Hmmm, how did I miss this thread? Be warned, epic post ahead.
Rinsaikeru wrote:Bikes cut off pedestrians and cars all the time. They run red lights, they never signal turns. They ride without helmets etc etc etc.
If a bike hits a child or elderly person I can tell you they won't just be suprised.
Of course cars also are negligent of cyclists--but I wouldn't say cyclists are innocent of any and all wrongdoing on the road.
I'm pretty sure I've seen you identify as a feminist here before, so I expect that you're familiar with the concept of privilege.
Consider this; you, as (I presume) a non-cyclist, have the privilege of not having to put up with, on a daily basis, a significant chance of you being severly injured or killed through the negligence of motorists, or even murdered (deliberately hit, driven off the road, etc) by motorists.
For you, and the others arguing similar positions in this thread, such as kovan
, and DSenette
; the frequency with which cyclists are killed or injured by motorists where the motorist is at fault is astronomically higher than the frequency with which people are injured in traffic accidents where a cyclist is at fault. Damage to property where the cyclist is at fault is similarly a trivial occurrence. Given this, it should be pretty clear that if any group is posing a problem that needs to be remedied, it is motorists.
I'd hope, given that information, your position is not still "blame the cyclists".
Rinsaikeru wrote:really I see lots of negligent and dangerous bike riding in Toronto.
Yeah, cyclists are the problem with Toronto's roads. http://blog.taragana.com/n/top-canadian-politician-kills-cyclist-in-road-rage-156977/
kovan wrote:Could most cyclists afford to fix a door on a new car should they run into one through their own negligence?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
If a cyclist has a collision with a car door, I would hope that the driver of the car would be charged with negligent driving and made to pay for any damages to the bike and cyclists, or in the worst case, the driver be charged with culpable driving (called vehicular homicide in the US, I think). If you hit a cyclist with your car door, that's your fault.
Of course, if you're talking about a cyclist riding into the side of a parked car, when the hell is that ever likely to happen?
DSenette wrote:if they're riding on the sidewalk
Illegal where I'm from (unless you're 12 years old or younger, and I would hope other countries have similar laws. And that pretty much makes all your other points about cyclists hitting pedestrian irrelevant, because pedestrians shouldn't be on the roads unless they're legally crossing somewhere where lights or give-way/yield signs indicate right-of-way.
Izawwlgood wrote:Beyond providing insurance for injuries to the biker, which is likely covered by personal insurance anyhow, I feel safe in assuming that the damage bikers can cause to their environment (pedestrians, cars, etc) is astronomically less then damage bikers receive from their environment. Beyond providing a mutual program to ensure biker rights, which again, is something that is either provided in personal insurance anyway, or by the city/not at all by the city, I can't imagine this being very useful.
Couldn't agree more. This describes the situation perfectly.
If a Bike hits your car door, again, your car insurance pays for it. If a bike hits a person, that person's insurance pays for it.
right...which makes the person who got hit have higher insurance premiums....
DSenette wrote:it's not about a premium going up...it's about a premium going up because of something some other idiot did...
See my previous point about this being the fault of the car driver, not the cyclist.
Carnildo wrote:My goal is to ensure that bicyclists are aware that there are traffic laws that apply to them (such as "if the light is red, stop" or "don't drive on the left-hand side of the road" or "if you're turning, signal").
I don't believe you. I think it's far more likely that you just don't like cyclists on "your" roads and see licensing as a way of hurting cyclists.
Ixtellor wrote:The point of automotive insurance is to protect other people. You can ruin innocent peoples lives with your car.
I don't think the same holds true for a bicycle. How often is someone killed or crippled because an irresponsible bicyclist ran into them?
Exactly. In Australia, I think we have around 1500 road deaths per year. There was one incident last year where a negligent cyclist killed someone. I'm not aware of any other incidents prior to that. Doesn't seem like bikes are really the lethal weapons that cyclist-licensing proponents would have you believe. Cars, on the other hand...What is the perceived problem that bicycle licensing seeks to remedy, is it real or imaginary, and where is the evidence of it?
Freakish wrote:You should need a licence to bike in the same lanes as vehicles. Why should we just assume that bike riders know all of the rules of the road.
Because there's no evidence that cyclists pose any significant danger, to themselves or to others, that needs to be remedied?
Carnildo wrote:Would it? I expect it would move non-registered cyclists to the side streets instead. For example, a driver could go from the Shadle library to Northtown Mall on Wellesley (two lanes each direction with a center two-way left turn lane), while non-registered cyclists could ride one block over on Wabash (a residential street that doesn't even have a line down the center).
Ridiculously specific, irrelevant example is ridiculous, specific, and irrelevant.