Considering the behavior of bike riders

[Guest Peeves]

I think they should be licensed for I.D.

Now they break the law and just piss off down an alley and there's no way to identify them.

Their 'In your face" behavior is becoming worse and it's about time they were reigned in.

Now I'm all for bikers, but there are laws.

[Canuckistani]

I think they should be licensed for I.D.

Now they break the law and just piss off down an alley and there's no way to identify them.

Their 'In your face" behavior is becoming worse and it's about time they were reigned in.

Now I'm all for bikers, but there are laws.

I'm a biker. I commute to work and ride recreationally on the weekends. In theory I agree with you, but in practice is another matter. For instance, Vancouver is just getting a bike share program under way. One problem is that BC has a helmet law - hard to provide clean helmets in the right size for a do it yourself bike rental system. Making people have a special bike license would just add to the barriers. Also, kids are allowed to ride bikes - are we going to insist on licencing them too?

In Vancouver the cops do periodic cycling enforcement sweeps and give out lots of tickets. At that time you have to identify yourself anyway - so the problem is not identification but enforcement.

But tell me, how often do you see cops enforce the laws for cars, except to set up seed traps? Car drivers break the law just as much, and are mostly not ticketed either. If we removed the bikes from the road for you to fume about, then you'd be fuming about your fellow drivers, because we know how bad many of them are as well.

And here's the diff. If a cyclist does something stupid, who gets hurt? Vs. if a driver does something stupid to a cyclist? There's a Darwinian effect at play here for cyclists. Unfortunately not so much for drivers.

[Guest Peeves]

I'm a biker. I commute to work and ride recreationally on the weekends. In theory I agree with you, but in practice is another matter. For instance, Vancouver is just getting a bike share program under way. One problem is that BC has a helmet law - hard to provide clean helmets in the right size for a do it yourself bike rental system. Making people have a special bike license would just add to the barriers. Also, kids are allowed to ride bikes - are we going to insist on licencing them too?

In Vancouver the cops do periodic cycling enforcement sweeps and give out lots of tickets. At that time you have to identify yourself anyway - so the problem is not identification but enforcement.

But tell me, how often do you see cops enforce the laws for cars, except to set up seed traps? Car drivers break the law just as much, and are mostly not ticketed either. If we removed the bikes from the road for you to fume about, then you'd be fuming about your fellow drivers, because we know how bad many of them are as well.

And here's the diff. If a cyclist does something stupid, who gets hurt? Vs. if a driver does something stupid to a cyclist? There's a Darwinian effect at play here for cyclists. Unfortunately not so much for drivers.

All good points, but with the aggressive driver, car or bike, that endangers others there is a difference. If a car driver is involved you can get his #. When a biker does they are pretty much

unidentifiable when they simply get off the road in a jiff.

I think anyone over 16 that bikes should have a license on the bike.

I think the laws for bikes should be enforced. Know how many times at night a bike is in front of me on the wrong side of the road, no light, dark clothes and an attitude. Too many.

I drive on the city outskirts a lot, and 'recreational' bikers use the country type of road. Most are sensible, but the reckless ones are a hazard.

[Canuckistani]

All good points, but with the aggressive driver, car or bike, that endangers others there is a difference. If a car driver is involved you can get his #. When a biker does they are pretty much

unidentifiable when they simply get off the road in a jiff.

I think anyone over 16 that bikes should have a license on the bike.

I think the laws for bikes should be enforced. Know how many times at night a bike is in front of me on the wrong side of the road, no light, dark clothes and an attitude. Too many.

I drive on the city outskirts a lot, and 'recreational' bikers use the country type of road. Most are sensible, but the reckless ones are a hazard.

I don't really disagree. Maybe it would even help recover stolen bikes. A lot of the behavior you describe, at least in Vancouver, is done by street people or others who really don't care. And by thieves who use bikes in their thieving.

What you are describing is not a bicycle operator's license, but a bike license plate. I don't see why there needs to be an age restriction on that. But also, the only feasible place to mount that license is in the triangle formed by the main tubes, ie parallel with the bike, so it would not be as visible as a rear plate on a car - and it would not be lighted up either.

[Guest Peeves]

I don't really disagree. Maybe it would even help recover stolen bikes. A lot of the behavior you describe, at least in Vancouver, is done by street people or others who really don't care. And by thieves who use bikes in their thieving.

What you are describing is not a bicycle operator's license, but a bike license plate. I don't see why there needs to be an age restriction on that. But also, the only feasible place to mount that license is in the triangle formed by the main tubes, ie parallel with the bike, so it would not be as visible as a rear plate on a car - and it would not be lighted up either.

Yeh, I meant a tag on the bike. It might just be a deterrent if the biker knew there was a means of identifying them.

[Argus]

I think they should be licensed for I.D.

Now they break the law and just piss off down an alley and there's no way to identify them.

Their 'In your face" behavior is becoming worse and it's about time they were reigned in.

Now I'm all for bikers, but there are laws.

I haven't ridden a bike in years. But Ottawa recently went through a crackdown on bikers which I think is largely BS.

A bicycle doesn't need to stop at a stop sign. Sorry, but unless there's someone coming, he doesn't. And stopping and then starting is a lot more difficult than in a car. Likewise, a bike going through a red light doesn't pose the same danger to others, as long as there is no cross traffic. Nor does a bike riding the wrong way up a one way street or going on the sidewalk pose a danger, as long as they're not ridden by idiots.

Not to say I don't hate the stupid bikes when I have to pass them, but having them obey the rules of the road as if they were cars is silly.

[guyser]

I haven't ridden a bike in years. But Ottawa recently went through a crackdown on bikers which I think is largely BS.

A bicycle doesn't need to stop at a stop sign. Sorry, but unless there's someone coming, he doesn't.

Agreed, but then neither does a car .

And stopping and then starting is a lot more difficult than in a car.

Its easy no matter what you ride.***

Likewise, a bike going through a red light doesn't pose the same danger to others, as long as there is no cross traffic. Nor does a bike riding the wrong way up a one way street or going on the sidewalk pose a danger, as long as they're not ridden by idiots.

Same with a car , I agree. The police on the other hand tend to get grumpy when I roll thru stops signs.

Not to say I don't hate the stupid bikes when I have to pass them, but having them obey the rules of the road as if they were cars is silly.

Bicyclists have to obey the rules of the HTA the same as a car or any other motorized vehicle on the street.

*** I ride and train for triathlons, so riding a bike is very common for me in traffic, at stop signs, on country roads and rarely if ever in city traffic.

Edited June 19, 2012 by guyser

[Argus]

Agreed, but then neither does a car .

A car goes much faster, and doesn't have the same wide open view, therefore it might not be as easy to make certain there is no cross traffic. It also causes a lot more damage.

Its easy no matter what you ride.***

Perhaps if you're a triathlon guy, but most people, when coasting along and reaching an empty cross street, see no good reason why they should stop their bike - especially when they're not going very fast and can easily see no one is coming. Again, there's a lot better view on a bike, less damage if you're wrong, and you're moving slower. And yes, it does take a lot more effort to start from zero than to just keep coasting.

Same with a car , I agree. The police on the other hand tend to get grumpy when I roll thru stops signs.

It's not the same. A bike can go up the wrong way on a road and get in no one's way. Quite a bit different in a car.

Bicyclists have to obey the rules of the HTA the same as a car or any other motorized vehicle on the street.

Technically that's undeniable. I just don't think it's a big deal if they don't, as long as they're not idiots, ie, riding fast on crowded sidewalks, not watching for traffic, not staying close to the curb.

[The_Squid]

Bikes are not a danger when they are given paths to ride on. No need for licensing or helmet laws if there were proper bike paths in our cities and towns. Europe has neither for the most part and cycling is way more popular than Canada. Also safer for the cyclist.

[Black Dog]

I think they should be licensed for I.D.

Now they break the law and just piss off down an alley and there's no way to identify them.

Their 'In your face" behavior is becoming worse and it's about time they were reigned in.

Now I'm all for bikers, but there are laws.

Proof please.

[GostHacked]

I used to cycle a lot.

Shoulder checks and signals are lacking in many vehicle drivers. On a bike you have to anticipate drivers more than the other way around.

However, now that I am on a motorbike, I encounter much of the same things, and I AM licensed and such. I've come close to being pavement paste 3 times in the one year I have been driving.

1 - Riding left part of right lane. Dude in white pick up creeps over in my lane. I could have reached out and dented his hood. He saw me at the last second and went back into his lane.

2 - Lady did not do a shoulder check when moving into the left lane, I had to break to avoid getting hit.

3 - Coming to a stop at a light, driver swerves around me at the last second to avoid me (he was going to fast).. by the time I came to a stop, he was already around me and through the intersection.

Yes there are idiot cyclists out there, but it's the driver of the car that needs to be aware of their surroundings. People have become too complacent when driving.

Other hazards for cyclists, parked cars where the driver bolts out of the car and the cyclist is taken out by the door.

[Canuckistani]

I may have already said this above: If a cyclist does something stupid, he's the one who gets nailed. When a car driver does something stupid, the cyclist still gets nailed. Same is true for motorcyclists. Mostly drivers bitching at cyclists is just an excuse for their own bad driving. Had a guy who cut me off, after I yelled at him, yell back: "you don't have to buy insurance." Whatever that's supposed to mean or be a justification of.

[guyser]

If a cyclist does something stupid, he's the one who gets nailed.

The cyclist is normally the one who gets the injuries, yes, but I suspect you meant 'nailed' as in a ticket ?

Generally, the cyclist is the last one who get the tickets and the car drivers far and wide shoulder the blame ( liability wise) even when they are not at fault.

after I yelled at him, yell back: "you don't have to buy insurance." Whatever that's supposed to mean or be a justification of.

Should have yelled back " I do" ...because you do****. Home ins, Tenants Insurance, your motorcyle insurance etc etc.

****assumption being you live in Ontario

[Canuckistani]

The cyclist is normally the one who gets the injuries, yes, but I suspect you meant 'nailed' as in a ticket ?

No I meant nailed as in injured. When a driver pulled out of a parking lot right in front of me, I yelled "hey you could kill me like that" and his response was "that's right." Shows the attitude of some drivers. There are many idiot bicyclists, but as I said, there is a Darwinian effect playing out on them. Drivers not so much.

[Guest Peeves]

Proof please.

You want case histories, anecdotal evidence or sworn testimony?

[guyser]

You want case histories, anecdotal evidence or sworn testimony?

Yes please.

[Guest Peeves]

Yes please.

Good,then look them up.

[Black Dog]

Good,then look them up.

Debate fail.

Anyway, bike licensing is a stupid idea from a pure cost/benefit standpoint.

[GostHacked]

Debate fail.

Anyway, bike licensing is a stupid idea from a pure cost/benefit standpoint.

What else will you need a license for? And will said licenses protect people from getting hurt of killed? Nope.

[Guest Peeves]

What else will you need a license for? And will said licenses protect people from getting hurt of killed? Nope.

Licenses are to both document and to identify. Tags on a bike might prevent those causing injury from escaping unidentified.

Since they have the same rights on the road, why are they not carrying insurance and having bikes tagged with plates?

Of course it would be near impossible to police, but I in my delusional wish list would like to see some recourse for bringing a two wheel offender to task.

Now, they hit and run in too many cases.

TORONTO - Karen Okamoto came to Toronto City Hall on Wednesday to urge councillors to do something about cyclists using city sidewalks.

Her father Nobu Okamoto, 74, died last year after he was hit by a cyclist riding on the sidewalk in North York near Jane and Finch.

In a speech to the public works committee, Okamoto — a cyclist herself — lambasted the lack of enforcement on those breaking sidewalk cycling bylaws and called for more bike lanes in the city’s inner suburbs to help keep cyclists off the sidewalks.

While she said she supports police efforts to enforce cycling bylaws in the city, Okamoto said they could have done more in her father’s case.

“In my family’s case the police did not take the accident seriously,” Okamoto told the committee. “Essentially, with our case, the police are saying you can kill someone with a bicycle and get away with it.”

Okamoto said the $3.75 fine supposed to be issued to the cyclist for biking on the sidewalk was not even levied.

Toronto Police confirmed Wednesday they dropped the $3.75 fine for the cyclist involved in the fatal crash after it was determined the officer who wrote the ticket made a mistake on the ticket itself.

Instead of writing the incident was contrary to a City of Toronto bylaw that prohibits bike riding on sidewalks, the officer ticketed the cyclist with violating the Highway Traffic Act, police said.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/04/get-cyclists-off-sidewalks-woman-pleads

[guyser]

Licenses are to both document and to identify. Tags on a bike might prevent those causing injury from escaping unidentified.

Might, ok.

But in your case presented, it didnt stop the cops from indentfying the perp did it?

Since they have the same rights on the road, why are they not carrying insurance and having bikes tagged with plates?

Are they motorized?

FOr the most part, they are insured anyhow. Not specifically I grant you, but they are insured.

If you want to licence two wheeled non motorized transport, what fee is good for this?

http://www.retropedalcars.com/big_wheel_history.htm

Of course it would be near impossible to police, but I in my delusional wish list would like to see some recourse for bringing a two wheel offender to task.

Now, they hit and run in too many cases.

Near impossible? Not really, maybe if the cops would do more than turn a blind eye to bicyclists things would improve.

[Black Dog]

Licenses are to both document and to identify. Tags on a bike might prevent those causing injury from escaping unidentified.

The question is whether that "might" justifies the huge amount of resources it would take to implement and enforce a licensing program. IMO, it does not.

Since they have the same rights on the road, why are they not carrying insurance and having bikes tagged with plates?

Because they aren't motor vehicles.

Of course it would be near impossible to police, but I in my delusional wish list would like to see some recourse for bringing a two wheel offender to task.

There is: it's called the Highway traffic Act and city bylaws.

Now, they hit and run in too many cases.

There you go again. How many, exactly?

[Guest Peeves]

The question is whether that "might" justifies the huge amount of resources it would take to implement and enforce a licensing program. IMO, it does not.

Because they aren't motor vehicles.

There is: it's called the Highway traffic Act and city bylaws.

There you go again. How many, exactly?

Too many.

[Black Dog]

Too many.

How many is that?

If you can't answer that question, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Black Dog

[Canuckistani]

barring any solid numbers, I would postulate that the number of cycle hit and runs where significant damage or injury is caused to the driver is exceedingly small.