Yet another "cyclists need licenses" story … story.html

Needless to say the columnist’s own knowledge of the rules of the road is pretty poor, and of course just like the racist who claims to have friends who are visible minorities the columnist claims to be a cyclist himself. I suppose he sees no difference at all between getting hit by a 200lb bike/rider at 25km/h and a 3000lb (or more) car at 50+ km/h. Love the stat that the ICBC (BC’s province-owned insurance corporation) blames most cyclist/car accidents on the cyclist. Of course they do.

I can’t read the comments because I read it at work where facebook is blocked. Presumably they indicate that cyclists are both idiots and sociopaths who enjoy nothing more than getting in the way of ‘legitimate’ road users. :slight_smile:

Obviously cyclists can do better, but motorists need to exercise a higher standard of care because they are so much more dangerous. Applying the same standards (licensing, insurance, etc) to cyclists is a false equality. I have the feeling that if people who drive cars exclusively had their way then no one would ever ride a bicycle to actually get some place. /rant

Edit: Maybe I am too hard on him, regardless, cyclists seem to be #tarredwiththesamebrush but not motorists.

This is pretty much why I don’t pay attention to any “cyclists need helmets or licenses” or any bike advocacy. Its just preaching to a choir on both sides. I just ride my bike when and where I feel like it :slight_smile: It probably makes me an asshole but I’m okay with that.

Well if the weren’t on the road they wouldn’t have got hit :roll:

Seriously though, some crappy op-ed piece isn’t worth getting too worked up about. The reality for all parties concerned is ‘don’t be stupid jerks’ we’re all trying to get somewhere and being late is better than dead.

I commute to work by bike on a rural highway during ‘rush hour’ times, and even though I have the right to be there and follow all the laws, I’m not going to lose my life to prove a point. I find myself moving onto the unpaved shoulder on a regular basis, giving ‘the bird’ less often and making it home healthier and happier.

What do you guys think about the argument that if infrastructure is going to be built (dedicated bike lanes and such) that the riders should have to pony up part of that cost through licenses/registration etc? In theory, those driving on the roads pay for the maintenance of the roads through fuel taxes etc., right? Why should it be different for bikers? What if the monies raised were put to building and maintaining trails, on road and off? Would the biking community have more credence if they were shouldering some of the burden?

Just some thoughts to think about, not trying to start an argument… :slight_smile:

I am pretty sure that roads are paid for primarily out of general revenue and not fuel taxes. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. Furthermore, it’s pretty evident that bicycles do a lot less damage to roads and other infrastructure than larger vehicles do, so whatever comes from fuel taxes is proportionate (at best) to the damage performed by the vehicle (bike = none, 18 wheeler = a lot). I would say that since roads are paid for by all for the common good regardless whether we use them personally or not, likewise other transportation infrastructure could be similarly funded.

Don’t believe the hype! It is false thinking that fuel taxes or any other automobile related fees actually pay for roads. I’ll dig up links if you really want to read the details about it. We all pay taxes on homes, goods/services and our incomes ect this is where the money comes from, so cyclists already pay for roads. Asking cyclists to pay for their infrastructure is plain stupid, it’s like asking people in wheelchairs to pony up $ to make places accessible.

edit: actually Adam sums it up much better than I do.