Revisiting debate on licensing cyclists

My most recent article about licensing cyclists created a ton of debate and reaction. I can’t believe something I wrote generated such healthy debate among Torontonians. 

Because of space and time there really is only so much I can put into an article. So I wanted to take this opportunity to address a few things related to my article and the reaction it generated.

My premise is still very sound: have a licensing system for cyclists with the intent of creating a cohesive city-wide bike network, educating everyone on bike safety (motorists included) and eventually create a better transportation network in the city. 

People were too fixated on the price of a licence and the re-testing period. I can appreciate and understand why. The reason I picked the numbers I picked were two-fold:

1. This is not a cash-grab as some have portrayed. Money collected would be used to help expand bike infrastructure by making more lanes, paths, lockers, and other bike-friendly initiatives, including education, and spread the network out into the furthest reaches of the city. 
2. The time in between re-testing was unreasonable on my part but this isn’t set in stone and was just an idea. If it was spread out to every five or 10 years I’d be okay with this too.

Critics will claim that if this idea was worth implementing the city would have done this years ago. 

I think this is the best time to rethink the idea of licensing because of the growth in understanding that transit needs to be expanded and new options to get around need to be found. 

The downtown core cannot handle any more cars and new ways to get around must be found. But the city must also not implement changes unilaterally without consultation from all groups.

Having said all of this, people go looking for conspiracies where there isn’t one. People in this city are quick to shoot first and ask questions second.

In my opinion, debate is a good thing and makes for better conversation. This is what the Your City, My City section is all about. I offer an opinion on the issues I think are important to the city. I stand by what I’ve written. 

I enjoy writing for the Toronto Star and will continue to do so until my commitment ends. 

We’re never going to agree on everything and that’s a good thing.

About Robert Kirsic

Comments

[trikebum]

You generated a 'healthy debate' ? ha ha
IIRC the comments section was 99.9% against your uninformed ideas.

That said, as an experienced transportation cyclist I think it should be mandatory for adult cyclists to pass a bicycle driving test (administered by CanBike, and a CanBike course should be tax deductible.

Children should be taught cycling in school starting at age 10 so they are able to cycle safely and responsibly on residential streets and to school etc.
In a couple years they could be taught how to drive a bicycle on busier streets.

Motorists should pay for bike lanes as they benefit by getting cyclists 'out of their way' of 'real traffic'.

Low income people should not have to walk because they can't pay for exorbitant licensing fees.

[Jimbo Jones]

The reason we don't have a bike network is an acute lack of political will, not a lack of money that could be raised by licensing bikes. Relative to other transit infrastructure, bike lanes are not expensive - it's just paint. But you can't build a city-wide cycling network when councillors won't allow lanes in their wards. We could have all the money in the world - as long as politicians prefer a handful of parking spaces to cycling lanes, the frustration of trying to ride a bike in this city will continue.

[Heather Hounsell]

Personally, I'm still at a loss as to why the law was created to have cyclists ride on the road. I have been one my entire life but have absolutely no interest in risking my life riding on the road where I'm not confident in my skills and the attentiveness of other motorists on the road to ensure my safety. The biggest thing that bothers me is the fact that if a cyclist runs over a pedestrian on the sidewalk, most likely the injuries would result in a few broken bones, but if a vehicle was to hit a bicyclist the result could very easily be death. Only the serious bikers are choosing to ride on the roads and the rest of us, fear too much for our safety to make licensing cyclists a necessary issue to debate.

[John Routh]

Great, another proposal that will add more city bureaucracy. Why should we add an encumbrance on cyclists to solve a problem that could be solved by enforcing the current rules? The other day I was stopped at a red light and another cyclist whizzed by me and went through the intersection. Across the intersection was a cop stopped at the light who obviously saw the infraction. He completely ignored it and drove off going the other way.

For anyone interested in a more in depth summary of why bicycle licensing is such a stupid idea, I direct you to a pdf available on the city's website from when the city last looked at this in 2005.

http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/wes_translicensingcyc.PDF