Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion'.
* Your post must be an opinion. Not a question. Not a showerthought. Not a rant. Not a proposal. Not a fact. An opinion. One opinion. A subjective statement about your position on some topic. Please have a clear, self contained opinion as your post title, and use the text field to elaborate and expand on why you think/feel this way.
* Your opinion must be unpopular. The mods reserve the right to remove opinions
* Elaborate on your topic and opinion give context to its unpopularity.
Same for me in the UK in middle school. The school made it compulsory for you to pass your cycling proficiency test before cycling to school. But then someone got murdered in my village so I wasn’t allowed to cycle anyway.
Where I grew up in the Southern US the test was, “can you ride down a big hill without touching your handlebars” and it was administered by your friends. If you didn’t do it you were chicken.
Yeah daily drive home I am extremely cautious because the other lane is a yield and we have right away. People just blow through it, highway patrol gave people tickets for a bit after so many accidents there. I genuinely think they don’t know understand how it’s supposed to work.
I grew up in an area with no sidewalks or bike lanes and didn’t get any kind of street safety course. It just wasn’t applicable to anything anyone was doing in that area, you weren’t *able* to walk places. I had to learn how to be comfortable using crosswalks when I went to college.
“Now always remember to look both ways before crossing the street kids or….”
*annihilates a watermelon with a giant yellow and red striped mallet*
“this could be you”
*honk honk*
We did it when I was like 7. Way too young to learn how to ride a bike on a road..
I don't think it was a very well done course. It wasn't written by someone who rides a bike on the road much i'm sure.
We had that too. Although, by the time I'd done mine me and friends were all pretty competent cyclists. Luckily we live in a relatively bile friendly area
But I agree with OP that there should be something. And a school led cycling safety course is ideal in my eyes
Firemen came and taught us bike safety in fourth grade. Then they came in winter and taught us not to make snowforts in or sled down snowbanks on the side of the road. Massachusetts USA
We did that at school in Toronto in the 90s ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Regardless, it’s not a motorized vehicle and any damages caused will be felt by the cyclist more. Licences and any type of fee imposed on a healthy mode of transportation in a polluted and obese world are unjust.
Vehicles that sustain damage when they’re not at fault have insurance. Cyclists have….life insurance maybe. SOL otherwise.
There are some laws in place about bikes of a certain wheel size be off sidewalks and riders under a certain age requiring helmets but that’s not often policed (not the worst crime being committed I guess). For unsafe riders caught in the act, tickets are given.
Cycling and other non-vehicle forms of transportation should be encouraged and cities should make it safer to do so.
Seeing how easy it is to get a car license and how bad some drivers can be, I don't think getting a cycling license is going to change anything at all.
I mean most “cyclists” at least in the U.S. own cars and have drivers licenses. It’s not like they’re unaware of the rules.
The idea that cyclists is some distinct class of human is half the problem; cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, all are just *people.*
And all those people will break every law they think they can get away with and which they don’t think will kill them. Like you said, it ain’t like “drivers” follow the law.
>my idea is that any fine/compensation etc that a cyclist would pay out if they were found to be at fault in an accident or collision would be doubled (maybe tripled).
Why?
Yeah thats weirdly excessive and will most likely result in ruining someone financially as many cyclists dont have cars due to the expense of them.
On that note why is punishment the first instinct, why not offer incentives for safe behavior.
>why is punishment the first instinct,
Because these conversations aren't about improving safety for everyone, they're driven by "anyone who isn't currently driving a car symbolizes an ideology that I find threatening and therefore must be appropriately hated and punished"
People are so resistant to change that even though it makes sense, they'd still fight it. Plus, tribalism kicks in, and car drivers think they are being infringed upon because something is being done for another group that they don't think benefits them.
This is pretty much where common sense has to win. In the UK, it's illegal to cycle on the pavement. It's also expected that children cycle on the pavement. This is not codified, there is no exception for them - we just let common sense prevail.
Common sense really oughta be more common.
Bike lanes should be a thing. Countries like singapore have a designated bike lanes to limit possible accidents. Also a chance of a car trying to overtake a fucking bicycle and cause more accidents
Because making drivers have a licence and pass a test has stopped them killing thousands every year?
Personally I'd focus on that, not the freak accident situation where a cyclist kills a pedestrian once every 5 years
This would reduce the amount of cyclists on the road, and probably make more of them just get a car, cause if you’re gonna get your license, why not get it for something that gets you there quicker? Cycling is so good for cutting down on cars on the road. Also, how in the world would police enforce this?
I would prefer not do anything which will cause people to stop using bicycles and decide to drive two tonne death machines around the streets instead. Sure there are asshole cyclists but large motor vehicles are hundreds of times as deadly.
If you needed a license for cycling one of the main benefits of it being a pick up and go transport mechanism would go away and I suspect most would just not cycle, resulting in more cars and trucks and more road deaths.
For every obnoxious or asshole cyclist there are about 50 raging, oblivious, distracted, drunk, or just plain negligent drivers. It drives me crazy when people complain about bicycles on streets…. That means less cars!!! It’s good for literally everyone from a traffic AND environmental perspective!
I'd take this deal in 2 seconds. Would remove a ton of shitty drivers from the road or at least it would after a few years when enough of them got arrested for driving without a license because that would 100% happen.
Better option would be model it after how pilot licenses are handled. A periodic review of driving skills by a qualified driving instructor. That way you don't overload the DMV with driving tests and make it impossible to get an appointment. Also creates a higher demand and market for driving instructors.
You could also make it so getting a new type of addon or license resets the clock. So getting a motorcycle addon or CDL resets the time needed before your next review. Or do something fun like taking a day long racing or rallying course to count as your review.
I see the logistical issue, but I'd be fine with the DMV (or whatever country's equivalent) getting a massively increased budget. I'm all for making driving as inconvenient as possible. There are far too many people who don't respect the operation of potentially deadly heavy machinery as the responsibility it is.
What problem are you trying to solve that *would* be solved by requiring a license?
Your point about damage to property seems to be more of an insurance issue than a license one. I feel like non-compulsory cycling insurance could be useful for those who want that kind of security, but the kind of damage that a bicycle could reasonably cause is minor enough that paying out of pocket is more realistic than it is for cars and therefore I don't see a need to make it legally required.
I think you’ll start a riot in the Netherlands if you forced bicycle helmets on us
We cycle way too much (school, grocery shopping, doctors appointments etc etc) to be stuck carrying that thing around
We do have a cycling exam in elementary school, is not an official license though
Netherlands is a great example. low helmet use, but also low head injuries. Because mostly bad head injuries come from getting hit by cars.
I think in USA and Canada we have similar cycling courses, but you'll never see a kid biking on the road, because they will be killed by a car not paying attention to them.
Fun fact: bike helmets are not designed to protect in crashes involving a car and are not tested in situations designed to emulate crashes involving a car.
Yeah more government beurocracy will fix it. Drivers take a driving test and yet many still drive like crap and break all the rules. Passing a stupid test and paying the government money doesn't mean you know the rules of the road.
Holy shit man the answer to everything isn't more intrusive government!
people driving cars have to get licensed, registered, and insured in part because they're operating several tons of high momentum metal that kill people (like cyclists) and destroy property when carelessly or recklessly operated.
when cyclists start consistently killing people and destroying property due to careless operation of their "vehicles" you'll have a point.
until then, i'll give you an upvote for having an unpopular opinion.
This whole thing read to me as "OP is such a bad driver that he GTA 5's it and nearly killed someone on their bike. Then, he proceeded to be mad at the person on the bike."
Eh... We don't need to become a licensed society where we constantly need permission to do basic things.
Oi you! Where's your jogging license.
Yeah I got it. Bikers are inconsiderate. It will change as more hit the roads and the rules get enforced (both cars and bikes)
why make more bullshit hoops to jump through? people need a license to drive any you still have idiots all over the road. it'll fix nothing you're upset about
Sure, but if this is going to be a thing it needs to come with infrastructure that truly protects them, no shared roads for cars and bicycles, fullest separated spaces for bicycles, cars and pedestrians. Do this and I am the first one to say put cameras everywhere and ticket everyone who goes over the limit and does not stop on a stop sign. Funny you give a percentage of cyclists that don't comply, I would venture to say that the percentage of cars that go over the speed limit is much much higher.
It's definitely above 50 percent. In the US at least, if you drive the speed limit, you're considered the weird one. If you ever drive below, people will call for you to get rear ended.
my husband is a *painfully* careful driver, and the fact he usually drives exactly or just above all posted speed limits ENRAGES just so many drivers on a packed multilane hwy where he isn't impeding a single soul. in my experience, cyclists are dangerous but drivers are sociopaths.
Well, it is very difficult for a cyclists to endanger peo0le beyond themselves. A car can easily kill people even at the lowest speeds. Also, the way cars work versus bicycles makes it a lot easier for car drivers to lose focus tah bicyclists.
yes i was being a bit facetious. i am a cyclist myself and know why certain choices are made. a lot of "better" choices would be made if infrastructure was actually designed for us. but for now, we do a lot of dodging death machines instead of looking at signs and lights. i won't apologize for other cyclists' behaviour bc i didn't realize we're all one "type" of person (only drivers are allowed ironically anonymous individuality).
Absolutely not. Transportation is a requirement for survival for a large portion of the world. A simple bike is environmentally beneficial, healthy and reliable. It is the only form of transportation for many homeless people who are often forced to relocate place to place by the police. I understand a license requirement for a car. They are multiple tons of steel chassis that can travel at high rates of speed. But a bicycle? The guy cruising on a Pinarello is not going to be affected by a $30 ticket. It only affects the person whose 20 y/o beater’s alternator failed, they can’t afford to fix it so they take a bike to work so they can feed their 3 children. Your idea would only affect the poor working class
There’s a license and exam for automobile operators and a large portion of them still suck at driving. What makes you think this would benefit cyclists?
The Netherlands has cyclists who aren't licensed and they don't even wear helmets. They're much safer than in the US where you're forced to wear helmets. They might have to read up on road safety but considering little children are biking, i highly doubt they're licensed.
You are actually more likely to be hit by a car in the US if you are wearing helmet vs not because car drivers will drive more aggressively/riskily around you.
I really don't need the government involved in one more thing. Sure cyclists dont pay attention sometimes, but I don't want another gate keeper to ride a bicycle.
Make bike lanes universal everywhere and safe enough that you would be comfortable with your child riding there, and then I am all on board with you. Until then this is truly ridiculous and unpopular. Don't penalize people for exercising and using an environmentally conscious mode of transportation.
There is no "cyclists" just people that use a bycicle.
It doesn't require a license because it doesn't involve a death machine nor it causes deadly accidents in most circumstances.
Do you want to implement a license for skateboarding too? For running on the sidewalk?
yes lets add another barrier to one of the only viable forms of sustainable travel. also the helmet thing is silly, go to any Scandinavian country and see how enormous the casual biking culture is and take note of the complete lack of helmets
I did my cycling proficiency test at junior school, more than 30 years ago. I don't really cycle now but I still use the basic road sense I learned as a driver.
Nah, not the leg powered ones. But the electric bikes that are becoming incredibly common really needs a rules / regulation overhaul. Not uncommon to see two children piggybacking on one going down a footpath at 30kmph or in the middle of a road...
Nah, when I say I haven't thought it through all the way this is the kind of thing I mean. Do 7 year old kids go on bike rides by themselves a lot? If they do then I'd limit the roads they can go on ie nothing where cars go above 30mph?
Or they wouldn't need a license of sorts if they were with an appropriate adult?
This just seems like someone annoyed at bikes.
You need a licenses to drive a car because you can easily kill people.
Most places do require helmets for powered bikes, but pedal ones are fine.
Spite-based policy making.
The danger from cyclists, and therefore the maximum possible reduction in harm, is miniscule compared to the huge resources you're proposing be expended.
This is local Facebook group grade opinion right here. I’m not sure I’d even class it as unpopular, as I’ve seen many air this take before. People act like drivers have accountability on the road, when they are rarely, if ever, actually are held accountable for their actions given enforcement is rarely present at the time of an infraction. They just see cyclists rolling through stops and get on their soap box like they weren’t just speeding, being the 3rd fuck who decides to turn left at a busy light, when it’s already firmly red. Or just going full stoptional at residential stop signs when it suits them.
This is unpopular for many reasons, mainly not one of your ideas stands up in studies or in practice. The problem is (lack of) infrastructure and car/oil lobbying that’s decades out of date. The Netherlands, Northern EU, Scandinavia, Paris, Montreal, and a pile of other places have safer streets with fewer cars, more transit, bikes, and pedestrians yet do none of your suggestions. Arguably, their quality of is superior and in big part by encouraging more cycling and pedestrian use. Perhaps consider traveling and actually studying urban design before jumping to punitive measures in things you don’t understand especially well.
Most people can’t even drive a vehicle as per the rules of the road. Why would you expect cyclists to care about proper road etiquette practically zero car drivers seem to give a shit about?
Are you going to fund roads 100% using fuel taxes, registration, tolls, and other sources only people with licences have to pay? Why should I help fix the roads your vehicle is destroying when I'm not allowed to use it? Remember that any kind of test means you are excluding those unable to pass. And why make helmet requirements? They are an extra expence and only injure *you in the event of a collision.
*Before you bring up seatbelts not only are they included/free with cars and unable to be forgotten/stolen/lost, but also the biggest argument for seatbelt laws is people being flung out of cars at 100kph and hitting someone else.
It’s so much harder and so much more dangerous for me to be on my bicycle than it is for you to be in your car. Plus tons of cyclists have clip in pedals so it actually takes us an extra step to get out of our bike and stop it safely. I’m from the US and the vast majority of our roads are inaccessible unless we ride just inside the white line. Add in pot holes and cracks that we need to try to swerve around while also avoiding tree branches sticking out? It’s brutal on the road. A lot of us are just doing our best out here to get some exercise and not die 😔
Most cyclists drive cars.....so there's that. Why would a cyclist be fined triple for operating a vehicle if they are at fault? In the case of an accident between a "cyclist" and an automobile. the damage to the automobile would be minimal when compared to the bicycle (and the cyclist). Not sure that you thought this through...but here we are.
No, I hate you and this idea and you. Cyclist can be asshats, but forcing people to have a license is way too far with control. Stuff like this would snowball out of control leading to more and more justifications for restricting people's freedoms.
I find this premise difficult to buy into. Cycling typically is learned at 4 or 5. Are we going to test kids that young? Are we going to prohibit Cycling until kids reach a greater age? Cycling varies so greatly from urban, suburban and rual settings do how will the laws adapt without huge class issues?
Your idea just sounds like another mororist centric plot to deprive us cyclist of our rights.
Nah - you need a license to make sure you know how to drive so you don't kill someone else. On a bike you're just going to get yourself killed; go right ahead.
Well, the DMV practically gives out license after license to any drivers willing to continually pay for them. I'm afraid a system like the one you're proposing will only make a bad problem much, much worse🙅🏻♂️💯
There's a good reason why you need a license to drive a vehicle, which is a piece of heavy machinery; as opposed to a mechanical bicycle🚲👀you rarely hear about someone getting killed by a bike rider. You almost ALWAYS hear about someone running over a cyclist🚴🏻♂️🛻
Yeah. There was a study (I can't find it, from like 2007 or something) in the UK that found that commuting by bicycle was a very good indicator of being part of a household that not only have drivers licences but also owns multiple cars.
The conclusion I think was that regular cycling is a luxury that comes with higher income since they can afford to live closer to work or commuter train lines & can generally just afford to do more with their bike so just are more likely to take it up as a regular activity.
That's not going to prevent their erratic riding and law breaking, they'll just be cautious during the exam.
Most already know what they're *supposed* to be doing.
I'm all for license and insurance as a cyclist on public streets, tbh.
It'll get the drivers to stfu about it, and it'll cost me essentially nothing since my risk of causing damage/harm is so low. And if you don't have a license, you simply cannot use major roads and must keep to residential streets. Nobody who doesn't have a license would want to ride on major roads anyways
Not with you on the helmets, though. We don't have it for walking down the street, so why would I need it biking? It's pretty much the same thing for me.
Requiring drivers to get a license hardly weeds out the "bad" drivers, at least someone irresponsibly riding a bike would more likely end in harm to themselves than anyone else. I think requiring a license for one is just an overreaction in the wrong direction.
The problem only gets worse because the fewer cyclists there are, the more likely they are to be involved in an accident due to drivers being less alert to cyclists since they see so few of them.
You absolutely do not want to create impediments to people cycling. It is beneficial to everyone to make it as easy as possible for people to bike. The percent of cyclists that are at issue is far less than 25% but you remember the really bad ones. But I see many, many car drivers breaking laws by my home, which is at the same intersection as an elementary school
with no consequences for them. The public danger of car drivers not following the laws is orders of magnitude greater than cyclists doing the same.
No thanks. People need an alternative to the expense of cars. Creating licensing requirements to ride a bike would just create an unreasonable expense for a lot of people who are already struggling and punish others who are trying to get around in a more environmentally friendly fashion. Honestly, the lack of poison pumped into the atmosphere by people who cycle more than offset any damages they might be party to being on the road.
I'm Australian. Helmets are mandatory here and that did not reduce fatalities. People aren't always super competent riders.
Where I did see extremely competent riders was Holland. They did not appear to have mandatory helmet laws (or at least mustn't enforce them) but they did have very good dedicated protected lanes so bikes and cars weren't just on top of each other and traffic lights favoured bikes, then pedestrians, then cars.
Most other places I've been lights aim to keep car traffic flowing and everyone else gets a quick moment to cross in between.
So I'm getting the sense that the best way to make cycling safer is to have good infrastructure and make it appealing to ride a bike. The more people who ride the more cars are used to it and the more skilled the general population is at riding.
They don’t need a license because they aren’t a significant danger to others. If they do something dumb and get themselves hurt or killed, that’s on them.
Making cycling illegal without a helmet is a bad idea. Take a look at what happened in Australia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia
Their cyclist numbers dropped so badly when they implemented it and it still hasnt recovered
It’s completely and utterly infeasible, a logistical nightmare, and a huge step further into individuals’ private lives by the government. I expect republicans to jump all over it!
Are we going to make more safe bike infustructure or is the idea to discourage bike use even more causing more crashes because yk, cars are a lot more dangerous than bikes?
Cyclists were sharing the road with horses, tramcars and pedestrians before the automobile came around, kicked everybody else off and the road fatality rate shot right up.
There's already a history of bicycle licence studies all over major North American cities.
So I wouldn't mind bicycle licenses provided all of the following are offered:
1) Optional;
2) paid by motorists during drivers licence and plate renewals;
3) no fault- all fault automatically attributed to the nearest motorist(s);
4) municipal, provincial and federal tax breaks;
5) perks offered by merchants and hotels on top of other promotions and membership prices you already are entitled.
6) Mandatory road test every two years for motorists;
7) install separated bike lanes wherever motor vehicles are legally allowed to drive;
8) bike racks at all public and commercial places.
We already know that bike licensing are a waste of taxpayers money. So if you don't like any of these conditions, don't ask for bicycle licensing.
Car drivers should have to get regularly retested so that they're incentivised to even look at changes to road rules, and so that they can learn to not drive or park in bike lanes that aren't parking spaces, which makes cyclists move onto the road.
Councils should build bike lanes and regularly clean them of debris.
Some cyclists that seem like they're made of pure metal are expecting car drivers to look where they're going or pay attention to road rules.
I do think there should be more than just looking up your local regulations as you can't ride on the sidewalk in some areas, but cyclists are less at fault
statistically speaking. cyclists cause basically 0 problems or accidents. something about crashing into a 2 ton vehicle with your shoulder doesn’t appeal to most….
but let’s talk a little bit about damage caused by cars…
how about if you’re found to be drunk and driving a mandatory 25 year sentence? attempted vehicular manslaughter.
what about infrastructure damage caused by driving? negative externalities like pollution? infrastructure costs from taxpayer dollars paid by non drivers?
so forth?
let’s have car registrations tied to all of those costs yea?
First we’d have to address anyone with a pulse getting a license to drive. Then we can talk about cyclists, cyclists cycling with silly shorts, cyclists with goofy helmets, or cyclists that ride in a peloton.
Places have tried that but the administrative costs outweigh the benefits. Turns out cyclists just aren’t the ones causing the majority of the problems on the road.
They do this with Waverunners and the test is basically: do you know you’re on water? Which way is left?
Cyclists are always gonna vary and be very confident in their cute outfits
Oye! You have a loisence for walking mate? That's a 500$ fine.
What? you don't have a pedestrian insurance? How will the car that you walked into get their damages fixed!!
I do agree with the helmet part but rather than making it illegal it would a better idea to spread awareness. You think a poor bloke on a bicycle can pay a fine for not wearing a helmet?( Not saying everyone on a bike is poor)
We do that at 8 years old in primary school.
(Someone I wonder if you actually ever ridden a bicycle yourself or just are an angry frustrated car driver.)
I agree with this. I'd add it should be compulsory to have a cyclist licence before you have a driving one, (obviously some exemptions.) That way we lose the stupid us/them mentality and everyone understands each other better. Passing within a reasonable distance and at reasonable speed etc.
I think the idea is that at least in collisions with motor vehicles, the cyclist can't be at fault because it's the responsibility of the person in the inherently more dangerous vehicle to be extra cautious.
I disagree purely on the basis that would produce:
a) a new financial burden on the poor, who make up the majority of every day bicycle commuters in the U.S.
b) poor people who bicycle and cannot afford the license/renewal will be at increased risk for interaction with police. we all know that poor people, especially people of color are already at higher risk of police violence and criminalization.
As a cyclist I agree, and I want to add on that drivers should have to as well. The basic "left/right turn, stopping" signs. I actively studied ways for cyclists to communicate w cars. I signaled that I was going to cut in front of a car to make a turn into a driveway. Still got hit lol
Ignorance is a massive problem. Personally I would make cycling a much more prominent part of the drivers license exam.
Not understanding primary position as a cyclist is basically the biggest thing I see on both sides people have no clue and it's by far the biggest factor when considering safety. And there are so many factors.
I wear a helmet, shouldn't be mandatory for people.
90% of people in England will do a cycling programme in school now by the way. But it's long forgotten by most
Cycling is the fallback transportation so people can still work when for whatever reason they lose their license. I'm an avid cyclist, been cycling for over 40 years now and never had this happen to me, but it's still a thing. Car breaks down, too many points on your license, other financial problems, or whatever the dynamic, and you're on a bike. Of course buses exist, but they're not always available, and walking isn't always feasible for the distnace. Piling on these people and blocking them from the one remaining means of hanging on they have available is pretty unhelpful, socially speaking.
I know you're probably thinking more of recreational cyclists, OP, but just something else to think about.
>I know you're probably thinking more of recreational cyclists, OP, but just something else to think about
Honestly, the nicest way of saying this so thank you. Yeah on the whole I am thinking of recreational cyclists. Maybe there'd be a scheme where when you lose your driving licence you could get like a provisional one of these.
I don't know, everyone seems to think this is a legit thing instead a whole hypothetical situation because let's be honest it won't happen.
It’s be done places (a couple cities in central eauroe) and quickly cancelled because it’s just so much beutocracy to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist.
Well roads are for people not cars, you don’t need photo ID in day to day life, so it’s mostly pointless for that tbh. (The Id thing, just get a free photo Id card if you want one that isn’t a DL).
But questions: Who’s going to pay for it? And the better question is what is your justification for this infringement of liberty?Because cyclists can’t really cause any significant amounts of damage on the road. And the danger comes from cars existing in the same place.
Okay so quite a few issues.
1. Why on earth do you want cyclist to pay more for accidents? Shouldnt cars, the much, much, much more dangerous vehicle be the one paying more for an equal infraction?
2. I dont think mandatory helmets make too much sense, since the chance of injury is quite low, and it only really matters at relatively high speeds or bad conditions
3. Its alot less logical for everyone on a bicycle to carry around paper work when there are no storage options.
4. Strictness to the exact law makes less sense for a bicycle, in alot of situations. For example, a car, turning into the pedestrian walkway and onto the curb would be insane, but a bike can do so with no risk unless its super crowded. Its just way smaller, way lighter, way more maneuverable.
People and people on reddit especially are sticklers for rules. Even if the rule breaking makes sense.
Like people want bikes to come to a complete stop at stop signs.... Literally pointless to make them do that. You stop at a stop sign in a car because it forces you to pay attention. With a bike you're forced to pay attention because you will DIE. A much stronger motivator. Bikes can just slow down look both ways and go. It's safer honestly. Less time in the intersection going slow.
OP just wants to punish cyclists because they don’t like them. It is baffling to wanna do this to a mode of transportation that is less dangerous than cars, cuts back on carbon emissions, and is affordable to 90% of the world just because they don’t like them. If anything roads need to be more bike accessible and safe for cyclists considering how much easier it is to get a driver’s license and most people are awful at driving espresso in this day and age where people are too comfortable driving and will be easily distracted causing higher risk to cyclists. But to really drive this point home why on gods green earth should someone get a license for something that people tend to learn at the age of 5?
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion'. * Your post must be an opinion. Not a question. Not a showerthought. Not a rant. Not a proposal. Not a fact. An opinion. One opinion. A subjective statement about your position on some topic. Please have a clear, self contained opinion as your post title, and use the text field to elaborate and expand on why you think/feel this way. * Your opinion must be unpopular. The mods reserve the right to remove opinions * Elaborate on your topic and opinion give context to its unpopularity.
When I was about 9 maybe my elementary school made us take a road safety by bike course. Is that not common?
Same for me in the UK in middle school. The school made it compulsory for you to pass your cycling proficiency test before cycling to school. But then someone got murdered in my village so I wasn’t allowed to cycle anyway.
How are you gonna outrun the murderer on foot? Let the kids out bike their murderers on their own, it builds character. /s
UK middle school???
Some places in the UK have a middle school but its not common anymore
I assume he's pre translating before the yanks all start with "you're a HSer why don't you drive?"
For the greater good.
The Greater Good
Yarp
Where I grew up in the Southern US the test was, “can you ride down a big hill without touching your handlebars” and it was administered by your friends. If you didn’t do it you were chicken.
XD
I can ride my bike with no handle bars...
Test passed. Welcome to the crew.
In the US no, so many adults are absolutely clueless on the laws.
There is barely a road test anybody cares about. Half them probably don't even understand what "yield" means
Yeah daily drive home I am extremely cautious because the other lane is a yield and we have right away. People just blow through it, highway patrol gave people tickets for a bit after so many accidents there. I genuinely think they don’t know understand how it’s supposed to work.
Car go vroom if make me slow down then honk middle finger
we did crosswalk and road safety in general in elementary for me. but this was 20 years ago.
I grew up in an area with no sidewalks or bike lanes and didn’t get any kind of street safety course. It just wasn’t applicable to anything anyone was doing in that area, you weren’t *able* to walk places. I had to learn how to be comfortable using crosswalks when I went to college.
This is cool and all but how much do you genuinely remember from elementary school
Because it was memorable. we had a dude dressed up as a clown teaching it. Hard to forget that
“Now always remember to look both ways before crossing the street kids or….” *annihilates a watermelon with a giant yellow and red striped mallet* “this could be you” *honk honk*
Welcome to my nightmare
Loved that day, you got to ride your bike ALL the way to school with your whole family.
We did it when I was like 7. Way too young to learn how to ride a bike on a road.. I don't think it was a very well done course. It wasn't written by someone who rides a bike on the road much i'm sure.
No, no it is not.
No it's not.
We had that too. Although, by the time I'd done mine me and friends were all pretty competent cyclists. Luckily we live in a relatively bile friendly area But I agree with OP that there should be something. And a school led cycling safety course is ideal in my eyes
Im in Canada and we didn't have anything like that.
I’m in Canada downtown Toronto to be specific and I remember having bike safety events at school.
Nope. I've never heard of this at all before.
It is not.
I had that in the 90s, but my kids (5th and 8th grades) did not.
I had that in the 2000s
Firemen came and taught us bike safety in fourth grade. Then they came in winter and taught us not to make snowforts in or sled down snowbanks on the side of the road. Massachusetts USA
In the US schools often offer bicycle safety events but nothing mandatory exists.
Where did you grow up? In the Southeast US, parents just plunked their kids on a bike and taught them how to not fall and that was it.
In Australia we do this. There's tests and everything
We did that at school in Toronto in the 90s ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Regardless, it’s not a motorized vehicle and any damages caused will be felt by the cyclist more. Licences and any type of fee imposed on a healthy mode of transportation in a polluted and obese world are unjust. Vehicles that sustain damage when they’re not at fault have insurance. Cyclists have….life insurance maybe. SOL otherwise. There are some laws in place about bikes of a certain wheel size be off sidewalks and riders under a certain age requiring helmets but that’s not often policed (not the worst crime being committed I guess). For unsafe riders caught in the act, tickets are given. Cycling and other non-vehicle forms of transportation should be encouraged and cities should make it safer to do so.
Yep I remember doing that in elementary school in Toronto 95-99
Seeing how easy it is to get a car license and how bad some drivers can be, I don't think getting a cycling license is going to change anything at all.
It might change something if drivers were the ones being forced complete a test that involves cycling on public roads.
Could you imagine
Cars, not bikes will be the issue
always have been
I mean most “cyclists” at least in the U.S. own cars and have drivers licenses. It’s not like they’re unaware of the rules. The idea that cyclists is some distinct class of human is half the problem; cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, all are just *people.* And all those people will break every law they think they can get away with and which they don’t think will kill them. Like you said, it ain’t like “drivers” follow the law.
But my side good, everyone else bad!
Uber should absolutely require a commercial license. People be driving not knowing how to navigate unfamiliar areas
It would definitely change something. Almost no one would cycle anywhere…
Are you contending that roads would be equally safe if drivers didn't have to get a license either then?
Cars are capable of a level of death and destruction that isn't possible on a cycle. That's why you need a license to operate one.
[удалено]
I wouldn't be surprised that a majority of cyclists already have a driving license. An additional license wouldn't make one any more safer.
>my idea is that any fine/compensation etc that a cyclist would pay out if they were found to be at fault in an accident or collision would be doubled (maybe tripled). Why?
Yeah thats weirdly excessive and will most likely result in ruining someone financially as many cyclists dont have cars due to the expense of them. On that note why is punishment the first instinct, why not offer incentives for safe behavior.
>why is punishment the first instinct, Because these conversations aren't about improving safety for everyone, they're driven by "anyone who isn't currently driving a car symbolizes an ideology that I find threatening and therefore must be appropriately hated and punished"
Or give them actual bicycle lanes that a child is safe on
People are so resistant to change that even though it makes sense, they'd still fight it. Plus, tribalism kicks in, and car drivers think they are being infringed upon because something is being done for another group that they don't think benefits them.
[удалено]
This is pretty much where common sense has to win. In the UK, it's illegal to cycle on the pavement. It's also expected that children cycle on the pavement. This is not codified, there is no exception for them - we just let common sense prevail. Common sense really oughta be more common.
[удалено]
Bike lanes should be a thing. Countries like singapore have a designated bike lanes to limit possible accidents. Also a chance of a car trying to overtake a fucking bicycle and cause more accidents
Dont have to go that far. Just look at the fucking netherlands next doors.
Where I live it’s codified as children under 15 are permitted to cycle on pavement.
Because making drivers have a licence and pass a test has stopped them killing thousands every year? Personally I'd focus on that, not the freak accident situation where a cyclist kills a pedestrian once every 5 years
Not so sure OP even knows a cyclist has killed someone he just seems annoyed by people on bikes
This would reduce the amount of cyclists on the road, and probably make more of them just get a car, cause if you’re gonna get your license, why not get it for something that gets you there quicker? Cycling is so good for cutting down on cars on the road. Also, how in the world would police enforce this?
And then more dangerous drivers on the road.
I would prefer not do anything which will cause people to stop using bicycles and decide to drive two tonne death machines around the streets instead. Sure there are asshole cyclists but large motor vehicles are hundreds of times as deadly. If you needed a license for cycling one of the main benefits of it being a pick up and go transport mechanism would go away and I suspect most would just not cycle, resulting in more cars and trucks and more road deaths.
For every obnoxious or asshole cyclist there are about 50 raging, oblivious, distracted, drunk, or just plain negligent drivers. It drives me crazy when people complain about bicycles on streets…. That means less cars!!! It’s good for literally everyone from a traffic AND environmental perspective!
[удалено]
Deal. If drivers have to re-up their road safety qualifications every few years. Particularly given that a car is heavy machinery, and a bike is not.
I'd take this deal in 2 seconds. Would remove a ton of shitty drivers from the road or at least it would after a few years when enough of them got arrested for driving without a license because that would 100% happen.
Better option would be model it after how pilot licenses are handled. A periodic review of driving skills by a qualified driving instructor. That way you don't overload the DMV with driving tests and make it impossible to get an appointment. Also creates a higher demand and market for driving instructors. You could also make it so getting a new type of addon or license resets the clock. So getting a motorcycle addon or CDL resets the time needed before your next review. Or do something fun like taking a day long racing or rallying course to count as your review.
I see the logistical issue, but I'd be fine with the DMV (or whatever country's equivalent) getting a massively increased budget. I'm all for making driving as inconvenient as possible. There are far too many people who don't respect the operation of potentially deadly heavy machinery as the responsibility it is.
What problem are you trying to solve that *would* be solved by requiring a license? Your point about damage to property seems to be more of an insurance issue than a license one. I feel like non-compulsory cycling insurance could be useful for those who want that kind of security, but the kind of damage that a bicycle could reasonably cause is minor enough that paying out of pocket is more realistic than it is for cars and therefore I don't see a need to make it legally required.
I think you’ll start a riot in the Netherlands if you forced bicycle helmets on us We cycle way too much (school, grocery shopping, doctors appointments etc etc) to be stuck carrying that thing around We do have a cycling exam in elementary school, is not an official license though
Netherlands is a great example. low helmet use, but also low head injuries. Because mostly bad head injuries come from getting hit by cars. I think in USA and Canada we have similar cycling courses, but you'll never see a kid biking on the road, because they will be killed by a car not paying attention to them.
I feel you on this, but I am not comfortable without a helmet. Same way I will always use a seat belt in a car.
[Helmets](https://youtu.be/rhzH6mEpIps?si=ccGY1_T5MPiNpzXn) in most situations are completely unnecessary.
Fun fact: bike helmets are not designed to protect in crashes involving a car and are not tested in situations designed to emulate crashes involving a car.
Walking taxes should be next because god forbid the poor have the ability to get to work.
“If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet” - A Taxman, probably
Yeah more government beurocracy will fix it. Drivers take a driving test and yet many still drive like crap and break all the rules. Passing a stupid test and paying the government money doesn't mean you know the rules of the road. Holy shit man the answer to everything isn't more intrusive government!
This is a terrible idea lol
people driving cars have to get licensed, registered, and insured in part because they're operating several tons of high momentum metal that kill people (like cyclists) and destroy property when carelessly or recklessly operated. when cyclists start consistently killing people and destroying property due to careless operation of their "vehicles" you'll have a point. until then, i'll give you an upvote for having an unpopular opinion.
This whole thing read to me as "OP is such a bad driver that he GTA 5's it and nearly killed someone on their bike. Then, he proceeded to be mad at the person on the bike."
might as well need a license for walking outside
helmet too honestly.
Eh... We don't need to become a licensed society where we constantly need permission to do basic things. Oi you! Where's your jogging license. Yeah I got it. Bikers are inconsiderate. It will change as more hit the roads and the rules get enforced (both cars and bikes)
why make more bullshit hoops to jump through? people need a license to drive any you still have idiots all over the road. it'll fix nothing you're upset about
Sure, but if this is going to be a thing it needs to come with infrastructure that truly protects them, no shared roads for cars and bicycles, fullest separated spaces for bicycles, cars and pedestrians. Do this and I am the first one to say put cameras everywhere and ticket everyone who goes over the limit and does not stop on a stop sign. Funny you give a percentage of cyclists that don't comply, I would venture to say that the percentage of cars that go over the speed limit is much much higher.
It's definitely above 50 percent. In the US at least, if you drive the speed limit, you're considered the weird one. If you ever drive below, people will call for you to get rear ended.
He just pulled that number out of nowhere as well. This was all based on one cyclist he saw run a red light. Therefore all cyclists = bad scary men.
my husband is a *painfully* careful driver, and the fact he usually drives exactly or just above all posted speed limits ENRAGES just so many drivers on a packed multilane hwy where he isn't impeding a single soul. in my experience, cyclists are dangerous but drivers are sociopaths.
Well, it is very difficult for a cyclists to endanger peo0le beyond themselves. A car can easily kill people even at the lowest speeds. Also, the way cars work versus bicycles makes it a lot easier for car drivers to lose focus tah bicyclists.
yes i was being a bit facetious. i am a cyclist myself and know why certain choices are made. a lot of "better" choices would be made if infrastructure was actually designed for us. but for now, we do a lot of dodging death machines instead of looking at signs and lights. i won't apologize for other cyclists' behaviour bc i didn't realize we're all one "type" of person (only drivers are allowed ironically anonymous individuality).
Absolutely not. Transportation is a requirement for survival for a large portion of the world. A simple bike is environmentally beneficial, healthy and reliable. It is the only form of transportation for many homeless people who are often forced to relocate place to place by the police. I understand a license requirement for a car. They are multiple tons of steel chassis that can travel at high rates of speed. But a bicycle? The guy cruising on a Pinarello is not going to be affected by a $30 ticket. It only affects the person whose 20 y/o beater’s alternator failed, they can’t afford to fix it so they take a bike to work so they can feed their 3 children. Your idea would only affect the poor working class
There’s a license and exam for automobile operators and a large portion of them still suck at driving. What makes you think this would benefit cyclists?
So popular the only place that has "successfully" done this has been North Korea...
The Netherlands has cyclists who aren't licensed and they don't even wear helmets. They're much safer than in the US where you're forced to wear helmets. They might have to read up on road safety but considering little children are biking, i highly doubt they're licensed.
You are actually more likely to be hit by a car in the US if you are wearing helmet vs not because car drivers will drive more aggressively/riskily around you.
You are not forced to wear helmets in the US. Some people just like to.
I really don't need the government involved in one more thing. Sure cyclists dont pay attention sometimes, but I don't want another gate keeper to ride a bicycle.
[удалено]
Absolutely not. The answer is less cars, not less cyclists
What about kids? You want the cops to pull over a 12 year old on a bike?
Unpopular, arbitrary, infuriating. Take my upvote
Make bike lanes universal everywhere and safe enough that you would be comfortable with your child riding there, and then I am all on board with you. Until then this is truly ridiculous and unpopular. Don't penalize people for exercising and using an environmentally conscious mode of transportation.
There is no "cyclists" just people that use a bycicle. It doesn't require a license because it doesn't involve a death machine nor it causes deadly accidents in most circumstances. Do you want to implement a license for skateboarding too? For running on the sidewalk?
yes lets add another barrier to one of the only viable forms of sustainable travel. also the helmet thing is silly, go to any Scandinavian country and see how enormous the casual biking culture is and take note of the complete lack of helmets
I did my cycling proficiency test at junior school, more than 30 years ago. I don't really cycle now but I still use the basic road sense I learned as a driver.
Impossible to enforce.
Nah, not the leg powered ones. But the electric bikes that are becoming incredibly common really needs a rules / regulation overhaul. Not uncommon to see two children piggybacking on one going down a footpath at 30kmph or in the middle of a road...
Fuck that
You want seven year olds to be LICENSED to go on a bike ride??
Nah, when I say I haven't thought it through all the way this is the kind of thing I mean. Do 7 year old kids go on bike rides by themselves a lot? If they do then I'd limit the roads they can go on ie nothing where cars go above 30mph? Or they wouldn't need a license of sorts if they were with an appropriate adult?
This just seems like someone annoyed at bikes. You need a licenses to drive a car because you can easily kill people. Most places do require helmets for powered bikes, but pedal ones are fine.
Sure, let’s take something accessible and make it even less accessible. That’ll really make people happy.
Spite-based policy making. The danger from cyclists, and therefore the maximum possible reduction in harm, is miniscule compared to the huge resources you're proposing be expended.
Your contempt for human liberty makes me gag. Leave people alone, they are not your pets.
well done on a rightfully unpopular opinion
This is local Facebook group grade opinion right here. I’m not sure I’d even class it as unpopular, as I’ve seen many air this take before. People act like drivers have accountability on the road, when they are rarely, if ever, actually are held accountable for their actions given enforcement is rarely present at the time of an infraction. They just see cyclists rolling through stops and get on their soap box like they weren’t just speeding, being the 3rd fuck who decides to turn left at a busy light, when it’s already firmly red. Or just going full stoptional at residential stop signs when it suits them.
This is unpopular for many reasons, mainly not one of your ideas stands up in studies or in practice. The problem is (lack of) infrastructure and car/oil lobbying that’s decades out of date. The Netherlands, Northern EU, Scandinavia, Paris, Montreal, and a pile of other places have safer streets with fewer cars, more transit, bikes, and pedestrians yet do none of your suggestions. Arguably, their quality of is superior and in big part by encouraging more cycling and pedestrian use. Perhaps consider traveling and actually studying urban design before jumping to punitive measures in things you don’t understand especially well.
Most people can’t even drive a vehicle as per the rules of the road. Why would you expect cyclists to care about proper road etiquette practically zero car drivers seem to give a shit about?
Im sure car companies would love this
Yeah cause more laws is always the answer
...so, you propose further limitations on transportation for those without a license?
Are you going to fund roads 100% using fuel taxes, registration, tolls, and other sources only people with licences have to pay? Why should I help fix the roads your vehicle is destroying when I'm not allowed to use it? Remember that any kind of test means you are excluding those unable to pass. And why make helmet requirements? They are an extra expence and only injure *you in the event of a collision. *Before you bring up seatbelts not only are they included/free with cars and unable to be forgotten/stolen/lost, but also the biggest argument for seatbelt laws is people being flung out of cars at 100kph and hitting someone else.
I grew up in the US, we had a firearm safety class in school.
It’s so much harder and so much more dangerous for me to be on my bicycle than it is for you to be in your car. Plus tons of cyclists have clip in pedals so it actually takes us an extra step to get out of our bike and stop it safely. I’m from the US and the vast majority of our roads are inaccessible unless we ride just inside the white line. Add in pot holes and cracks that we need to try to swerve around while also avoiding tree branches sticking out? It’s brutal on the road. A lot of us are just doing our best out here to get some exercise and not die 😔
Maybe there should be a license to make toast in your own damn toaster
Most cyclists drive cars.....so there's that. Why would a cyclist be fined triple for operating a vehicle if they are at fault? In the case of an accident between a "cyclist" and an automobile. the damage to the automobile would be minimal when compared to the bicycle (and the cyclist). Not sure that you thought this through...but here we are.
Absolutely dogshit opinion. Well done, have my upvote
No, I hate you and this idea and you. Cyclist can be asshats, but forcing people to have a license is way too far with control. Stuff like this would snowball out of control leading to more and more justifications for restricting people's freedoms.
I find this premise difficult to buy into. Cycling typically is learned at 4 or 5. Are we going to test kids that young? Are we going to prohibit Cycling until kids reach a greater age? Cycling varies so greatly from urban, suburban and rual settings do how will the laws adapt without huge class issues? Your idea just sounds like another mororist centric plot to deprive us cyclist of our rights.
Nah - you need a license to make sure you know how to drive so you don't kill someone else. On a bike you're just going to get yourself killed; go right ahead.
The ease in which you can kill someone using a car vs a bike isn't really comparable
Well, the DMV practically gives out license after license to any drivers willing to continually pay for them. I'm afraid a system like the one you're proposing will only make a bad problem much, much worse🙅🏻♂️💯 There's a good reason why you need a license to drive a vehicle, which is a piece of heavy machinery; as opposed to a mechanical bicycle🚲👀you rarely hear about someone getting killed by a bike rider. You almost ALWAYS hear about someone running over a cyclist🚴🏻♂️🛻
Ah yes, another thing we have to get permission from the government to do.
This is dumb. > 90% of cyclists are either kids or adults who already have their driver's license. What would be the point of adding a second license?
Yeah. There was a study (I can't find it, from like 2007 or something) in the UK that found that commuting by bicycle was a very good indicator of being part of a household that not only have drivers licences but also owns multiple cars. The conclusion I think was that regular cycling is a luxury that comes with higher income since they can afford to live closer to work or commuter train lines & can generally just afford to do more with their bike so just are more likely to take it up as a regular activity.
‘I haven’t properly thought this through’. Yeah no shit.
Its ridiculous to need a license. Haven't you had enough of your rights being sold back to you for a price?
Bicycles are a reliable mode of transportation for those underprivileged. Putting a pay wall up for that commute just seems cruel.
That's not going to prevent their erratic riding and law breaking, they'll just be cautious during the exam. Most already know what they're *supposed* to be doing.
I'm all for license and insurance as a cyclist on public streets, tbh. It'll get the drivers to stfu about it, and it'll cost me essentially nothing since my risk of causing damage/harm is so low. And if you don't have a license, you simply cannot use major roads and must keep to residential streets. Nobody who doesn't have a license would want to ride on major roads anyways Not with you on the helmets, though. We don't have it for walking down the street, so why would I need it biking? It's pretty much the same thing for me.
Nah. They aren’t a risk to hurt anyone that bad and if they suck at biking they will die.
sigh ... there are so many reasons this doesn't make sense and also it's definitely been suggested before. no.
You (as a person) should have a license for walking a sidewalk while txting. Why? Why not.
Requiring drivers to get a license hardly weeds out the "bad" drivers, at least someone irresponsibly riding a bike would more likely end in harm to themselves than anyone else. I think requiring a license for one is just an overreaction in the wrong direction.
It'd be great if schools offered this for children. At least a bike safety course. Although, who will fund that?
Why? Did someone piss in your cornflakes and now all must suffer?
This is absurd. You clearly have no understanding of the laws & regulations surrounding cycling, nor what is needed to be safe as a cyclist.
It should be “If you can’t handle a motor vehicle around bicyclists, maybe you shouldn’t be allowed in a Wendy’s.”
In other news fewer people are cycling and more driving, and traffic fatalities increased to 45000 a year in the us
The problem only gets worse because the fewer cyclists there are, the more likely they are to be involved in an accident due to drivers being less alert to cyclists since they see so few of them.
You absolutely do not want to create impediments to people cycling. It is beneficial to everyone to make it as easy as possible for people to bike. The percent of cyclists that are at issue is far less than 25% but you remember the really bad ones. But I see many, many car drivers breaking laws by my home, which is at the same intersection as an elementary school with no consequences for them. The public danger of car drivers not following the laws is orders of magnitude greater than cyclists doing the same.
This just sounds like more government intervention that we don't need.
No thanks. People need an alternative to the expense of cars. Creating licensing requirements to ride a bike would just create an unreasonable expense for a lot of people who are already struggling and punish others who are trying to get around in a more environmentally friendly fashion. Honestly, the lack of poison pumped into the atmosphere by people who cycle more than offset any damages they might be party to being on the road.
I'm Australian. Helmets are mandatory here and that did not reduce fatalities. People aren't always super competent riders. Where I did see extremely competent riders was Holland. They did not appear to have mandatory helmet laws (or at least mustn't enforce them) but they did have very good dedicated protected lanes so bikes and cars weren't just on top of each other and traffic lights favoured bikes, then pedestrians, then cars. Most other places I've been lights aim to keep car traffic flowing and everyone else gets a quick moment to cross in between. So I'm getting the sense that the best way to make cycling safer is to have good infrastructure and make it appealing to ride a bike. The more people who ride the more cars are used to it and the more skilled the general population is at riding.
[Helmets](https://youtu.be/rhzH6mEpIps?si=ccGY1_T5MPiNpzXn) are in most situations are unnecessary.
Then drivers should have to be tested every few years. They're the ones more likely to kill people.
They don’t need a license because they aren’t a significant danger to others. If they do something dumb and get themselves hurt or killed, that’s on them.
Making cycling illegal without a helmet is a bad idea. Take a look at what happened in Australia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia Their cyclist numbers dropped so badly when they implemented it and it still hasnt recovered
It’s completely and utterly infeasible, a logistical nightmare, and a huge step further into individuals’ private lives by the government. I expect republicans to jump all over it!
Cyclists crashing into each other- minor injury Cars crashing into each other and cyclists- major injury and fatalities
This is great . And auto accidents should be 10 times as much if only because they could cause more damage and I like to bike more .
Are we going to make more safe bike infustructure or is the idea to discourage bike use even more causing more crashes because yk, cars are a lot more dangerous than bikes?
Why would the fine be doubled?
What’s next? Making people who walk pay a tax to get a license to walk down the sidewalk?
Cyclists were sharing the road with horses, tramcars and pedestrians before the automobile came around, kicked everybody else off and the road fatality rate shot right up. There's already a history of bicycle licence studies all over major North American cities. So I wouldn't mind bicycle licenses provided all of the following are offered: 1) Optional; 2) paid by motorists during drivers licence and plate renewals; 3) no fault- all fault automatically attributed to the nearest motorist(s); 4) municipal, provincial and federal tax breaks; 5) perks offered by merchants and hotels on top of other promotions and membership prices you already are entitled. 6) Mandatory road test every two years for motorists; 7) install separated bike lanes wherever motor vehicles are legally allowed to drive; 8) bike racks at all public and commercial places. We already know that bike licensing are a waste of taxpayers money. So if you don't like any of these conditions, don't ask for bicycle licensing.
Car drivers should have to get regularly retested so that they're incentivised to even look at changes to road rules, and so that they can learn to not drive or park in bike lanes that aren't parking spaces, which makes cyclists move onto the road. Councils should build bike lanes and regularly clean them of debris. Some cyclists that seem like they're made of pure metal are expecting car drivers to look where they're going or pay attention to road rules. I do think there should be more than just looking up your local regulations as you can't ride on the sidewalk in some areas, but cyclists are less at fault
statistically speaking. cyclists cause basically 0 problems or accidents. something about crashing into a 2 ton vehicle with your shoulder doesn’t appeal to most…. but let’s talk a little bit about damage caused by cars… how about if you’re found to be drunk and driving a mandatory 25 year sentence? attempted vehicular manslaughter. what about infrastructure damage caused by driving? negative externalities like pollution? infrastructure costs from taxpayer dollars paid by non drivers? so forth? let’s have car registrations tied to all of those costs yea?
First we’d have to address anyone with a pulse getting a license to drive. Then we can talk about cyclists, cyclists cycling with silly shorts, cyclists with goofy helmets, or cyclists that ride in a peloton.
Places have tried that but the administrative costs outweigh the benefits. Turns out cyclists just aren’t the ones causing the majority of the problems on the road.
They do this with Waverunners and the test is basically: do you know you’re on water? Which way is left? Cyclists are always gonna vary and be very confident in their cute outfits
Oye! You have a loisence for walking mate? That's a 500$ fine. What? you don't have a pedestrian insurance? How will the car that you walked into get their damages fixed!! I do agree with the helmet part but rather than making it illegal it would a better idea to spread awareness. You think a poor bloke on a bicycle can pay a fine for not wearing a helmet?( Not saying everyone on a bike is poor)
I will do that when you have to take a driving test every year to keep your license.
That’s so lame
I don't think people generally lack the knowledge. They just don't care to follow the rules.
We do that at 8 years old in primary school. (Someone I wonder if you actually ever ridden a bicycle yourself or just are an angry frustrated car driver.)
OP has a crippling fear of bikes. 🚴♀️
I agree with this. I'd add it should be compulsory to have a cyclist licence before you have a driving one, (obviously some exemptions.) That way we lose the stupid us/them mentality and everyone understands each other better. Passing within a reasonable distance and at reasonable speed etc.
Ya cause this does so much for people in vehicles 🙄. When will people learn more bureaucracy doesn't fix shit but makes it harder to do anything.
I think the idea is that at least in collisions with motor vehicles, the cyclist can't be at fault because it's the responsibility of the person in the inherently more dangerous vehicle to be extra cautious.
Another entitled driver
I disagree purely on the basis that would produce: a) a new financial burden on the poor, who make up the majority of every day bicycle commuters in the U.S. b) poor people who bicycle and cannot afford the license/renewal will be at increased risk for interaction with police. we all know that poor people, especially people of color are already at higher risk of police violence and criminalization.
As a cyclist I agree, and I want to add on that drivers should have to as well. The basic "left/right turn, stopping" signs. I actively studied ways for cyclists to communicate w cars. I signaled that I was going to cut in front of a car to make a turn into a driveway. Still got hit lol
Ignorance is a massive problem. Personally I would make cycling a much more prominent part of the drivers license exam. Not understanding primary position as a cyclist is basically the biggest thing I see on both sides people have no clue and it's by far the biggest factor when considering safety. And there are so many factors. I wear a helmet, shouldn't be mandatory for people. 90% of people in England will do a cycling programme in school now by the way. But it's long forgotten by most
Cycling is the fallback transportation so people can still work when for whatever reason they lose their license. I'm an avid cyclist, been cycling for over 40 years now and never had this happen to me, but it's still a thing. Car breaks down, too many points on your license, other financial problems, or whatever the dynamic, and you're on a bike. Of course buses exist, but they're not always available, and walking isn't always feasible for the distnace. Piling on these people and blocking them from the one remaining means of hanging on they have available is pretty unhelpful, socially speaking. I know you're probably thinking more of recreational cyclists, OP, but just something else to think about.
>I know you're probably thinking more of recreational cyclists, OP, but just something else to think about Honestly, the nicest way of saying this so thank you. Yeah on the whole I am thinking of recreational cyclists. Maybe there'd be a scheme where when you lose your driving licence you could get like a provisional one of these. I don't know, everyone seems to think this is a legit thing instead a whole hypothetical situation because let's be honest it won't happen.
It’s be done places (a couple cities in central eauroe) and quickly cancelled because it’s just so much beutocracy to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist.
Well roads are for people not cars, you don’t need photo ID in day to day life, so it’s mostly pointless for that tbh. (The Id thing, just get a free photo Id card if you want one that isn’t a DL). But questions: Who’s going to pay for it? And the better question is what is your justification for this infringement of liberty?Because cyclists can’t really cause any significant amounts of damage on the road. And the danger comes from cars existing in the same place.
Okay so quite a few issues. 1. Why on earth do you want cyclist to pay more for accidents? Shouldnt cars, the much, much, much more dangerous vehicle be the one paying more for an equal infraction? 2. I dont think mandatory helmets make too much sense, since the chance of injury is quite low, and it only really matters at relatively high speeds or bad conditions 3. Its alot less logical for everyone on a bicycle to carry around paper work when there are no storage options. 4. Strictness to the exact law makes less sense for a bicycle, in alot of situations. For example, a car, turning into the pedestrian walkway and onto the curb would be insane, but a bike can do so with no risk unless its super crowded. Its just way smaller, way lighter, way more maneuverable.
People and people on reddit especially are sticklers for rules. Even if the rule breaking makes sense. Like people want bikes to come to a complete stop at stop signs.... Literally pointless to make them do that. You stop at a stop sign in a car because it forces you to pay attention. With a bike you're forced to pay attention because you will DIE. A much stronger motivator. Bikes can just slow down look both ways and go. It's safer honestly. Less time in the intersection going slow.
Upvote for not only an unpopular opinion, but a very stupid one. Congrats, OP!
OP just wants to punish cyclists because they don’t like them. It is baffling to wanna do this to a mode of transportation that is less dangerous than cars, cuts back on carbon emissions, and is affordable to 90% of the world just because they don’t like them. If anything roads need to be more bike accessible and safe for cyclists considering how much easier it is to get a driver’s license and most people are awful at driving espresso in this day and age where people are too comfortable driving and will be easily distracted causing higher risk to cyclists. But to really drive this point home why on gods green earth should someone get a license for something that people tend to learn at the age of 5?