This is irresistible:
Why Bicycle Licensing Usually Doesn’t Work – CityLab
The idea of licensing and registering bicycles like motor vehicles gets bandied about frequently in the endless debates over whether cyclists are freeloading on infrastructure the Good Lord (or at least, the tax code) intended for cars and trucks when they ride on public roads. (Here’s a good study on why bicyclists are in fact paying more than their fair share to use roads, in case you feel one of these debates coming on.) A handful of municipalities do require such fee-based licensing, however. And it’s not always a complete and utter waste of time, money, and resources. (However, it usually is.) …
Probably the best examination of whether licensing succeeds on any of these fronts comes from … Toronto, where, from 1935 to 1957, bicyclists were indeed required to register their rides for annual licenses, for 50 cents per year. There was a metal license plate and everything, according to this very thorough website from the City of Toronto. The law was scrapped for a delightfully Canadian reason—the fear that licensing “results in an unconscious contravention of the law at a very tender age,” which can lead to “poor public relations between police officers and children.”
Probably the best examination of whether licensing succeeds on any of these fronts comes from … Toronto, where, from 1935 to 1957, bicyclists were indeed required to register their rides for annual licenses, for 50 cents per year. There was a metal license plate and everything, according to this very thorough website from the City of Toronto. The law was scrapped for a delightfully Canadian reason—the fear that licensing “results in an unconscious contravention of the law at a very tender age,” which can lead to “poor public relations between police officers and children.”
Still, efforts to revive velo-licensing surfaced several times in the 1980s and ’90s, only to be batted down by voters. The first and best reason: It would be too expensive to run the required bureaucratic machinery. “If cyclists were asked to cover the cost of licensing, in many cases, the license would be more expensive than the bicycle itself.” …
Another example is Salt Lake City, Utah, where there’s also a state law requiring licensing. “Both are somewhat lightly used,” says Becka Roolf, the city’s bicycle/pedestrian coordinator. She’s not sure how long the laws have been on the books. The license itself consists of a sticker; it costs up to $2, but this local nonprofit will pick up the tab for you. “It’s largely to aid in returning stolen bikes,” she says. “It’s definitely not a moneymaker.” … And, of course, there’s the inconvenience of losing your license every time you ride beyond the city limits.
Another example is Salt Lake City, Utah, where there’s also a state law requiring licensing. “Both are somewhat lightly used,” says Becka Roolf, the city’s bicycle/pedestrian coordinator. She’s not sure how long the laws have been on the books. The license itself consists of a sticker; it costs up to $2, but this local nonprofit will pick up the tab for you. “It’s largely to aid in returning stolen bikes,” she says. “It’s definitely not a moneymaker.” … And, of course, there’s the inconvenience of losing your license every time you ride beyond the city limits.
The inherent goofiness of this situation, Roolf admits, reflects a deeper disconnect about bicycles in American life, a confusion that continues to foil even good-faith efforts to integrate these devices into our civic fabric. “It’s an interesting dynamic. Sometimes our laws are set up based on the idea that a bike is toy, and sometimes it’s a form of adult transportation,” she says. “As a society, we don’t seem to have worked that out.”
Yep. Stuck in the middle again. Similar to walking but not the same, similar to driving but not the same.
It’s surprising that licensing keeps coming up even after having been discounted so many times for so long. Recently two people have told me that they think that “cyclists should be licensed”. (This is a bit different than bikes being licensed actually.) When I ask why they say that it’s so they can be caught when they do something wrong. When I ask what those wrong things are it’s always things that are either legal or are things that pedestrians can do as well. Crazy.
Best line in the article IMO – “inherent goofiness”
Worth noting that Vancouver has optional bike registration to aid in the return of recovered stolen bikes. Recommended.
http://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/register-your-bike-to-reduce-theft.aspx
My interest in licensing is so that we can ticket bikers who don’t observe the rules of the road such as using lights. I’d love to start seeing such bikers fined substantial amounts (sliding scale after earnings) do that they can get use lights etc and turn on their lights.
Those invisible bikers with no lights and wearing black are antisocial idiots and should be sanctioned.
Otherwise I don’t care much about licensing.
As others have mentioned, existing laws require people riding bikes to use lights after nightfall. Licensing does not change this. Perhaps you are confusing licensing with law enforcement?
If so, my preference is for education, rather than a quick reflexive jump to punishment.
Of course law enforcement is first step.
But without licensing of some kind how do you enforce a fine?
You give the ticket to the person, not the bike. So, licensing servers no purpose for giving tickets.
I’ve gotten a ticket on my bike before. Unfortunately for me, there’s nothing stopping the police for just giving you a ticket. They just ask for your ID.
Education is not the issue.
The invisible bikers know exactly what they are doing — they are not novice bikers or children.
They are doing it as a kind of FU to society.
Go talk to them – I have.
Anyone can sit around and think up theories of other peoples’ motives and it can get very imaginative sometimes.
I think if their motive was to say FU to society there are far more effective methods and attractions. I think your theory on their motive is BS.
Or they have lights but they left them at home because they thought they’d get home before dark but then they ended up being out later than that.
Anyway, lights are good to have.
The way they fixed this in Germany was the same way they fixed it years ago in the early days of cars. They require all bikes to be sold with lights.
Licensing cyclists probably won’t work.
Why not? In terms of planning, little or no thought has been put into educating cyclists to share the road. Giving them the empowerment that the City of Vancouver has, releases a wave of sub-optimal behaviours that is now beyond recall.
We live in an age of zero personal responsibility. It’s somebody else’s fault if we have a preventable accident. Sue them. In public, many of us feel entitled, whether it is in the use of a car or of a bicycle, or even on foot. No need to be polite or even considerate.
Sharing the road? Not in this city. Why share when you can have it all?
I constantly do a little mental exercise when I’m walking. I count ten consecutive cyclists at random and rate them according to whether they are legal or not. I’m not talking about picky things like the “no-bell award,” I’m talking about really dumb-ass stuff–the kind of overt behaviour that gets people killed.
I do the same for car drivers. Over the years, one pattern is clear to me. Drivers in Vancouver are not very skilled or competent, and overall get a score of 6 out of 10 on a good day. Cyclists tend to fall into the 4 out of 10 range. That’s 40% of cyclists who are behaving responsibly, are reasonably well-equipped.
Not scientific, but whenever I’m driving or cycling, the people I trust the least are cyclists.
Perhaps the answer is a carrot instead of a stick.
Rather than licensing, a liability and theft insurance registry should be introduced. Not mandatory, but offered inexpensively or even free for those most likely to be responsible. The risk-takers won’t be interested. Neither will the competitive, politicised types.
Wow! “Giving them the empowerment that the City of Vancouver has, releases a wave of sub-optimal behaviours that is now beyond recall.”
This is pretty much over the top. The City of Vancouver has provided residents with a good mobility option. This has encouraged way more people to cycle which is good for society since it provides many benefits including reduction motor vehicle congestion and transit crowding. And haven’t we, as a society empowered motor vehicle operators and hasn’t this released a wave of sub-optimal behaviour including the killing and maiming of vulnerable road users? And to be clear, it is the driver who is most often at fault. How many injuries and deaths have been caused by people riding bikes? We should put our focus on the real danger, ant that certainly is not the people riding bikes.
A minor quibble:
““If cyclists were asked to cover the cost of licensing, in many cases, the license would be more expensive than the bicycle itself.” …”
Sounds like someone who hasn’t gone shopping for a new bike in many, many years.