Licensing Cyclist?

[SteelTown]

Bicycle helmets, licensing pushed

By DON PEAT, SUN MEDIA
Last Updated: 13th September 2009, 4:04am
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/09/13/10867286-sun.html

If cyclists are a city council priority on Toronto's streets, Councillor Michael Walker wants to see those cyclists wearing a helmet and licensed to ride on the road.

Walker's drive to helmet and license bike riders will go to the Public Works and Infrastructure committee meeting tomorrow.

"Helmets should have been adopted by now," Walker told the Sun Friday, expressing his frustration it was referred to committee. "We've wasted another 30 days.

"This committee should recommend it."

Back in the mid-1990s, Ontario's NDP government passed legislation making a helmet mandatory equipment for all cyclists. That bid was watered down when the Progressive Conservatives took over. Instead helmets were made mandatory for anyone under 18.

That's not good enough, the St. Paul's councillor says.

"Quite frankly, the largest number of accidents and serious accidents with bicyclists are ones who are 18 and over," Walker said.

Walker hopes the committee will commission a study of licensing, in concert with the Ministry of Transportation.

Yvonne Bambrick, executive director of the Toronto Cyclists Union, said she'll be speaking out tomorrow against both mandatory helmets and licences, calling them "barriers to entry" that will keep people from embracing cycling.

"Millions of people around the world cycle safely without helmets," Bambrick said. "Adults should have the opportunity to make their own choices."

She said governments focusing on helmets is an easy out when they should focus their safety efforts on improving infrastructure that makes biking safer.

As for licensing, Bambrick said that it "does not increase safety. What it does is add another layer of bureaucracy."

[emge]

i'm (slightly) conflicted on this.

my first, gut instinct is "NO!" - especially because that removes a big layer of freedom for those under a certain age or without means to get a license.

but in a city like Hamilton it would go a long way to giving them legitimacy as vehicles --- but there's many other things that could do that fairly easily by changing the design of our roads. and unless we have safer, slower roads, i'd really like to see people wearing helmets. it's just not wise not to wear a helmet when you can get smoked at 50 km or worse.

So I'd stick with "no". i don't think its worth it.

[coalminecanary]

absolutely not worth it.

the safest thing for cyclists is MORE cbikes on the road. This will have the exact opposite effect.

[markbarbera]

I think cyclists intending on using public roads should be licensed. This would be an act of empowerment as well as education. Too many cyclists regularly demonstrate an ignorance/disregard to the rules of the road. A licensing process will set a baseline on how well-prepared a cyclist is to ride on the road. And a licensed cyclist demonstates they have a legitimate place on public roads.

[emge]

I think the biggest issue for me is the minimum age licensing would be allowed at. It would severely restrict things like kids and teenagers being allowed to bike to school, work, friends' houses - and what do you do for licensing the mentally handicapped for whom biking provides a measure of freedom?

I do still see some benefits, but I don't think there's enough.

[SteelTown]

I dunno about licensing cyclist but I would see benefits in registering each bike with a special sticker like we do with cars. Get a sticker perhaps every two years.

Registering a bike would check for safety features (such as a bell), cyclists knowing all the proper rules and generate more funds for supporting more bike lanes.

[markbarbera]

I think the biggest issue for me is the minimum age licensing would be allowed at. It would severely restrict things like kids and teenagers being allowed to bike to school, work, friends' houses - and what do you do for licensing the mentally handicapped for whom biking provides a measure of freedom?

I do still see some benefits, but I don't think there's enough.

Minimum age doesn't have to mirror autos. Make it ten. So long as a cyclist can demonstrate a basic understanding of the rules of the road. Which we would want our kids to know before having them ride off to school anyway.

[waterloowarrior]

2n_znwWroGM

how about safer infrastructure

[FairHamilton]

I got no problem with it, but if it were to happen (it won't) I would demand the infrastructure that goes with a licensed mode of transport.

I say it won't happen, as it's the musings of a single City of Toronto Councillor, not someone who can actually get it done at the provincial level.

[Zaz]

I will understand if helmets are made mandatory.
Licenses for regular bikes are an absolute no-no.
I agree with the barrier-to-entry argument.
The required additional bureaucracy, inevitable fees, insurance/sticker/registration nonsense makes the normally dormant libertarian side of me shudder in disgust.

[Jon Dalton]

Total joke. Won't happen. In BC helmets are mandatory for all ages but is it enforced? I read about a cyclist who had 8 tickets for no helmet, all thrown out in court.

Licensing for something that does no harm other than the one in a million edge cases? Really. How about we license shoes?

Anyone in support of this is guaranteed to be a non cyclist.

[markbarbera]

Anyone in support of this is guaranteed to be a non cyclist.

Wrong on this one.

[drpgq]

How about we require helmets for cars? Surely with all the automobile accidents some injuries or fatalities could be prevented.

[SteelTown]

Bicycles with airbags?

[FairHamilton]

Anyone in support of this is guaranteed to be a non cyclist.

How about we license those motorized scooters, the mobi's?

[FairHamilton]

How about we require helmets for cars? Surely with all the automobile accidents some injuries or fatalities could be prevented.

We do in a sense, the safety feature just takes the form a seatbelt.

[waterloowarrior]

We do in a sense, the safety feature just takes the form a seatbelt.

Helmets are not the equivalent of seatbelts... unfortuantely the news media portrays them like that in accident reports.

[adam]

... nevermind

[FairHamilton]

Helmets are not the equivalent of seatbelts... unfortuantely the news media portrays them like that in accident reports.

I never said they were the same, my point was they are both safety features designed to protect against injury. Do you have a different point?

[waterloowarrior]

I never said they were the same, my point was they are both safety features designed to protect against injury. Do you have a different point?

Ah I see... my point was more that I don't like it when media says the cyclist was killed or injured and at the end of the article notes that "The cyclist wasn't his helmet" the same way as they write "The driver wasn't wearing a seatbelt" as if to imply he was irresponsible, doing something wrong/breaking the law, or partially to blame, or that a helmet would have saved his life when he got run down by a truck etc

[BrianE]

Always with the *new* laws and *new* regulations for problems that are as old as time itself. Just enforce the existing laws damnit. There are already dozens of laws on the books that would curb many of the issues around cycling and vehicle safety. There just has to be a push from the Manager level to get front line staff (police and by-law officers) to start enforcing.

The attitude right now is why pull over drivers who fail to come to a complete stop or why stop a cyclist from riding the wrong way down a one way street? It's such small pototoes... well it turns out it makes all the difference in the world.

[FairHamilton]

The attitude right now is why pull over drivers who fail to come to a complete stop or why stop a cyclist from riding the wrong way down a one way street? It's such small pototoes... well it turns out it makes all the difference in the world.

And my guess, is you'll find at least some of those people are carrying drugs, have outstanding warrants, or wanted in some way shape or form. Sometimes, small potatoes have a way of growing.

[coalminecanary]

I think cyclists intending on using public roads should be licensed.

What about pedestrians?

[adam]

Definitely. We should require pedestrians to carry licenses. And require they wear helmets for safety. Many pedestrians die each year due to collisions and licensing would be one way to make them more accountable. Right now pedestrians are walking all over the sidewalks and roads, they are walking the wrong way down one-way streets. There is no way of knowing where they are. If a car is traveling down a street at 70km/h there is no way of stopping in time. The licensing would make it easier to fine them, we really need pedestrian licensing.

[SteelTown]

But pedestrians don't walk on roads, sidewalks whenever possible.

[adam]

Actually many pedestrian accidents are on roads at intersections where cars are turning around a corner.

[Jon Dalton]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't automobile licensing and mandatory insurance created because of the alarming rate of accidents when cars first took to the roads? Prior to the automobile, were horse and carraige drivers ever required to have licenses? That's just a question, by the way.

[highwater]

Also, many subdivisions and rural areas don't have sidewalks...

[FairHamilton]

Actually many pedestrian accidents are on roads at intersections where cars are turning around a corner.

Yes, in "pedestrian" crosswalks that are an extension of the sidewalk. Also, I believe there are fines for jay walking (i.e. walking on road outside of pedestrian crosswalk).

[FairHamilton]

What about pedestrians?

Don't walk on roads, if they are on the road they are open to fines.

[waterloowarrior]

Definitely. We should require pedestrians to carry licenses. And require they wear helmets for safety. Many pedestrians die each year due to collisions and licensing would be one way to make them more accountable. Right now pedestrians are walking all over the sidewalks and roads, they are walking the wrong way down one-way streets. There is no way of knowing where they are. If a car is traveling down a street at 70km/h there is no way of stopping in time. The licensing would make it easier to fine them, we really need pedestrian licensing.

Pedestrians have five times the number of deaths of cyclists per year

25% of pedestrians killed have been 'drinking and walking'
50% of pedestrians killed or severely injured are at fault
30% of pedestrians are killed on rural roads with no sidewalks
60% of pedestrians killed are at areas without lights/signs nearby.

It's for their own safety.

Can I see your pedestrian license, citizen?

[FairHamilton]

Pedestrians have five times the number of deaths of cyclists per year

25% of pedestrians killed have been 'drinking and walking'
50% of pedestrians killed or severely injured are at fault
30% of pedestrians are killed on rural roads with no sidewalks
60% of pedestrians killed are at areas without lights/signs nearby.

It's for their own safety.

Can I see your pedestrian license, citizen?

165% total?

[waterloowarrior]

165% total?

??

You can be under multiple categories (drinking and at fault, drinking and on a rural road, at fault and on a rural road and drinking)

[coalminecanary]

Definitely. We should require pedestrians to carry licenses. And require they wear helmets for safety. Many pedestrians die each year due to collisions and licensing would be one way to make them more accountable. Right now pedestrians are walking all over the sidewalks and roads, they are walking the wrong way down one-way streets. There is no way of knowing where they are. If a car is traveling down a street at 70km/h there is no way of stopping in time. The licensing would make it easier to fine them, we really need pedestrian licensing.

Totally. And once they turn 10 they can be tested for a license. Before then, they will have to be pushed around in a stroller by a licensed adult pedestrian.

[Dado]

Minimum age doesn't have to mirror autos. Make it ten. So long as a cyclist can demonstrate a basic understanding of the rules of the road. Which we would want our kids to know before having them ride off to school anyway.

Here's an idea: if this were to happen make it a requirement to know how to operate a bicycle in traffic as part of the requirements for getting a learner's (G1) driver's license. That way you can't get a G1 without having first been in traffic on a vehicle (rather than just answering a multiple choice questionnaire with no practical knowledge whatsoever). I'd also allow low-powered scooters to be used at 14 (with the same prior bicycle experience being required).

The upshot should be better cyclists = better motorists and better cyclists and better motorists = more cyclists and better cycling conditions.

This idea also happens to be a great way of shutting up motorheads who demand that cyclists be licensed since the logic of making motorists learn how to operate a far less dangerous vehicle first is undeniable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't automobile licensing and mandatory insurance created because of the alarming rate of accidents when cars first took to the roads? Prior to the automobile, were horse and carraige drivers ever required to have licenses? That's just a question, by the way.

That's correct. Horse and carriage drivers were not ever required to have licenses; only operators of motor vehicles require them. The principal that seems to guide licensing requirements for vehicle operators in Ontario depends on the vehicle they're operating and can roughly be described as "muscle-powered: no; motorized: yes". That's why there's such a fuss about these E-bikes - they're an exception to the motorized rules.

[adam]

165% total?

So I guess you haven't considered intersecting groups? ie - a pedestrian can be in the group of drinkers and walkers AND be in the group without lights/signs nearby.

Edit: whoops, someone already mentioned this small detail. sorry!

[adam]

We can let pedestrians walk around without a license as long as they agree to never cross a street and never cross a driveway. Remember that many pedestrian accidents happen at driveways (either commercial or residential).

One solution would be to make it mandatory for home/business owners to build pedestrian bridges around every driveway. And the city could be responsible for the bridges at all intersections and highway accesses (like King St and the 403). That way pedestrians wouldn't ever need a license.

What about parking lots?

[adam]

The way licensing works is it effectively makes an activity ILLEGAL until a license is obtained. So some of you want to make it illegal for anyone under the age of 10 to ride a bike? Seriously? Wasn't learning to ride a bike (and the activity of riding a bike) a defining and memorable time in your childhood? If it wasn't, you missed out big time. I have fond memories of riding down the street of my neighbourhood on my bike well before the age of 10. And some people want to make it illegal?

[Dado]

Why not just bury the road system? Then pedestrians won't need licenses.

[Dado]

2n_znwWroGM

how about safer infrastructure

That video should be required viewing at all PTA meetings, school board meetings and by anyone who does subdivision design and approvals.

[FairHamilton]

??

You can be under multiple categories (drinking and at fault, drinking and on a rural road, at fault and on a rural road and drinking)

You are correct, but that's not what you posted. There is an inferences, but you should really include that as part of your post.

[llamaorama]

right, you'd need to present the alcohol statistic separately by at least making a comment. Putting it in directly is misrepresenting the data in more than one way. Ideally you'd use some kind of two-columned list that broke down each category by how much alcohol played a role.

[coalminecanary]

Each statistic is separate, and each was on its own line. How much clearer could it be?

Did you guys see this:

We all lose when cars battle bikes

September 16, 2009
SCOTT THOMPSON
The Hamilton Spectator
(Sep 16, 2009)

On most occasions when a car is up against a bicycle, the car wins. It's simple physics.

Yet we are seeing this type of battle take place daily on the streets of Canada's cities. Why?

It seems like suicide for a cyclist to hang on to the side of a moving car while it is travelling down the street. It seems silly to weave in and out of moving traffic to advance your agenda or run a stop light to do the same.

Yet, when a bicyclist is injured or killed, even by his or her own negligence, it is most often the driver of the car that is chastised.

In Toronto, you see confrontations between drivers and cyclists all the time. Can Hamilton be far behind?

Of course, there are lots of examples of bad behaviour on the part of both drivers and cyclists. I'm not trying to lay blame here. What I'm trying to do is get both these parties on the same page.

We saw evidence of this lack of respect recently in Toronto when a bicycle courier was killed in what seems to have been an escalating road-rage type of incident. The man died after falling from the side of a car he was trying to hang on to.

We found out after initial reports that this case is a little more complicated than just another Toronto motorist running over a courier. But that didn't stop a protest on Bloor Street that saw traffic and business slowed while some cyclists lay in the roadway in memory of their fallen colleague. It was touching but I'm not sure it was very safe.

I am an avid cyclist and have been since I was a kid. But there are some out there that with an "us versus them" mentality.

It shouldn't be. It can't be.

Some people are on a mad dash to get rid of the car and let the bike take over.

We have to come up with a new attitude that introduces the bike back into a Canadian society that has become dependent on the car.

You can't just start making plans that only include bicycles. We live in Canada where for five months of the year there is snow and slush on the road. Car traffic is a reality.

One that needs changing? Perhaps. But we can't ignore the obvious.

Another example of this is the ongoing attitude at Hamilton City Hall to "bike lane" a good portion of the Hammer. I am all for adding more bike lanes as I'm sure most of Hamilton is. But you can't do it by eliminating the car or car lanes. That is simply not realistic.

Recently CHML's Bill Kelly had a debate on his show in which politicians and business people met to talk about Dundurn Street South, where bike lanes are being installed at the expense of public parking.

The problem is some parking will have to be removed in order to accommodate the new bike lane. This pushes traffic parking onto adjacent side streets and away from small businesses.

Side streets become jammed, making them unsafe for kids while would-be customers of the businesses along Dundurn Street have no place left to park.

This is another example of a great idea that got lost because not everyone was involved in the process. One merchant said on CHML that it was the first time he has seen any discussion on the issue, asking why he wasn't consulted first.

It seems we are listening to the cyclists ... but no one else.

In fact, what we need to come up with is a plan that suits all or most of Hamilton, not just one segment. It's Canada, not Europe. That means trying to introduce bike lanes by educating everyone and finding the best solution -- not by eliminating one to satisfy the other.

Bike lanes should be built in addition to existing traffic lanes, not by sacrificing them. New roadways should be built to accommodate all kinds of traffic from bikes to pedestrians to vehicular.

Where space is limited, such as downtown, we have to brainstorm with all parties to come up with a solution that blends the roadway for cars with other types of traffic. Some people have suggested better use of alleys or even sidewalk sharing. There is no one solution that will work in all areas. That's why discussion is needed.

The Canadian reality is both must get along as neither one is going away any time soon.

The competition between the cyclist and the car has to stop. No one wins.

[coalminecanary]

I don't even know where to begin with this article... for a guy who has been cycling his whole life, he certainly has a twisted view of reality:

"You can't just start making plans that only include bicycles."
"It seems we are listening to the cyclists ... but no one else."
"In fact, what we need to come up with is a plan that suits all or most of Hamilton, not just one segment."

When it comes to road construction, we have been suiting one segment exclusively for 50 years - motor vehicles. Changing some vehicular lanes into bike lanes is an attempt to return some balance to a system that is horribly imbalanced right now.

"sidewalk sharing"? Really?

"Side streets become jammed, making them unsafe for kids" - I'd like to see ONE spot where bike lane installations caused traffic jams on side streets.

The author may have been an "avid cyclist" since he was a kid, but I'll bet he's never used his bike for anything other than recreational trail riding. That does not mean he is an unbiased observer as his claim makes him out to be.

[Jon Dalton]

Shorter version:

We all lose when cars battle bikes

September 16, 2009
SCOTT THOMPSON
The Hamilton Spectator
(Sep 16, 2009)

There's a big problem. It's everyone's fault. The solution is to do nothing.

[adam]

The article suggests all new roads should be built for multi-use: cars, bikes, pedestrians. This is a great idea, but unfortunately if a road is designed for cars to go 60km/h or above, it cannot be safely used by cyclists without a curb between the lanes. The majority of cars go 10-15km/h over the speed limit, so a 60km/h street is actually a 70-75km/h street.

Should a vehicle going 20-30km/h be expected to share a road with a vehicle that is going 70-75km/h and weighs many times more? Sounds like suicide. Put a curb in between the road and the bike lanes. Many drivers drift into the bike lane or worse yet, ignore it all together.

[coalminecanary]

this isn't CRAYZEE EUROPE, we can't do that. it snows sometimes in hamilton.

[highwater]

Yeah. It never snows in Denmark. Never.

[adam]

Something I was surprised about was how the cycling lanes in the video were 2-way with kids and adults and nobody worrying about collisions. Even intersections weren't a problem - no lights required... We have a lot to learn from that infrastructure.