it is time to license cyclists as bicycles once were.
Truth - Toronto's Bike Plan is so far behind schedule that it is difficult to take seriously. Need proof? As there is no way Toronto will meet its Bike Plan objectives for 2012, the entire plan has been re-scheduled with indefinite timelines. Aggressive? No, perhaps inadequate, weak or ineffective. Formal? No, many City Councillors flat out reject the implementation of approved cycling infrastructure in their Ward without reason.
2) Furthermore, licensing would provide for more effective enforcement of the applicable laws and clarify collision situations.
Truth - I haven't seen a cyclist get a ticket in all my years of riding. Our current enforcement of cycling laws is so lax, that if the OPP applied the same diligence to speeding tickets, our highways would be virtual autobahns. If we can't enforce the laws we have, then why not spend more money on that?
I don't think this motion will pass, but it does leave one feeling that we have our priorites upside down, but these aren't the priorites of cyclists, on the contrary, they ARE the priorities of a Politician.
electric
Toronto bicycles were once licensed?
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 01:46If a cyclist or their bicycle is forced to have a license won't that increase the city's liability?
As a licensee I suspect there is a stronger duty of care placed upon the city because they now are legally endorsing said behavior.
I don't think they'd even have a right under the umbrella of provincial or federal law to fine you if you didn't bother to get a license. I think there are a few reasons why this motion failed in the past.
The Pedaller (not verified)
Humpty Dumpty
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 09:37electric,
As far the City's liability is concerned, I wouldn't count any of these proverbial eggs before they've hatched. The licensing of cyclists is likely to do absolutely nothing for the advancement of cycling infrastructure.
The only benefit may be that cyclists would be counted, but that depends on how well licensing would be enforced; and I am sceptical of that.
This proposal has more to do with political posturing than it does with a results driven cycling initiative.
Bike Cycling (not verified)
Licensing Is Very Important
Wed, 09/23/2009 - 05:06Well.. I feel that Licensing is something that would make the traffic ethics in control. The question of helmets being taken into consideration is to ensure cyclists safety.
Licensing is very important
Great Going!
Tom Flaherty
I Am Traffic Ethics and So Can You!
Fri, 09/25/2009 - 02:10Dear Mr. Bike Cycling,
Bicycle licensing would only serve to obstruct people from making the decision to bike in the first place; and reasearch has shown that mandatory helmet use has the exact same effect. If you aren't part of this political charade then you are at least supporting it.
The new controls on cycling you endorse are only accepted by those who know little about the issue; yet I suspect that these are the people that you are trying to arouse?
Mandating helmet use in residential bathrooms would be a more effective way of improving public safety; or instead, we could actually enforce the current laws that govern cycling!
This entire issue is steeped in political posturing and it offers nothing but ill will towards cyclists.
.
Antony (not verified)
Vélo Quebec just quit a
Thu, 11/12/2009 - 15:56Vélo Quebec just quit a provincial Transport Working Group in protest over a motion by the minister of transport and the society of auto insurers to make helmet use mandatory by youths.
electric
Conflict of interest
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 01:09Obviously the movement to force cyclists to wear helmets is being backed by the selfish motives of the auto insurers - For it is their clients who maim and murder the cycling public.
If auto insurers can force the public to help them cut litigation and settlement costs incurred by their clients and improve the profitability of the insurance business model then those issues are something worthy of a fat campaign contribution and a propaganda program.
It may improve safety(no evidence of that) but, who is really profiting here?
For sure a helmet law will push cycling into a rapid decline, as witnessed in Australia. As a corollary Australians are some of the most obese people on this planet.
Svend
Quebec youths
Fri, 11/13/2009 - 17:47Does anyone know the age they consider "youths" in this motion? In Ontario when they made 16 the limit for mandatory helmet use there wasn't an uproar by cyclists.
Anne Carson (not verified)
Quite frankly, the largest
Sat, 11/14/2009 - 00:03Quite frankly, the largest number of accidents and serious accidents with bicyclists are ones who are 18 and over. They should require insurance if not license.
[Editor: commercial links removed]
geoffrey
Quite Frankly ..
Sat, 11/14/2009 - 06:40The largest number of acc^H^H^H smash ups and serious smash ups are ones by motor vehiclists. Ironically, these persons are required by law to be licenced and insured. Man. Straw. Go. Away.
confused (not verified)
I can't decide if the above
Sat, 11/14/2009 - 13:42I can't decide if the above comment is SPAM or a confused person. Certainly seems suspicious.
Maybe admin can help!
Seymore Bikes
Men Without Hats
Sat, 11/14/2009 - 01:14Mandatory helmet use and insurance won’t help cyclists. Research has shown that they discourage people from cycling in the first place.
Negligent drivers kill more cyclists than any other factor, and helmets and insurance aren’t going to fix that.
Education is they best way to improve cycling safety, and it’s blatantly absent in your post.
Svend
I meant for children
Sat, 11/14/2009 - 11:47Do you know people who want mandatory helmet laws taken off the books for children?
I'd say all parents would discourage cycling for their kids if they didn't wear them, even if they grew up without them.
Still wondering what the age limit will be in Quebec, how old do they consider someone a "youth"?
Kevin Love
I want mandatory helmet laws taken off the books for children
Sat, 11/14/2009 - 21:24Svend asked:
"Do you know people who want mandatory helmet laws taken off the books for children?"
Kevin's answer:
I am one of them. Mandatory helmet laws discourage children from cycling. This leads to a childhood obesity epidemic and bad habits being formed for later life.
AnnieD
Law or no law, I won't let my children bike without a helmet
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 18:59What the law does, however, is give me ammunition for enforcing that rule. My daughter might not always respect me, but on more than one occasion the words "because it's the law!" put an end to what otherwise might have been an extended argument . Not the primary reason for the law by any stretch, but a lovely perk nonetheless.
How old are your children Kevin?
reckless (not verified)
Neglect!
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 22:47I wouldn't answer that question Kevin, it is loaded with accusations of being a neglectful parent.
Now, far be it for me to tell somebody how to raise their kids, BUT while growing up I never wore a helmet riding around.... I know, somebody call child services :)
Hey, maybe that is why I still cycle today, because I can remember days of yore when the head-injury bogeyman wasn't lurking everywhere. I do wear a helmet nowadays though - I am throughly institutionalized!
Anyway, who lets their kids wander alone outside nowadays..?
AnnieD
No ill intent
Tue, 11/17/2009 - 12:06just trying to get a sense of where he's coming from. I wouldn't worry about accusations of neglect unless he's from the Glass Castle school of parenting.
Pages