Licensing Cyclist?

SteelTown · #1 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 9:35 PM**

Bicycle helmets, licensing pushed

By DON PEAT, SUN MEDIA
Last Updated: 13th September 2009, 4:04am
http://www.torontosun.com/news/toron...67286-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 · #2 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 9:43 PM**

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 · #3 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 9:59 PM**

absolutely not worth it.

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

markbarbera · #4 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 10:03 PM**

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 · #5 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 10:07 PM**

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 · #6 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 10:08 PM**

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 · #7 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 10:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #8 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 10:17 PM**

• Video Link

how about safer infrastructure

FairHamilton · #9 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 10:57 PM**

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 · #10 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 11:02 PM**

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 · #11 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 11:30 PM**

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 · #12 Posted **Sep 14, 2009, 11:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

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

Wrong on this one.

drpgq · #13 Posted **Sep 15, 2009, 12:35 AM**

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

SteelTown · #14 Posted **Sep 15, 2009, 12:39 AM**

Bicycles with airbags?

FairHamilton · #15 Posted **Sep 15, 2009, 12:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

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

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

FairHamilton · #16 Posted **Sep 15, 2009, 12:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drpgq

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 · #17 Posted **Sep 15, 2009, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

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 · #18 Posted **Sep 15, 2009, 1:01 AM**

... nevermind

FairHamilton · #19 Posted **Sep 15, 2009, 1:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

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 · #20 Posted **Sep 15, 2009, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

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