Being a cyclists on a public road should require the same licensing as being a motorist.

You shouldn't have to learn how to drive a car in order to be "licensed" to ride a bike. That's what the claim implies.

UHm. No. Understanding how cars are expected to behave would be great.

Most bicyclists do, and follow those same laws as cars, stopping at red lights, not parking in crosswalks and making pedestrians walk into the middle of the intersection to get around them, etc.

However, those bicyclists who don't follow traffic laws not only are a hazard to themselves and others, but make all bicyclists look bad.

Understanding the rules that apply to cars would be great. Having to prove you can drive a car would be evil, since it would prevent anyone who couldn't afford a car or was legally too young to get a driver's license from riding a bicycle.

Well, it would prevent anyone legally too young to get a driver's license off the public roads, not riding a bike at all. This strikes me as a gigantic plus.

Do driver's ed courses still exist for fairly cheap? How much do they run? Remember, private transportation is a privilege, not a right.

Even if you pay for a driver's ed course, you still need a car to take the driving test in. And I don't think that being too young to drive a car should mean you can't drive a bike, but then I came from a state where you needed to be 17 to get a driver's license.

What I think we should do is have bicycle ed offered conveniently and easily to children, which would teach them the rules of the road and what is required of a bicyclist. D'Arch actually was surprised that this wasn't common since it was where he grew up.

Do driver's ed classes not allow you to use one of their cars for the test proper? Huh. Interesting.

It should be pointed out that I got my license driving in a car that wasn't mine. Borrowing a car to get your license is a time honored tradition.

Obviously a bike ed class would be preferable, but that would require time, effort, and other resources.

I stand by my conviction that younger teenagers by and large lack the sense of mortality and maturity to drive in public roads responsibly.

Hell, lettem vote as soon as they can pull the lever. Almost nobody has killed themselves in a voting booth. The road, however, is a much dicier proposition. Especially when you're on a contraption that offers no buffering should you be struck by a vehicle.

Yes, but then they have no mobility. I needed my bike to get to school... what was I supposed to do? Until you design living spaces that don't require a vehicle of some form to get around, you have to allow kids some basic mobility, and bikes are pretty much it in the US.

Ride on the sidewalk? Walk? Take the bus?

Last I heard, riding on the sidewalk is illegal. Buses are not always available. Walking is not always in any way feasible for the trip you have to make.

Children do not always ride irresponsibly too.

GRK: However, those bicyclists who don't follow traffic laws not only are a hazard to themselves and others, but make all bicyclists look bad.

ALL bicyclists are not responsible for the actions of some bicyclists, any more than all motorists are responsible for the actions of a few.

Why would we want to discourage cycling by hurdling it with stupid fucking beaurocrasy?

Here riding on the sidewalk IS legal... within certain guidelines (mainly you can't go faster than a walker's pace), but riding a bike on the sidewalk at any speed other than a walker's speed is inherently dangerous in a city... if a driver is trying to make sure that a walk-way is clear then he'll (presumably) look right, then left... by the time he has looked left and ascertained that the roadway is clear then a cyclist could have already crossed into the motorist's right-of-way and gotten in front of him, causing an accident... I've almost killed 2 people because of this (note the PDX laws about how if you're cyclist on a sidewalk you are required to go the speed of a pedestrian... neither of the 2 were remotely following this law).

Riding on a sidewalk at cycling-speed is FAR more dangerous than riding on a street at cycling-speed (at least in a city). On the street I know to look out for vehicles/cyclists crossing in front of me when I want to pull out, or when I'm driving. When I'm in an alley and I want to pull out onto a street I know to look for pedestrians walking at ~ 3 MPH, and I know to look fo cyclists/vehicles on the roadway... however, I don't expect people to be crossing at 10-20lkph on a bicycle when it's illegal for them to do so.

What's sensible and doesn't hurt folks is generally legal; if it's not, it's time to lobby.

@Logical Dog: I agree!!! However, in my city, it seems that most cyclists either don't know the laws or choose to ignore them.

There's stuff afoot in the UK to give cyclists more leeway; about time, too.

[insert here a graphic that shows cyclists who run traffic lights verses motorists who do]

100%-vs-1%

well, I don't care if cyclists are pedestrians or "motorists"... what bugs me is the weeving in and out... it's impossible to ascertain what some cyclists are going to do because they can pick and choose the rules that apply to them.

There is a growing consensus in the UK amongst cyclists that because trafic laws have been developed around the motor vehicle, and that those laws compromise the safety of cyclists, that they should be flouted, effectively without scorn, if they make situations where they endanger cyclists.

I VASTLY prefer the roadways that have cycle-lanes because then I have some reasonable assurance of what they're going to do.

I'm not clear on what a walker's pace is. I certainly cannot stay stable on a bicycle that is going as slowly as I walk.

Well, I can't comment as to the UK, but cyclists her often endanger themselves AND motorists because they refuses to be either a "motorist" or a "pedestrian".

Riding on a sidewalk at cycling-speed is FAR more dangerous than riding on a street at cycling-speed (at least in a city).

Nah. How many people do you know who have been killed by being run over by a bike? Now how many cyclists have been killed by being run over with a car? I don't have the stats at hand, but, in my lifetime, I don't know of ANY peds killed by cyclists, but know of at least 3 cyclists killed by vehicles (and I don't have a particularly good memory).

@Rachel: Nor should you... if a group of people is walking down the sidewalk and you have to tell them to move over because 1) you're going faster than them, and 2) you can't control you conveyance well enough to completely avoid them. then you have no business being on the sideWALK

@LD: You're asking the wrong question

London, despite its relative lack of cycle lanes, is relatively safe to cycle in, because most car drivers have a lot of experience dealing with cyclist behaviour and vice versa.

There are a lot of cyclists in London, probably proportionalely more than in most American cities, and drivers are used to them. Most behave well, even if they, myself included, do jump lights and ride on the path.

@LD: the number of cyclists who have been hit by cars while coming off a sidewalk -vs- the number of cyclists who have been hit while in the travel lanes

@DeWe: I don't REALLY care if they run the red lights... I wish I could most the time... what I care about is veering back-and-forth between sidewalk and street... if you do that then it's impossible for drivers to anticipate your actions.

@LD.... I don't care about the cyclists in the lanes... Good on the,... what I cdare about is those who jump on and off... ad a motorist how am I supposed to know what they're likely to do do (and thus plan for it)?

The walking pace thing on a bike is not difficult with practise. It's a good idea to learn how to do "track stands" on a bike, which involves being static with both feet on the pedals for extended periods of 20-30 seconds. This can be practised on a driveway and is useful at junctions and on pavements when you're giving way to pedestrians.

@DeWe: I don't REALLY care if they run the red lights... I wish I could most the time... what I care about is veering back-and-forth between sidewalk and street... if you do that then it's impossible for drivers to anticipate your actions.

Point taken: it's important to be reasonable and predictable.

@LD: I also, as a motorist, don't care THAT much, about the ones on the the sidewalks... it's MOSTLY the ones who pick-and-choose.

I still see licencing of cyclists as an unnecessary hurdle, even if it provides a basis for ID in law or regulation of bahaviour.

@DeWe: I wish I could make a claim about the minority, but I don't know how... either way... I like biking. I like not using a car, but it seems like most of the people who do it in this city are so self-righteous about it as to fuck it up for everyone else. I live in a city that has spent thousands of dollars building "bike boxes" because a few cyclists didn't follow the traffic laws and got killed (see my claim about requiring certification... also see the articles, all of the incidents were the cyclists' fault) and so now we ALL have to pay a ton of money in hopes that it won't happen again. Do I think the bike boxes are a good ides? HELL YEAH! The problem is that they don't address the original problem, cyclists behaving improperly.

I don't care IF they have ID... what I care about is the fact that they're on the same streets as me (when I'm in a car) and they should be upheld to the same laws. If you don't think that cyclists should have to have licenses then why should motorists?

fiXedd: @LD: You're asking the wrong question

I asked the question that was relevant to your statement.

The greatest danger is death.

How many deaths occur due to bicycles on the sidewalk, vs. on the street?

The question was calibrated to the statement of yours that I was responding to, namely:

Riding on a sidewalk at cycling-speed is FAR more dangerous than riding on a street at cycling-speed (at least in a city).

You changed the question when you wrote:

the number of cyclists who have been hit by cars while coming off a sidewalk -vs- the number of cyclists who have been hit while in the travel lanes

That's not a fair debate tactic.

DeWe: The walking pace thing on a bike is not difficult with practise.

I always slow to a near crawl when encountering pedestrians on a sidewalk (while on a bike).

DeWe: Point taken: it's important to be reasonable and predictable.

++

How is that not fair? I took the number of accidents that've been of their own fault and put it into their own hands? Had "I" not been present they'd be dead.

Most of the cyclists that I know who have had accidents have had them as I described... on sidewalks, at intersections.

I withdraw the fairness complaint after reading the context of the whole paragraph.

The four serious bicycle accidents that I am aware of (2 very recent, 3 of 4 fatal) have all been in the street, not on sidewalks.

I still absolutely disagree that it is generally safer in the street for a bicyclist than on the sidewalk. However, I am certainly not advocating that bicycles be relegated to the sidewalk.

If you count injuries of all types, then it is less clear which zone is safer. At least if I'm on a sidewalk, I'm not so worried about being crushed by a hack driver.

I understand your frustration with cyclists who ride erratically and cross in front of you.