6 ms·

> Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road, would you still want cyclists to have a licence? Of course! In a world where there

> Thought experiment: if you didn't have any motorised vehicles on the road, would you still want cyclists to have a licence? 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.

cornyNetHandle 9y ago
In a world where there were only pedestrians, would you want them to start having licences? Per mile, walking is exceedingly dangerous compared to other modes of transport.
- papermule 9y ago
  No, I don't think so? 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.
  - cornyNetHandle 9y ago
    Ok, so licences for runners then, as you may need to have a test to see that people know the rules and presumably ban people from running if they break them.
    - papermule 9y ago
      Since running is largely recreational most runners avoid congested areas on purpose. If this changes it will have to be revisited. Nice strawman though.
      - cornyNetHandle 9y ago
        Was trying more for reducto ad absurdum. I didn't come up with the idea of having laws to separate runners from walkers, you did. I was just exploring the enforcement mechanism for such a suggestion.
        papermule 9y ago
        Well I think the issue is that unlike the pavement, the roads are much more stringently regulated with sign posts, markings and lights. 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.
        cornyNetHandle 9y ago
        I walk on the road all the time, having grown up in an area with plenty of rural roads without pavements. 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.
rout39574 9y ago
> 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. 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.
- cgriswald 9y ago
  I don't. In the United States, bicyclists must follow largely the same rules of the road that drivers of motor vehicles must follow. They can even be ticketed for violating those rules although usually the tickets don't have much in the way of teeth (except things like DUI while biking). 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.
  - beat 9y ago
    Forcing bicycles to follow rules designed for cars is often silly and sometimes actively dangerous. For example, the bike route from downtown to my house involves making a left turn on a busy street. For a mile and a half, the street is nice and wide, with generous bike lanes in both directions - sensible and safe. But the moment I have to turn left? By car laws, I need to stop in the middle of the road, with traffic coming up behind me (often at 40+mph), and wait until I have a clear path to turn left, which can take a while. This is deadly. 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.

cornyNetHandle 9y ago

In a world where there were only pedestrians, would you want them to start having licences? Per mile, walking is exceedingly dangerous compared to other modes of transport.

papermule 9y ago
No, I don't think so? 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.
- cornyNetHandle 9y ago
  Ok, so licences for runners then, as you may need to have a test to see that people know the rules and presumably ban people from running if they break them.
  - papermule 9y ago
    Since running is largely recreational most runners avoid congested areas on purpose. If this changes it will have to be revisited. Nice strawman though.
    - cornyNetHandle 9y ago
      Was trying more for reducto ad absurdum. I didn't come up with the idea of having laws to separate runners from walkers, you did. I was just exploring the enforcement mechanism for such a suggestion.
      - papermule 9y ago
        Well I think the issue is that unlike the pavement, the roads are much more stringently regulated with sign posts, markings and lights. 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.
        cornyNetHandle 9y ago
        I walk on the road all the time, having grown up in an area with plenty of rural roads without pavements. 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.

rout39574 9y ago

> 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. 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.

cgriswald 9y ago
I don't. In the United States, bicyclists must follow largely the same rules of the road that drivers of motor vehicles must follow. They can even be ticketed for violating those rules although usually the tickets don't have much in the way of teeth (except things like DUI while biking). 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.
- beat 9y ago
  Forcing bicycles to follow rules designed for cars is often silly and sometimes actively dangerous. For example, the bike route from downtown to my house involves making a left turn on a busy street. For a mile and a half, the street is nice and wide, with generous bike lanes in both directions - sensible and safe. But the moment I have to turn left? By car laws, I need to stop in the middle of the road, with traffic coming up behind me (often at 40+mph), and wait until I have a clear path to turn left, which can take a while. This is deadly. 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.