Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Both cyclists and drivers can do better. The diff is that either way, if a cyclist goofs up or a motorist, it's the cyclist that pays. That makes many drivers cavalier about the whole thing.

And cyclists ain't going anywhere - there are more and more of us. Time for the drivers to adapt.

   

I shortened your quote to the two strongest points which is following the rules and enforcement. I am not an avid cyclist and would only ride around quiet neighborhood streets, but there is a segment of the population that either uses a bicycle as daily transportation or as weekend excercise. Like any group it the smaller percentage that acts like idiots that ruin it for others.

As a recreational motocyclist with a 20,000 km/yr addiction I get to see bad behaviour by both motorist and bicycle riders. With the former I ride as if I am invisible for my own safety. I take extra precautions to make sure I am as visible as possible, but still there are distracted motorists who make unsafe lane changes, cross the centre line, enter roadways with insuffinet space, etc, etc. I do not see bicycle riders taking extra precautions for their own safety like only using high viz colours of clothes, or simply staying to the right of the shoulder in single file. For them with the vast speed difference their risk is many times greater than mine.

Automated enforcement like photo radar and red light cameras do assist with control in the urban environment, but on the highways and rural roads we are left with the RCMP or provincial police and they ony cover the major highways. Greater traffic law enforcement takes more resources in manpower and equipment, which means more tax dollars. Not likely to happen, so that suggests that education is the next best tool.

The place for education is in the licensing process. The written test for cars is pretty easy, but still the failure rate on the written test is significant. ICBC lists some stats for different cities showing the failure rate varied from 40% in Victoria to 57% in Surrey. Arizona has a 60% failure rate on the written exam and now has an online practice exam to help people pass. All these people still need to do the driving test. When I watch how people drive and park I wonder how they passed the driven test.

I would be in favour of mandatory testing on a periodic basis for all vehicle types. For cost effectiveness a written test every 5 years would be a significant improvement over the present. The test should have general questions plus some specific for the class of license and there should be a class for bicycle riders. Fail the written test and you lose the priviledge to use your vehicle until you can pass both the written and driving test. In theory we should have more road users with much greater knowledge of the traffic rules plus there will be a lot of questionable people removed from the road. I am not aware of any jurisdiction in Canada that has a test for bicycle riders. I will take a leap of faith and say the failure rate for bicycle riders would be at least as large as other vehicles and since there is no test the current riders would not have even looked at the traffic manual. So a simple periodic written test for all road users would make a significant improvement in overall road safety. The cost of the testing would be covered by user fees.

With an annual license fee of $84.45 for cars and $54.45 for motorcycles (Alberta)licensing bicycles for about $30 per year seems reasonable. A $30 written exam fee every 5 years is again reasonable to maintain the priviledge of using a vehicle on the road.

   

Yeah, I'm going to pay $30/kid for some stupid test so they can go to school. Not happening.
I don't think a 4 year old is able to take a test...


What everyone seems to forget is that bicycles are easier to handle than a car or a motorcycle. You don't go as fast, you come to a full stop faster etc etc.

   

All good ideas. One problem is with cyclist age - it's also meant for young kids to be able to do. Don't know how to get around that one.

Since most adult cyclists also have driver's licenses, a test for a vehicle license could subsume testing for a bike license. Rules are the same or similar enough.

Another problem with bike licenses is where to put the license on the bike. Hang it from the saddle, and it gets obscured by anything being carried on top of the rack. Nowhere else to hang it, really, except in the frame, where it's only visible from the side.

   

That would only go for a written test, not for a road test. If you are going to change the testing, then you should take road tests every so many years too, or there will no effect other than that it would be another tax.

   

Not sure what you're saying. If you already have to take a road test every 5 years for a car license, why also have to take a bike test as well? One is subsumed in the other.

   

Well, first, you don't, and second, riding a bicycle or driving a car are 2 different disciplines, just like riding a motorcycle and driving a car are.

When you pass your test (road or theory) for car, you do not pass your motorcycle test at the same time. Why would that be different for bicycle? Other than the fact that I think that a bicycle license is ridiculous. You don't insure your bicycle either. Or would you want the ICBC get another... hmmm... $400.00/yr to insure you as bicycle rider?

   

Both Brenda and yourself have pointed out a flaw with the age of the bicycle rider. I would be willing to make an exception for those under 12 as I can see them only using their bike in the local neighborhood.

As for hanging the license is see very few road bikes with top racks. So you can have legal options for placement such as hanging from the seat, back fender or sticking out sideways from the frame.

I had only proposed a written test for bicycle riders and not a road test. I see many cyclist breaking simple laws that it is apparent they believe the rules do not apply to bicycles. A written test would clear up that misconception.



$30 annual license fee is not out of this world nor is a $30 fee every 5 years for a written test fo children over 12. If you have 3 kids most likely you will only pay once when they are 12 so it is not 3 times $30/year for testing. The bikes themselves still need a license so that is an annual expense.

   

A $30 license fee is just another tax. It is ridiculous.

   

I'll happily pay that fee if it means that everyone gives me the space I'm entitled to on the road. I'm not sure what Caelon's idea will accomplish tho. He says cyclists would only need to take a written test. As I've pointed out, most adult cyclists already have a drivers license, so would have taken the test then.

   

Well, just as road tax doesn't provide you with good roads, the $30 fee won't give you bike paths. I wonder where the $30-amount comes from, or who it is payable to, but whatever

   

I don't even want bike paths (they never get them right) But if it shuts up the guy in the car behind me whining that I'm slowing him down, because I'm a legally licensed vehicle on the road, they it's worth it. And I want a law that says you have to stay 1m away from a bike when passing.

   

Well, it won't. I bitch at the people who go 20 under now too, although we have the same rights.

   

The $30 is a number out of the air that was less than the fee for cars and motorcycles. It seems large enough to cover the cost of testing so no new general tax dollars are required. Strictly a user pay system. You ride the bus you don't pay. Use a vehicle and there is a price for the priviledge.

The written test for bicycles would focus on rules for bicycles in addition to the regular car rules. Obviously they do not need to answer questions on parallel parking on hills etc. Fees are to offset the administrative cost and the benefits are more knowledgeable drivers and riders. If both motorists and bicycle riders know and follow the rules there would be less conflict and fewer injuries.

Making periodic written testing mandatory for all vehicle opperators in order to maintain a valid vehicle license ensures that everyone maintains 'current' knowledge of traffic rules. I have had a drivers license for a few decades and only needed to complete a written test once for a class 5. My other ratings also only needed a single written and vehicle test. So how much have I forgotten or am I incorrect on the rules? Just because I have not had any violations serious enough to warrant recertification does not mean I am fully conversant with the Highway Act. Periodic testing would ensure that at least every 5 years I read through the rules to make sure I passed the test first try. Including bicycle operators in the mix has the same benefits plus enforces the fact they are a vehicle and not a pedestrian nor some weird individually defined mix of the two. Based on casual observation it appaears the a significant portion of bicycle riders do not have a clue there are rules that apply to them.

So the end goal of a written test is to ensure all operators know the road rules for whatever vehicle they operate plus the vehicles they will interact with. That includes class 5 operators having a basic understanding of interaction with Class 1 vehicles. No exceptions (if you are over 12).

   

Oh they do. They just don't care.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next