5 ms·

> Source? Also note the phrasing "illegal and unsafe". Strictly illegal behavior seems to be about equal based on the link I provided. Are you saying that when

> Source? Also note the phrasing "illegal and unsafe". Strictly illegal behavior seems to be about equal based on the link I provided. Are you saying that when driver breaks the law, it not unsafe, or more frequently not unsafe than when a cyclist does it? How do you square that with this statement? > Yes, the severity is likely higher with a car. With regards to licensing, there are real logistical issues and macro scale affect associated with that approach. Licensing would be expensive and very difficult to enforce, not that governments haven’t investigated the possibility before. It would presumably require even children to be licensed before going near a bike, which in turn would basically eliminate cycling as form of transport. Who can be bother with all that hassle? It also feels entirely disproportionate to risk. The stats show the bikes don’t kill or injure people very often, hardly greater than injuries and fatalities caused by pedestrian-pedestrian collisions. Compared to cars that kill dozens every day. If there was data, rather than hysteria, demonstrating a high risk caused by cyclists then I would agree. But there isn’t, and I doubt you’re going to advocate for licensing for pedestrians as well?

giantg2 4y ago
"Are you saying that when driver breaks the law, it not unsafe," When a driver or cyclists breaks the law, it is not necessarily unsafe. "Who can be bother with all that hassle?" What hassle? You're implying details that aren't there. It wouldn't be difficult at all to require online training/testing for a low fee. This is already done commonly with boating licenses and us low cost and easy. And yes, kids get boater certificates too. Based on the data, they are the cycling age group that would most benefit from the knowledge in the training/test. "It also feels entirely disproportionate to risk." How so? The data I posted about UK cycling accidents shows about 52% involve a factor on cyclists end. If these people are at risk, then we should attempt to get this number down to zero. It seems the data suggests that even if we eliminate driver errors, we would still be left with just under 40% caused solely by cyclist error. "If there was data, rather than hysteria," No hysteria here, just data.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  > When a driver or cyclists breaks the law, it is not necessarily unsafe. Sure, but I would argue that law breaking is good proxy for unsafe behaviour. And rates of law breaking are similar between drivers and cyclists, so to say that doesn’t demonstrate that cyclists don’t behave more unsafely than drivers would require you believe that driver rule breaking is somehow inherently safer (on average) than cyclist rule breaking. > What hassle? You're implying details that aren't there. It wouldn't be difficult at all to require online training/testing for a low fee. This is already done commonly with boating licenses and us low cost and easy. And yes, kids get boater certificates too. Based on the data, they are the cycling age group that would most benefit from the knowledge in the training/test. What percentage of children have a boater licence? What percentage of children have a bike? Do you think those numbers are even vaguely comparable? The barrier to entry for boating is very high regardless of licensing, that is not true of biking. Schools are quite capable of running bike training courses without a licensing scheme. Just like they’re quite capable of teaching any other subject. If you want to advocate for better bike training in schools, then I’m right there with you, I just don’t see how licensing helps with that endeavour. > How so? The data I posted about UK cycling accidents shows about 52% involve a factor on cyclists end. If these people are at risk, then we should attempt to get this number down to zero. Where have you linked this? Additionally licensing should focus on ensuring that people can’t engage in an activity that endangers others with a demonstration of capability, not just endanger themselves. Otherwise we’ll need licensing for every human activity. I argue that cycling doesn’t substantially endanger anyone except the biker, and that there are plenty of other everyday activities that endanger people more than cycling, which aren’t licensed. > "If there was data, rather than hysteria," No hysteria here, just data. You haven’t provided the data I'm afraid. Certainly not data demonstrating the risk of unlicensed cyclists to non-cyclists.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I'm just saying what I see in my area. The data I found was from a different state so might vary there. On top of that, yes, even with similar law breaking one group may be doing so in a riskier way. For example not having a light on your bike after dark is illegal (in my state) and dangerous. Driving without your lights on at night is also illegal and dangerous, but something I see much less of. On the other side, I see far fewer bicycles going an unsafe speed. The biggest factor is that I simply see more cars doing highways that aren't doing anything illegal and unsafe while I see more cyclists in suburban areas where there are more opportunites for illegal and unsafe actions. That's just my area and what I've seen. The data says they're about equal. "Do you think those numbers are even vaguely comparable? The barrier to entry for boating is very high regardless of licensing, that is not true of biking." Why do you think these numbers should be comparable? What barrier to entry; access to water? This is more common in some areas. Also, what do barriers to entry in boating have to do with this? If anything the fact that there are higher barriers and yet it's extremely easy to get a license would support my position. "Schools are quite capable of running bike training courses without a licensing scheme." I'd be for this. One drawback is that schools could teach a lot of things, but don't. There would be less pushback if we didn't push this into the curriculum too. The other drawback is that it doesn't cover the adults. "Where have you linked this?" https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/ https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/ "Additionally licensing should focus on ensuring that people can’t engage in an activity that endangers others with a demonstration of capability," Is this just your opinion, or is there a definition somewhere? There are licensing requirements for all sorts of things that don't provide risks to other people, but do to property, or to themselves. And particularly if one wants to access community resources, especially when the modest fees are used to provide safe infrastructure (such as boat ramps in the case of boating). "You haven’t provided the data I'm afraid. Certainly not data demonstrating the risk of unlicensed cyclists to non-cyclists." Considering the fact you missed my link... the main point is that cyclists contribute to their own accidents as evidenced by the data. My point about being a danger to others is common sense - these accidents caused by cyclists at least produced damage to property. There are occurances of fatalities and injuries to pedestrians too. Nobody has quantified them as far as I can tell. But we're talking about moot here because this detail doesn't matter to my main point (that everyone has been derailing). I really wish I didn't participate in many of these, but I got baited in by that troll and now everyone else is picking apart the details of the response. If you read my comments, my main point is that there needs to be better training/testing for drivers and cyclists if we want cyclist involved accidents to decrease. The (limited) data absolutely shows near equal fault, and those faults being attributed to driver/cyclist error. Now we could say self training is sufficient. I'd even buy that if it weren't for all the issues I've seen. But these accidents do in fact cause harm to others on shared infrastructure, even if physical injuries are less common. We require permits for assemblies that block roads, permits for special events in public areas or noise exceptions, etc, because they inconvenience the public. So it seems acceptable and reasonable to require some basic training and testing instead of simply blaming it 100% on the drivers as the data doesn't support that.

giantg2 4y ago

"Are you saying that when driver breaks the law, it not unsafe," When a driver or cyclists breaks the law, it is not necessarily unsafe. "Who can be bother with all that hassle?" What hassle? You're implying details that aren't there. It wouldn't be difficult at all to require online training/testing for a low fee. This is already done commonly with boating licenses and us low cost and easy. And yes, kids get boater certificates too. Based on the data, they are the cycling age group that would most benefit from the knowledge in the training/test. "It also feels entirely disproportionate to risk." How so? The data I posted about UK cycling accidents shows about 52% involve a factor on cyclists end. If these people are at risk, then we should attempt to get this number down to zero. It seems the data suggests that even if we eliminate driver errors, we would still be left with just under 40% caused solely by cyclist error. "If there was data, rather than hysteria," No hysteria here, just data.

avianlyric 4y ago
> When a driver or cyclists breaks the law, it is not necessarily unsafe. Sure, but I would argue that law breaking is good proxy for unsafe behaviour. And rates of law breaking are similar between drivers and cyclists, so to say that doesn’t demonstrate that cyclists don’t behave more unsafely than drivers would require you believe that driver rule breaking is somehow inherently safer (on average) than cyclist rule breaking. > What hassle? You're implying details that aren't there. It wouldn't be difficult at all to require online training/testing for a low fee. This is already done commonly with boating licenses and us low cost and easy. And yes, kids get boater certificates too. Based on the data, they are the cycling age group that would most benefit from the knowledge in the training/test. What percentage of children have a boater licence? What percentage of children have a bike? Do you think those numbers are even vaguely comparable? The barrier to entry for boating is very high regardless of licensing, that is not true of biking. Schools are quite capable of running bike training courses without a licensing scheme. Just like they’re quite capable of teaching any other subject. If you want to advocate for better bike training in schools, then I’m right there with you, I just don’t see how licensing helps with that endeavour. > How so? The data I posted about UK cycling accidents shows about 52% involve a factor on cyclists end. If these people are at risk, then we should attempt to get this number down to zero. Where have you linked this? Additionally licensing should focus on ensuring that people can’t engage in an activity that endangers others with a demonstration of capability, not just endanger themselves. Otherwise we’ll need licensing for every human activity. I argue that cycling doesn’t substantially endanger anyone except the biker, and that there are plenty of other everyday activities that endanger people more than cycling, which aren’t licensed. > "If there was data, rather than hysteria," No hysteria here, just data. You haven’t provided the data I'm afraid. Certainly not data demonstrating the risk of unlicensed cyclists to non-cyclists.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I'm just saying what I see in my area. The data I found was from a different state so might vary there. On top of that, yes, even with similar law breaking one group may be doing so in a riskier way. For example not having a light on your bike after dark is illegal (in my state) and dangerous. Driving without your lights on at night is also illegal and dangerous, but something I see much less of. On the other side, I see far fewer bicycles going an unsafe speed. The biggest factor is that I simply see more cars doing highways that aren't doing anything illegal and unsafe while I see more cyclists in suburban areas where there are more opportunites for illegal and unsafe actions. That's just my area and what I've seen. The data says they're about equal. "Do you think those numbers are even vaguely comparable? The barrier to entry for boating is very high regardless of licensing, that is not true of biking." Why do you think these numbers should be comparable? What barrier to entry; access to water? This is more common in some areas. Also, what do barriers to entry in boating have to do with this? If anything the fact that there are higher barriers and yet it's extremely easy to get a license would support my position. "Schools are quite capable of running bike training courses without a licensing scheme." I'd be for this. One drawback is that schools could teach a lot of things, but don't. There would be less pushback if we didn't push this into the curriculum too. The other drawback is that it doesn't cover the adults. "Where have you linked this?" https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/ https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/ "Additionally licensing should focus on ensuring that people can’t engage in an activity that endangers others with a demonstration of capability," Is this just your opinion, or is there a definition somewhere? There are licensing requirements for all sorts of things that don't provide risks to other people, but do to property, or to themselves. And particularly if one wants to access community resources, especially when the modest fees are used to provide safe infrastructure (such as boat ramps in the case of boating). "You haven’t provided the data I'm afraid. Certainly not data demonstrating the risk of unlicensed cyclists to non-cyclists." Considering the fact you missed my link... the main point is that cyclists contribute to their own accidents as evidenced by the data. My point about being a danger to others is common sense - these accidents caused by cyclists at least produced damage to property. There are occurances of fatalities and injuries to pedestrians too. Nobody has quantified them as far as I can tell. But we're talking about moot here because this detail doesn't matter to my main point (that everyone has been derailing). I really wish I didn't participate in many of these, but I got baited in by that troll and now everyone else is picking apart the details of the response. If you read my comments, my main point is that there needs to be better training/testing for drivers and cyclists if we want cyclist involved accidents to decrease. The (limited) data absolutely shows near equal fault, and those faults being attributed to driver/cyclist error. Now we could say self training is sufficient. I'd even buy that if it weren't for all the issues I've seen. But these accidents do in fact cause harm to others on shared infrastructure, even if physical injuries are less common. We require permits for assemblies that block roads, permits for special events in public areas or noise exceptions, etc, because they inconvenience the public. So it seems acceptable and reasonable to require some basic training and testing instead of simply blaming it 100% on the drivers as the data doesn't support that.