On 15 Jul 2005 09:14:46 -0700, wrote:

A license could accomplish two things:

1. A bicycle rider would have to know the laws appicable to bicycles
in order to obtain the license.

In other words, kids too young to understand the laws would be barred
from riding bikes. Intensely bad idea.

2. The threat of license revocation would aid in law enforcement in
the same manner as with the automobile license.

Corollary: Cops whose ticket quota for the month was low would be
stopping random cyclists to see if they had a bike license, adding
nothing to the safety of the general public and adding much
disincentive for the public to use bikes. More bureaucracy, more
regulations, inevitably an inspection program for the bikes, higher
costs for cyclists, and how long after the cyclist license was
required would it be before bike registrations, helmets and insurance
became mandatory? Two days? A week? Let's just *not* go there.

No, we need to be doing everything possible to *encourage* bike use,
not to restrict it or make it less attractive. The hazard that
cyclists pose to others is small. I can much more readily tolerate a
bad rider than a bad driver, and sometimes that's the choice. Around
here, the mere fact that a bike requires no license and a very low
cost of operation with no real requirements has reportedly shifted
some habitual bad drivers (and some owners of cars that should have
been junked) out of the driver's seat and into the saddle instead.
I'd very much favor keeping them there; if bike riding becomes a
restricted activity like driving, there will be less disincentive for
such drivers to simply get back behind the wheel.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.