Bicycle Licencing
Anyone hear about one Toronto counselor who is pushing for bicycle licencing:
Here's the article:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/639207
And I also heard about this on the radio on CBC this morning, but I'm not 100% sure which counselor they interviewed and if it was Adrian Heaps.
Either way, I think this is stupid for anyone that already has a driver's licence. Might be a good idea for kids or people who don't have a driver's licence.
From what I heard this morning, it sounding more like a money-making scheme.
If they want to licence cyclists in Toronto for using the roads, then I want to see a dedicated bicycle lane on every major city street.
Anything less than $60/year and it would be a money loser because $60/year is the approximate break-even point.
I don't see licensing for cyclists happening. We don't licence other Human Powered transport (ie swimming. canoeing, rowing, walking, running, cycling, jumping, skipping, crawling, climbing) so why would cycling be an exception?
Cycling is not an activity so dangerous to others that we need to limit who can engage in it, like we do for cars and drivers.
http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/toronto/ondemand/audio/jul02bh...
I am concerned that the people promoting the licensing of bikes may be more interested in limiting or obstructing cyclists.
The issue of licensing bikes is unnecessary, un-economical, and un-enforceable.
I used to live in Regina, which requires bike licenses. Mostly they are two things: reflective stickers that increase night visibility because they are about the size of a kitkat wrapper and you put them on the frame, and they are not removable so you get a serial number for theft protection.
If you try and scratch the thing off a bike it's pretty obvious. Same reflective crackly stuff that car annual stickers are made of and paint doesnt stick to it.
But $60 is way too much. $15 I would pay. Especially if the money went directly to lanes and bike programs instead of general revenues. Still way cheaper than gas.
the councillor was NOT Adrian Heaps, it was Michael Walker.
He wants mandatory licenses and mandatory helmets. He says they should both be province-wide. He's wrong.
What Regina has sounds more like mandatory one-time registration rather than ongoing licensing. That's a slightly different animal, and is not what we're talking about here.
The councillor's intent is to use the exact same model where the bike and the rider are licensed by the province in the exact same model that cars and motorcycles are. Which puts the price much higher as there is much more administrative and enforcement overhead.
One can register their bike with the Toronto Police for free, or else use one of the national registries for a fee. And, yes, some cities make this mandatory and charge a fee and even call it a licence when it's really a registration.
Of course I have to wonder how my 4-year-old daughter would pass a test, or will she alone be relegated to the sidewalks, which would then render cycling as a non-option for our family?
Among the many flaws of bicycle licensing, is the fact that most cyclists already have a Driver's License and Auto Insurance Policy.
I don't know where the Councillor is getting his facts, and he failed to provide any during the interview.
This looks like a CASH GRAB for municipal and provincial governments, and the insurance industry. By recent figures, there are likely more than 1 million bikes in the GTA - so do the math.
I would like to see an investigation into the Councillors actions - this looks very, very wrong.
Only four years ago the Works department gave a definitive report to Council that cyclist or bicycle licensing are onerous, expensive, ineffective and unnecessary. Council had also reviewed this in 1992 and 1996, including asking the MTO if it made sense. MTO said they wouldn't do it and it was a waste of money.
Thanks to Simon for the info.
@Seymore Bikes: I wouldn't say most cyclists have driver's licenses. Most likely it's the minority since we're talking about young children, teens, and adults living in downtown comprising a good portion. This would not be a cash grab but likely a money loser.
Councillor Walker might be the first to float a licensing idea, but the last to support putting money towards comprehensive cycling education in schools rather than the crappy bike rodeos currently in place.
Hi Anthony,
That's a good point... how ARE they gonna handle bicycle licenses for kids that can't read yet?
Also as a general comment... that counselor that was interviewed... he cites a couple of collisions where bicycles were involved. And he mentions that the cyclist 'was at fault'... well I've seen how many officers assign 'fault' and I wasn't impressed. One collision I witnessed... a car turning left as the light was changing on the 3 lane road. In the opposing direction, in two lanes (left and centre) cars were stopped. In the curb lane, a teenager (female) decided to gun it through on the right lane.
Even though the light was already red when she gunned it, it was the driver who was turning left that was assigned 100% of the blame. Basically the officer was saying that it's okay for someone to gun it through a red light if someone is trying to turn.
Stupid.
And when you actually look at the number of collisions and related deaths overall from statcan, it's CARS that are the problem, not bicycles. Way more people die just being passengers in cars than than getting hit by cars as a pedestrian or cyclist.
And this morning, CBC plays a bunch of phoned-in reactions to this counselor's remarks... basically everyone said, in effect, that his idea was stupid and just a veiled cash-grab.
Anybody know anything about Michael Walker? Does he have a history of being Pro-car or anti-bike?
Note that just because he's involved in a Bicycle committee doesn't automatically mean he's pro-bike... the guy could be a Trojan-Horse...
I just did some checking and apparently Michael Walker opposed the bicycle lanes along Jarvis Street.
So I believe what we have here is that Michael Walker is part of the Pro-car and Anti-bicycle faction.
Friday morning, Metro Morning played quite a number of phoned-in listener responsed to the inverview with Councillor Walker on Thursday.
Walker is looking to 1) licence cyclists (not cycles, cyclists) and 2) make helmets mandatory for everyone (as he pointed out, someone was killed by an SUV the other day [which I can't find on google], so if you get run over by a turning cement mixer, a helmet is sure to save your life)
The responses were about 90% negative, assuming they played 10 responses.
The best one went something like this:
"This is a great idea. It's so great, we should extend it. The City must require licences for pedestrians, and insurance. We can't have unlicenced and uninsured people walking all over!"
A great pun on the Councillor's name, intentional or not.
A number of people did the "Toronto is a laughingstock" thing. What they forget is that councillors are free to speak their mind (or lack of one), as there's no central control or caucus whip keeping them in line. (But everyone will still blame the Mayor.)
It would be interesting to find out how many cyclists also have a Driver's License (excluding those under 16 of course), my guess is that the number may be higher than you think.
While I agree that Bike Licensing is un-economical, there is an initial dollar figure that would seem attractive up front, of course the private Insurance companies would be the real winners if it went that far.
I still feel that Councillor Walker's interests in this matter are suspect.
.
I don't get why we're a lauging stock over this bike stuff. We're just a city trying to make it work by exploring all the options and keeping the debate WIDE open and (very obviously) accessible to all.
People need to relax and let society work its mojo.
Doing what's best for Toronto is all well & good, but engaging the political process to find answers to problems that have already been solved by other cities (and ours) smacks of arrogance and ignorance.
We allow our 44 City Councillors to get high atop their soap boxes and tell people what they want to hear instead of actually serving as leaders of our city.
It seems that Toronto decides (too often) that it must re-invent the wheel instead of adopting the best practices already in place in other parts of the world, here are a few examples:
So I understand why people apply the “laughing stock” label to Toronto, I just wish that the residents of this city were as judgmental of our elected leaders.
Licencing will kill biking.
If bikes are licenced cars should be illegal, infact I would gladly swallow that pill.
Police state is best opshawn? Thanks yew awesom politico person!!1
Baaa Baaaaaaaa
The "War on cars" was just retarded, good grief.
Now you and Electric are all for licensing e-bikes because you...
[Editors: this thread has been deleted for being off topic. Mr. KF keep your e-bike discussions in a separate thread. This is getting insulting and pedantic when every post becomes about your issues around e-bikes.]
Learn to be humble. Adults don't bike. Only radicals cycle past November. Wear your Helmets. Wear your neon jackets. Stay in your bike-lane ghettos. Learn to follow the law to the letter(more so than any other road user) or you'll be unashamedly picked on. Wear your cyclist license # on the back of your shirt.
Or was that your prisoner #?
Hmmm.
Let me guess, you are either ken finch or another commie from the e-bikers forum. You mention Meet-Up because you are always on the E-biker Meet-Up page as well you mention e-bikes when they are not part of any conversation.
I know you aren't used to free speech in a forum (due to the e-biker forum being non-freespeech) but that doesn't mean you have to act like a accusatory asshole when you have the ability to say anything.
The only coward here mr anonymous poster is you.
Actually, I think this is a great idea. Currently, I find the bike paths and multi-use trails jammed with children, people from nearby ontario cities, and tourists from around the world.
By requiring mandatory licensing to ride a bike, we can restrict the use of bicycle lanes to the few determined local cyclists, discourage new cyclists from buying bikes, keep kids in the back of SUVs, and empty the city of annoying tourists.
Maybe Toronto should institute a localized drivers license for cars too. That way only people from Toronto will be able to use our roads. It would help keep my mother-in-law from visiting so often.
Alternately, maybe Walker should just institute this license requirement in his Ward, and we'll see how many people go shop there.
Just ban cars. Think of the environmental impact that would make not to mention freeing up kilometers of space that used to be relegated to parkingspots, fuck the whiners... adapt or die.
While the concept of short-term rentals is appealing, beware: Montreal is having a lot of teething problems with Bixi, including theft and high rates of breakage in the anchoring system and on the bikes themselves. All of these problems are being addressed, but given Toronto's green bin fiasco, it would be preferable if we give Montreal a few years to fix its Bixi issues before importing the system.
PedalPowerPat (whoever that is) wrote:
"Just ban cars."
Kevin's comment:
I agree. Toronto has actually got great cycle infrastructure. Now all we need to do is get all the cars off of it.
It will never happen, it's just another loonie idea being beaten to death in this forum.
I read somewhere (maybe here?) something to the effect of: Let a city councillor ride a bike (or ebike) around town for a day and they will see this city has a lot more pressing problems to deal with than the ones we get so worked up about.
I like the idea of "registration" however, with an antitheft-ish serial number sticker.
I've not yet witnessed Michael Walker vote for any cycling infrastructure.
He's simply an annoying politician who wanted to get himself on the radio, and though that the "safety" aspect of his proposal would "sell" to those who don't really understand that he's talking out of his wrong end. This is because (he believes that) the cyclists are in the minority -- and he thinks that they should stay that way.
Last year I wrote about the "problem" of new cyclists joing our ranks partly due to high gas prices. It's usually these inexperienced riders that you'll find who "throw themselves" under the wheels of a car/truck.
It takes, on average, about four years worth of riding for a person to become an "experienced" cyclists. Cycling education programs like CAN-BIKE reduce this to about six months. It is only the newbies who try to squeeze themselves between right hand turning cars and an intersection. The more experienced will hold back, take their space in the queue and take the lane through the intersection, or else, pass the right hand turning cars on the left.
Cyclists might be somewhat permiable to car congestion, but the experienced ones know how not to get hit.
Most kids are not taught to ride properly. Most parents themselves don't know how to ride a bike on the road, and fewer still can articulate their skills. Most kids are taught to ride their bikes on the sidewalk (which is dangerous) and then these kids grow up and become the adults that we all see riding on the sidewalks, only because no-one ever was able to teach them anything else.
The same is true for those learning to drive, which is part of the reason why we have "graduated licencing". We allow more priviledge as the experience (suposedly) increases. But it still takes about four to five years to become an experienced driver. Four to five years is about how long it takes to become competent any skill set, which is why most appreniship programs are usually about this length.
I'd like to see people licenced before they can become parents, but that's also not going to happen. ;-)
The next best thing that we can do is advocate for cycling education, and advocate for better education overall. It's my assertion that a better educated population wouldn't elect a Michael Walker to begin with. ;-)
The legal protection for one of our most most basic personal freedoms, that of mobility, dates back to Magna Carta. Legal precedents make it clear that the law underlying habeas forbids restrictions on movement other than arrest and imprisonment. Courts have used habeas writs to free slaves, and courts have issued writs of habeas corpus in child custody disputes. If the city decided to confine me to my house for an extended period using an excuse such as road work, I could apply for, and probably get, a habeas writ.
In today's urban environment, individuals lacking the means of personal mobility can find themselves effectively confined to specific neighbourhoods. That raises the question of where we draw the line between forms of mobility we have a right to, such as walking, and forms of mobility that so endanger our neighbours that we do not properly have any business exercising them without a license (driving, flying). Specifically, where does cycling fit?
I personally believe that it makes sense to draw the line at human powered mobility, for a number of reasons, starting with the obvious difference between a ten kilo mechanical device that moves under human power and a two-tonne steel bomb (not hyperbole; an average car's gas tank could take down a small house, and yes, Virginia, gasoline does have the defining characteristic of a high explosive). Other reasonable possibilities include a basic right to operate a vehicle capable of no more than 1kw sustained power output.
In any case, if we accept some level of mobility as a right, which I think has the support of historic human rights law, then anyone who proposes to license any form of mobility must first establish that the exercise of that mobility poses a significant risk to others. I don't consider that an easy argument to make in regard to a bicycle.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
Habeas is used to put people before the courts and then have it explained why that person is being held. Without a proper explanation that court must set them free.
Here is a transcript from an 1800's court using habeas to free a slave,
http://ccharity.com/node/533
The right of mobility, is the right to leave, enter and re-enter your state or birth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement
Any choices one makes is about how they get around is covered under common law or at best some defaulting under rights.
For the words "set them free" you could just as easily substitute "restore their personal mobility". Nothing really defines a jail, except that you can't leave it. Not all prisons have walls, but they all restrict when and where you can move. Commentators on urban life have long observed that features of urban design can shut city dwellers up in particular neighbourhoods as effectively as any prison.
This gets us back to the basic question: do we have the right not to have our local mobility (i.e. within borders) restricted without legal excuse? I think the tradition of habeas says clearly that we do. A mechanism to assert a right makes no sense in the absence of that right. Then we have to ask what limits this right might have.
Plenty of cyclists have made the claim that the right to cycle derives from the rights of a citizen and a human being under common law. I find these arguments persuasive, and I don't want to give up what I view as a basic right to some councillor's licensing scheme, at least not without a struggle.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
John I do not disagree with what you want the end result to be. Doing it on the back of habeas just muddies the waters and brings up all sorts of unnecessary issues to deal with.
There is a little bit of semantics going on too. We have to be careful not to blur "mobility", a long established right, with that of travel. Your link to the US case is superb but it still does not give you any rights as to how you chose to travel.
In terms of safety when traveling, there are already broad rights in the constitution to protect you.
I think a much simpler system would be to allocate public funds to forms of transportation that move the most number of people in the smallest amount of space. Bicycles and buses would be the top of that list.
In direct response to
Woman struck by bicycle on sidewalk
Global news is reporting on licenses for cyclists again.
The segment:
http://www.globalontario.com/video/index.html?releaseid=1208510568
The whole show:
http://www.globalontario.com/video/index.html?releasePID=RY24c3L_eWDk0sYinUzI84HQRzTgPNvE
is found here
However, it's a USA based discussion about rights. But it is still useful as a point of reference.
can be found at: http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/wes_translicensingcyc...
The report basically is against licensing for cyclists, and expains why. Little changed since this report was written, so this report does not ned to be written again. And yet this is exactly what Councillor Walker has asked for. So let's just change the date on the report to today, and submit it back the guy. Done.
And with BIXI's bike share coming to Toronto, Toronto would have to supply helmets to the riders if the mandetory helmet thing went through.
...Like anyone would want to wear a sweaty helmet worn by someone else. It's gross enough when it's your own stinky sweat!!