RLJing

[benb]

But why? You need to provide some evidence that:
1) there is a significant problem that needs addressing, and
2) that cycle licences are the best way of addressing #1

It seems rather obvious that cycle licencing would not only be expensive and virtually impossible to enforce, but it wouldn't solve any problem, and would discourage people from cycling - which we don't want to do, no matter how "not serious" they are.

 

[mustang1]

The problem of respect. Of not being treated as equals on the road. Of being assumed to be lawless and treated as such, regardless of the evidence.

There is no problem with respect. Those licenced car drivers abuse not only cyclists but other drivers too road rage was a problem with licenced drivers long before cycling became popular.

 

[Mile195]

But why? You need to provide some evidence that:
1) there is a significant problem that needs addressing, and
2) that cycle licences are the best way of addressing #1

It seems rather obvious that cycle licencing would not only be expensive and virtually impossible to enforce, but it wouldn't solve any problem, and would discourage people from cycling - which we don't want to do, no matter how "not serious" they are.

...And plus, I understand it's already been done. I remember reading somewhere that they did it in Switzerland in the 1960s. I forget the details but obviously they axed it in the end. Presumably because it turned out to be unworkable.

 

[mustang1]

Drivers hate cyclists because we slow them down.

We could have licenses, insurance, helmets and anything else you can dream of. We'll still be hated. Nothing will change.

Might as well forget the silly ideas and just ignore them.

I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest that any of these problems would be solved with a licensing scheme for cyclists. Far better would be a scheme to better educate the minority of road users that we have a right to be on the road regardless of their wishes otherwise.

Licensing is a red herring and which would only serve to raise a barrier to cycling on the roads for people who have every right to be there, whilst satiating the dog-whistles of narrow minded, ill informed cockheads. Evidence would suggest that adding these barriers (mandatory helmet laws) diminish the prevalence of cycle commuting.

In addition to the cost (which for me would be non-significant) which may be non-trivial to some people, particularly those on a limited income, how would you decide who requires this? Would children under the age of 16 need a license? How about under 10s? Would you need one if using a cycle path that merges with a main road?

I could go on.

I agree.

And to add, licenced drivers who do not see licenced motorcyclists, or who drink and drive, didn't need additional locenses, bit an awareness campaign.

Following this, cyclists arent the ones who require licensing, its the drivers who require an awareness campaign.

 

[jonny jeez]

But why? You need to provide some evidence that:
1) there is a significant problem that needs addressing, and
2) that cycle licences are the best way of addressing #1

It seems rather obvious that cycle licencing would not only be expensive and virtually impossible to enforce, but it wouldn't solve any problem, and would discourage people from cycling - which we don't want to do, no matter how "not serious" they are.

Again...not cycle licencing...city licencing.

 

[jonny jeez]

Going to school?

Fair point, hadn't considered that. So an age limit could apply I guess.

 

[theclaud]

Fair point, hadn't considered that.

Confirmation, if it were needed, that we may treat your suggestion with all the seriousness it deserves.

 

[hennbell]

I routinely run into a rural four way stop, in the UK it would be replaced by a roundabout. Clear sight lines for a mile in each direction. If there are any other vehicles I come to a complete stop if is just me I cautiously continue on my way. I don't consider my actions unsafe.

 

[newfhouse]

Which is why I advocate specific licenses for those cycling within large cities. ( not elsewhere...just in large cities, during peak times)

WTF?

 

[jonny jeez]

Confirmation, if it were needed, that we may treat your suggestion with all the seriousness it deserves.

Who is "we"...

You, perhaps some. Or are you suggesting that you speak on behalf of the entire internet?

If so, then do "we" really think its possible to have thought of everything, on every point and if so...do "we" stop asking for input when we decide we are right.
Perhaps we need to be a little less sanctimonious.

 

[glenn forger]

Those who want licences for cyclists are usually those least able to spell licence.

 

[benb]

Again...not cycle licencing...city licencing.

My arguments against this scheme are still perfectly valid.

1. What problem are you trying to solve?
2. How are city cycle licences the best way to solve #1?
3. What negative consequences will there be (ie discouraging people from cycling) and are they bad enough to make the scheme not worth it even if you have demonstrated #2?

Again, this would be expensive, unworkable, unenforceable, wouldn't solve any problems but would cause some.

 

[theclaud]

Who is "we"...

You, perhaps some. Or are you suggesting that you speak on behalf of the entire internet?

If so, then do "we" really think its possible to have thought of everything, on every point and if so...do "we" stop asking for input when we decide we are right.
Perhaps we need to be a little less sanctimonious.

Your readers on this thread. I am one of them. Hence the perfectly legitimate 'we'. The subtext about the response I think your suggestion deserves will not be lost on you. Others, of course, remain free to furrow their brows and give it lengthy consideration (assuming they have finished sorting their allen-bolts into M-size order and rearranging the pebbles in their driveway to achieve the most pleasing gradation of shades). Is it possible to be any more touchy?

I don't mind entertaining the odd obviously-barmy idea, on the offchance that it might throw up something interesting, but barmy and half-baked is a step too far.

 

[Markymark]

It seems I should be paying to stop people hating me.

In case you hadn't guessed I couldn't care less if people hate me or not. In fact annoying people amuses me.

 

[ianrauk]

It seems I should be paying to stop people hating me.

In case you hadn't guessed I couldn't care less if people hate me or not. In fact annoying people amuses me.

People only hate you in the Cities or so it seems.