Quote:
Originally Posted by markbarbera
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.