6 ms·

> Why shouldn’t cyclists need a license to ride on the road? Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road, would you still want cy

> Why shouldn’t cyclists need a license to ride on the road? Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road, would you still want cyclists to have a licence? In a general case though, requiring cyclists to have a licence would reduce the number of cyclists, probably significantly. This would correspondingly increase the number of motorists. This dual effect would have a number of negative impacts. More motorists lead to more congestion, more CO2 emitted and poorer air quality. Poorer air quality leads to health problems, up to and including deaths. CO2 causes climate change, and greater congestion has an economic impact. Fewer people cycling mean fewer people getting exercise, leading to more health problems, up to and including deaths. I'm confident these problems would overshadow the small improvements in cyclist safety you might gain with a cycling licence requirement. There are better ways to improve cycling safety.

mc32 9y ago
Not all cyclist ride one speed "gentleman/lady" bikes. Many travel upto 30mph. That's a safety concern. There have been a number of cases of cyclists running over pedestrians resulting in serious injury, so it's not inconceivable to require licensing.
- squiggleblaz 9y ago
  Licensing doesn't stop people driving cars from charging into others, killing them. It's not going to stop bike riders who are inclined to drive with such recklessness that they endanger their own life from driving with that recklessness
papermule 9y ago
> Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road, would you still want cyclists to have a licence? Of course! In a world where there were only cyclists there would still need to be a set of rules that all cyclists are required to follow. Those might include how to behave at intersections, how and when you should overtake other cyclists, and so on. To be allowed to cycle, each cyclist should have demonstrated that they understand and follow these rules by taking some kind of test. > In a general case though, requiring cyclists to have a licence would reduce the number of cyclists, probably significantly. This would correspondingly increase the number of motorists. I don't think so. I expect the government to continue to penalize use of motor vehicles in cities such as London. The bicycle will remain the cheaper mode of transport.
- cornyNetHandle 9y ago
  In a world where there were only pedestrians, would you want them to start having licences? Per mile, walking is exceedingly dangerous compared to other modes of transport.
  - papermule 9y ago
    No, I don't think so? 1. Pedestrians move at much slower speeds than bicycles. If two pedestrians walk into each at 5mph the damage is much lower than if two cyclists collide at 30mph. 2. Since pedestrians move much slower than bicycles they can manoeuvre much faster. The stopping distance for a walking pedestrian is less than 1m, the stopping distance for a bycicle travelling at 30mph is much greater. 3. If two pedestrians walk into each other the chance of collateral damage is quite low. It's quite easy to walk around two people that just walked into each other. If two cyclists collide, there is a good chance that cyclists on each side of them will get caught up in the collision, crash and injure themselves too. A good example of this are the crashes seen on Tour de France. Of course, if people started running as a mode of transport it would become increasingly dangerous, and you'd have to start separating the walkers from the runners as the damage from a potential collision would be much greater.
    - cornyNetHandle 9y ago
      Ok, so licences for runners then, as you may need to have a test to see that people know the rules and presumably ban people from running if they break them.
      - papermule 9y ago
        Since running is largely recreational most runners avoid congested areas on purpose. If this changes it will have to be revisited. Nice strawman though.
        cornyNetHandle 9y ago
        Was trying more for reducto ad absurdum. I didn't come up with the idea of having laws to separate runners from walkers, you did. I was just exploring the enforcement mechanism for such a suggestion.
pc86 9y ago
You're suggesting that requiring bicyclists to be licensed would kill people?
- scatters 9y ago
  It would have that effect, obviously. Is this not something you've thought about before?
- cornyNetHandle 9y ago
  Requiring licensing for cyclists could indirectly result in more deaths depending on the change in other behaviours. Off the top of my head, walking is more risky per mile for the traveller than cycling while driving is safer per mile, but increases your risk of obesity and DVT and is more dangerous for everyone else in terms of pollution and accidents.
cgriswald 9y ago
> In a general case though, requiring cyclists to have a licence would reduce the number of cyclists, probably significantly. This would correspondingly increase the number of motorists. Most cyclists are licensed drivers, and a test for cycling licensing would, at worst, probably be no more difficult than that for driving. The impact on the number of cyclists would be minimal. A bicycle can injure or kill a pedestrian or cause a motor vehicle accident. What is the justification for licensing motor vehicle driving but not bicycling when done on public roads? I cannot think of anyone who fails a motor vehicle licensing test that I consider competent to not cause others harm while operating a bicycle on public roads. I would much rather suffer the 'dangers' of increased carpooling or public transit use.
- ck425 9y ago
  No, they are not. Atleast outside the US they're not. I know a significant number of people, myself included, who are experienced cyclists who have never driven a car in their life. Cycling is far more common in urban areas where driving is impractical or amongst young people who can't afford or don't want to drive.
dabbledash 9y ago
>Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road, would you still want cyclists to have a licence? No. Why do you think this is relevant? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of your argument.
- chimprich 9y ago
  You are correct in pointing out that it doesn't have much to do with the rest of my argument. I posed it as a question because I think a lot of the opinions around this issue (like many or most issues) stem from emotions. In this case I think this argument comes from a sense of fairness: motorists have to pay tax / have insurance / pass a test; so why shouldn't cyclists? I think if you consider whether we would even be asking that question if there were no motorists, you can get around the "fairness" point of view.
  - dabbledash 9y ago
    Interesting. I wasn't coming from that angle. I think cycling would be less risky if there weren't cars on the road, so I would see less of a reason to have cyclists take a test and get a license if they didn't have to mix with auto traffic.

mc32 9y ago

Not all cyclist ride one speed "gentleman/lady" bikes. Many travel upto 30mph. That's a safety concern. There have been a number of cases of cyclists running over pedestrians resulting in serious injury, so it's not inconceivable to require licensing.

squiggleblaz 9y ago
Licensing doesn't stop people driving cars from charging into others, killing them. It's not going to stop bike riders who are inclined to drive with such recklessness that they endanger their own life from driving with that recklessness

papermule 9y ago

> Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road, would you still want cyclists to have a licence? Of course! In a world where there were only cyclists there would still need to be a set of rules that all cyclists are required to follow. Those might include how to behave at intersections, how and when you should overtake other cyclists, and so on. To be allowed to cycle, each cyclist should have demonstrated that they understand and follow these rules by taking some kind of test. > In a general case though, requiring cyclists to have a licence would reduce the number of cyclists, probably significantly. This would correspondingly increase the number of motorists. I don't think so. I expect the government to continue to penalize use of motor vehicles in cities such as London. The bicycle will remain the cheaper mode of transport.

cornyNetHandle 9y ago
In a world where there were only pedestrians, would you want them to start having licences? Per mile, walking is exceedingly dangerous compared to other modes of transport.
- papermule 9y ago
  No, I don't think so? 1. Pedestrians move at much slower speeds than bicycles. If two pedestrians walk into each at 5mph the damage is much lower than if two cyclists collide at 30mph. 2. Since pedestrians move much slower than bicycles they can manoeuvre much faster. The stopping distance for a walking pedestrian is less than 1m, the stopping distance for a bycicle travelling at 30mph is much greater. 3. If two pedestrians walk into each other the chance of collateral damage is quite low. It's quite easy to walk around two people that just walked into each other. If two cyclists collide, there is a good chance that cyclists on each side of them will get caught up in the collision, crash and injure themselves too. A good example of this are the crashes seen on Tour de France. Of course, if people started running as a mode of transport it would become increasingly dangerous, and you'd have to start separating the walkers from the runners as the damage from a potential collision would be much greater.
  - cornyNetHandle 9y ago
    Ok, so licences for runners then, as you may need to have a test to see that people know the rules and presumably ban people from running if they break them.
    - papermule 9y ago
      Since running is largely recreational most runners avoid congested areas on purpose. If this changes it will have to be revisited. Nice strawman though.
      - cornyNetHandle 9y ago
        Was trying more for reducto ad absurdum. I didn't come up with the idea of having laws to separate runners from walkers, you did. I was just exploring the enforcement mechanism for such a suggestion.

pc86 9y ago

You're suggesting that requiring bicyclists to be licensed would kill people?

scatters 9y ago
It would have that effect, obviously. Is this not something you've thought about before?
cornyNetHandle 9y ago
Requiring licensing for cyclists could indirectly result in more deaths depending on the change in other behaviours. Off the top of my head, walking is more risky per mile for the traveller than cycling while driving is safer per mile, but increases your risk of obesity and DVT and is more dangerous for everyone else in terms of pollution and accidents.

cgriswald 9y ago

> In a general case though, requiring cyclists to have a licence would reduce the number of cyclists, probably significantly. This would correspondingly increase the number of motorists. Most cyclists are licensed drivers, and a test for cycling licensing would, at worst, probably be no more difficult than that for driving. The impact on the number of cyclists would be minimal. A bicycle can injure or kill a pedestrian or cause a motor vehicle accident. What is the justification for licensing motor vehicle driving but not bicycling when done on public roads? I cannot think of anyone who fails a motor vehicle licensing test that I consider competent to not cause others harm while operating a bicycle on public roads. I would much rather suffer the 'dangers' of increased carpooling or public transit use.

ck425 9y ago
No, they are not. Atleast outside the US they're not. I know a significant number of people, myself included, who are experienced cyclists who have never driven a car in their life. Cycling is far more common in urban areas where driving is impractical or amongst young people who can't afford or don't want to drive.

dabbledash 9y ago

>Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road, would you still want cyclists to have a licence? No. Why do you think this is relevant? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of your argument.

chimprich 9y ago
You are correct in pointing out that it doesn't have much to do with the rest of my argument. I posed it as a question because I think a lot of the opinions around this issue (like many or most issues) stem from emotions. In this case I think this argument comes from a sense of fairness: motorists have to pay tax / have insurance / pass a test; so why shouldn't cyclists? I think if you consider whether we would even be asking that question if there were no motorists, you can get around the "fairness" point of view.
- dabbledash 9y ago
  Interesting. I wasn't coming from that angle. I think cycling would be less risky if there weren't cars on the road, so I would see less of a reason to have cyclists take a test and get a license if they didn't have to mix with auto traffic.