What about walking? People can run into other people, knock them down stairs, it's a risk...
I think that most observers find the idea that bike use is a public hazard, and must be restricted to be obviously ludicrous.
Here in the Bay Area, it's a rare bicyclist that actually follows the rules. Talking to other bicyclists, I've found a large number of them are simply ignorant to the fact that the rules apply to them as well; or they have adopted some bizarre version of the rules or a sense of entitlement.
I could talk anecdotes for hours, but one particularly egregious example is a bicyclist who showed up to a 4-way stop after I was already moving through the intersection, cut through my path, and gave me the finger, all without even slowing down, much less stopping.
Requiring bicyclists to pass at least a basic test would go a long way towards clearing things up or at least changing the "bicyclists don't have to follow the rules" culture that exists here, making the roads safer for themselves, walkers/runners, and drivers alike.
So I do the illegal. I turn right on the quiet side street and immediately u-turn to the stop sign, to wait to cross both sides. It's not a dangerous maneuver for me or anyone else, although it would be dangerous for a car to do so.
See the problem?
edit: A car waiting to turn left is in considerably less danger. It's much easier for traffic coming from behind to see, so it's less likely to be hit. And if it is hit, the driver is protected by the car itself. At worst, the car gets totaled. But a bicycle hit at 40mph? The cyclist is likely going to be killed. It's not just silly to follow the car law - it's hazardous.
I think one the purposes of traffic law is to make the behavior of all participants predictable. My only issue with cyclists is I feel I can never predict what they're going to do.
There's usually laws about how far you can see, how far you have to be from an intersection etc.
"My only issue with cyclists is I feel I can never predict what they're going to do."
This is not entirely the fault of the cyclists, it's the fault of the law givers
The laws are not written in such a way that it appears safe to people using bikes to follow all the rules, so everyone is compelled to come up with their own rules. The build of roads is the same; a small detour for a person in a car can become quite substantial for a person on a bike.
At the moment the laws get written and the roads get design assuming almost everyone is going to use a car, and then they say "well, is it physically possible to follow it on a bike?" - if they consider bikes at all.
If governments wanted people to ride bikes predictably, they must consider them when crafting the laws. It's probably quite okay for people riding bikes to act differently than people driving cars: just like people walking around behave differently. It will then take some time to spread the word and regain the trust of cyclists. But it's a more helpful solution than saying "they must follow rules and infrastructure designed for cars in the same way as cars, except that they must not delay me: that way they will be predictable and safe".
Law enforcement can already ticket a bicyclist, license or no license. Bicyclists already know when they're breaking the law.
I disbelieve your proposed solution would actually solve any problems.
Then let's advocate for getting rid of licensing since it has a cost and no benefit. I don't think you really mean that, do you? I've got plenty of ideas for a better licensing system for driving.
> Forcing them to need a license will just create more illegal bicyclists.
Illegal drivers face consequences that licensed drivers do not face. The same would be true for illegal bicyclists. I fail to see this as a bad thing.
> Bicyclists already know when they're breaking the law.
They don't know. They might know if they did it in a car they would be breaking the law. They also believe themselves to be incapable of creating a dangerous situation. (Quick anecdote: I was on a jury for a civil case where a bicyclist admitted on the stand he ran into a car that, by all evidence and even his own testimony, was stopped. The bicyclist had also run a stop sign. He felt the driver was at fault for the accident.)
Being a bicyclist myself, I assumed everyone knew as well. Back home, all my cycling friends knew and followed the rules. When I started cycling with people here, I found out they really don't know that the rules apply to them, they think the rules are different in some way, or they just have some really bizarre notions. AFAICT, it's baked into the culture. I mean, people don't know basic stuff like that you can get a DUI on a bike or that you can't ride on the sidewalk...
A bicycle-specific license (or maybe an endorsement on a DL) could focus on bicycle-specific issues, with basic questions like "I have to stop for a stop sign on a bicycle. T/F" and more 'complex' stuff like how bicycle lanes work at intersections with people making right turns. Drivers and cyclists alike seem to have no clue that the driver should enter the bicycle lane (after yielding to bicycles in the lane) for his turn and that the bicyclist should not try to pass him on the right.
Drivers routinely kill other drivers or pedestrians through carelessness. Few if any cyclists ever kill someone else. If anything we need more rigorous tests for drivers, not for cyclists.
1. Pedestrians move at much slower speeds than bicycles. If two pedestrians walk into each at 5mph the damage is much lower than if two cyclists collide at 30mph.
2. Since pedestrians move much slower than bicycles they can manoeuvre much faster. The stopping distance for a walking pedestrian is less than 1m, the stopping distance for a bycicle travelling at 30mph is much greater.
3. If two pedestrians walk into each other the chance of collateral damage is quite low. It's quite easy to walk around two people that just walked into each other.
If two cyclists collide, there is a good chance that cyclists on each side of them will get caught up in the collision, crash and injure themselves too. A good example of this are the crashes seen on Tour de France.
Of course, if people started running as a mode of transport it would become increasingly dangerous, and you'd have to start separating the walkers from the runners as the damage from a potential collision would be much greater.
Basing rules for cyclists on the Tour de France is like basing rules for automobiles on F1 or Nascar. Normal commuters just don't reach anything close to Tour de France speeds. Most would be lucky to even maintain a third of that speed without the help of a hill.
Most commuters will be going about 10 mph. Even getting hit with a car at that speed will only cause an injury at all about 25% of the time, a serious injury about 15% of the time and is almost never fatal[1]. A bicycle will barely do anything at that speed.
By all means add special rules for using bicycles at unusually high speeds, but don't act like normal commuters are going to be going that speed.
[1] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_...
For as long as cyclists have to cycle on the roads as we know them a cyclist should be required to demonstrate that they understand the signs and rules of the road. That could be by presenting their official drivers license, or, should they not have one, be required to take a theory test. I think that would be a sensible first step.
You could then imagine a practical test for hazard perception, efficient use of gearing and safe filtering through queues of traffic.
Naturally, people don't walk on the road, and pavements don't have the same kind of mandatory control flow unless they intersect with the road, and most children are taught how to cross the road from a young age.
I would get into a ton of shit should I visit anywhere that had jaywalking laws, though in the places they exist and are enforced, they presumably get by without a dedicated licensing and testing regime.
One thing to consider is how much effect licensing has on car safety anyway. Mexico city has no test requirement at all, you just pay for permission to drive rather than sitting any test, while Peru has more road deaths per capita, despite needing a practical test, written test and medical certificate before you get behind the wheel.
Did you know that in Sweden, the legal maximum speed of a electric bike is 15mph? Anything faster and it is classified as a moped and you need a driving license. Did you also know that the average speed of a bike in a city in the Netherlands is around 9mph? In context, a common running speed is 8mph.
So here is the stage. Two bikes are traveling more than 300% faster than the average speed and about 200% the legal limit of a electric bike, and they collide. My question would not be if that situation is safer if two pedestrians walk into each other, but rather why two bikes is traveling that fast in the first place.
Of course! In a world where there were only cyclists there would still need to be a set of rules that all cyclists are required to follow. Those might include how to behave at intersections, how and when you should overtake other cyclists, and so on. To be allowed to cycle, each cyclist should have demonstrated that they understand and follow these rules by taking some kind of test.
> In a general case though, requiring cyclists to have a licence would reduce the number of cyclists, probably significantly. This would correspondingly increase the number of motorists.
I don't think so. I expect the government to continue to penalize use of motor vehicles in cities such as London. The bicycle will remain the cheaper mode of transport.