I think bicycles should be licensed, and have to buy insurance for any incidents they cause. I think too that would do way more than "education" to alleviate the problem between cyclists and motorists. Yes, there are dangerous and reckless participants on both sides. But motorists are already licensed, insured and regulated. My main beef with some cyclists is the entitlement to just ride as they see fit and in some cases as in this article that reckless behavior is aggrevating to many motorists, pedestrians and other ethical cyclists.
That said, running stop signs is a definite no-no in all circumstances. At least slow down and look first rather than just blasting through. What do they call that, the Idaho stop? Ultimately, it comes down to respect for safety on the road.
polly - 9 years ago
Wow this is messed up so more than half a population cant ride a bike if its licensed, this includes children? And it would not help reduce theft people can remove the plates. How about dont do it and just have people learn to ride a bike better.
Teresa Whitehouse - 9 years ago
It sickens me to hear people bleating about the cost of cycling infrastructure! Its time they did a little comparison with the cost of motor vehicle infrastructure. Who says bikers don't pay their "fair share" of taxes? Has anyone ever thought about the death and destruction caused by cars? Not to mention the air pollution they cause and the billions spent on roads and bridges so they have to have. You should thank me for riding a bicycle. When the day comes that cars are in the minority on the road (something I dream about) then maybe we should think about licensing bikes. In the meantime, we should be grateful that some of us are out there getting from point a to point b in an environmentally way, maintaining out own health in the process and not steering weapons of mass destruction. My life is threatened every time I cycle by cars ignoring stop signs and red lights. When was the last time your life was threatened by a cyclist - even if some of them commit the same offences???
J B Bell - 9 years ago
Roads are paid for by real-estate taxes, not motor vehicle licensing. Cyclists are already paying those taxes. And most cyclists are also car owners. Please stop trotting out this tired canard. If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it.
Lance - 9 years ago
If licensing is such a grand idea then why was it abandoned in the 70's? Perhaps a review of council's minutes would reveal the answer.
John - 9 years ago
Suggested education is of course a joke. Mom and Dad riding with two small kids riding with them did not stop on a stop sign and ride together across a cross walk on busy street. The kids got educated the wrong way by their parents and this is happening all over Vancouver. So forget education.
Ken Simpson - 9 years ago
Would the province be willing also to extend the kind of blue chip insurance to cyclists alongside the licensing? I would happily pay $100/yr to insure myself against mishaps such as riding into a tree or pedestrian. As it stands now, cyclists have zero coverage whereas motorists drive around fully covered.
But no, ICBC does not in fact want to add tens of thousands of cyclists to its list of obligations. Because ICBC knows that cyclist licensing is a stupid idea that will end up costing taxpayers millions while returning almost nothing of value to society. It's a stupid idea that will cost millions, reduce cycling, and do essentially nothing to solve the problems it's supposedly designed to solve. So proponents of bike licensing: shut up and go back to your motorist-friendly enclave, and let us carry on riding bikes as we have done for longer than cars have dominated our streets.
Tess Warburton - 9 years ago
Yes bicycles should be licensed and if the cyclist is over 16 they should be required to have insurance. Cyclist behaviour is just like car/truck driver behaviour - often risky and dangerous
Keith Bevins - 9 years ago
Less government is better government. The last thing we need is another money grab.
A H - 9 years ago
More education? I'm wondering what percentage of bikers also have their driver's license? I'm willing to bet the majority of bikers understand just fine what a STOP sign means...but many just disregard it anyway. I'm willing to bet that a police campaign concentrating on handing out tickets for traffic infractions, similar to a drinking and driving campaign, would have a significant impact in correcting much of this behavior.
Jane Mason - 9 years ago
Licencing bicycles is a first step to them paying for the cost of the roads that they are taking over. When entire vehicle lanes are shut down and made available only to the biking population, it is extremely unfair to make the vehicle drivers pay for that too. We have so many taxes already that it seems only fair that the bikers pay their fair share. This would help so much, as they also use the road that has to be built and maintained, so why would they get away with not paying anything for it? I say all vehicles that use the public roads should be licensed and taxed. It's only fair.
I think bicycles should be licensed, and have to buy insurance for any incidents they cause. I think too that would do way more than "education" to alleviate the problem between cyclists and motorists. Yes, there are dangerous and reckless participants on both sides. But motorists are already licensed, insured and regulated. My main beef with some cyclists is the entitlement to just ride as they see fit and in some cases as in this article that reckless behavior is aggrevating to many motorists, pedestrians and other ethical cyclists.
That said, running stop signs is a definite no-no in all circumstances. At least slow down and look first rather than just blasting through. What do they call that, the Idaho stop? Ultimately, it comes down to respect for safety on the road.
Wow this is messed up so more than half a population cant ride a bike if its licensed, this includes children? And it would not help reduce theft people can remove the plates. How about dont do it and just have people learn to ride a bike better.
It sickens me to hear people bleating about the cost of cycling infrastructure! Its time they did a little comparison with the cost of motor vehicle infrastructure. Who says bikers don't pay their "fair share" of taxes? Has anyone ever thought about the death and destruction caused by cars? Not to mention the air pollution they cause and the billions spent on roads and bridges so they have to have. You should thank me for riding a bicycle. When the day comes that cars are in the minority on the road (something I dream about) then maybe we should think about licensing bikes. In the meantime, we should be grateful that some of us are out there getting from point a to point b in an environmentally way, maintaining out own health in the process and not steering weapons of mass destruction. My life is threatened every time I cycle by cars ignoring stop signs and red lights. When was the last time your life was threatened by a cyclist - even if some of them commit the same offences???
Roads are paid for by real-estate taxes, not motor vehicle licensing. Cyclists are already paying those taxes. And most cyclists are also car owners. Please stop trotting out this tired canard. If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it.
If licensing is such a grand idea then why was it abandoned in the 70's? Perhaps a review of council's minutes would reveal the answer.
Suggested education is of course a joke. Mom and Dad riding with two small kids riding with them did not stop on a stop sign and ride together across a cross walk on busy street. The kids got educated the wrong way by their parents and this is happening all over Vancouver. So forget education.
Would the province be willing also to extend the kind of blue chip insurance to cyclists alongside the licensing? I would happily pay $100/yr to insure myself against mishaps such as riding into a tree or pedestrian. As it stands now, cyclists have zero coverage whereas motorists drive around fully covered.
But no, ICBC does not in fact want to add tens of thousands of cyclists to its list of obligations. Because ICBC knows that cyclist licensing is a stupid idea that will end up costing taxpayers millions while returning almost nothing of value to society. It's a stupid idea that will cost millions, reduce cycling, and do essentially nothing to solve the problems it's supposedly designed to solve. So proponents of bike licensing: shut up and go back to your motorist-friendly enclave, and let us carry on riding bikes as we have done for longer than cars have dominated our streets.
Yes bicycles should be licensed and if the cyclist is over 16 they should be required to have insurance. Cyclist behaviour is just like car/truck driver behaviour - often risky and dangerous
Less government is better government. The last thing we need is another money grab.
More education? I'm wondering what percentage of bikers also have their driver's license? I'm willing to bet the majority of bikers understand just fine what a STOP sign means...but many just disregard it anyway. I'm willing to bet that a police campaign concentrating on handing out tickets for traffic infractions, similar to a drinking and driving campaign, would have a significant impact in correcting much of this behavior.
Licencing bicycles is a first step to them paying for the cost of the roads that they are taking over. When entire vehicle lanes are shut down and made available only to the biking population, it is extremely unfair to make the vehicle drivers pay for that too. We have so many taxes already that it seems only fair that the bikers pay their fair share. This would help so much, as they also use the road that has to be built and maintained, so why would they get away with not paying anything for it? I say all vehicles that use the public roads should be licensed and taxed. It's only fair.