[LINK] "The case for testing and licensing cyclists"

[rfmcdonald]

Writing in the Toronto Star, Peter Gorrie advances a great idea.

I've cycled throughout the city, including daily commutes, for 25 years, with only two accidents: On one occasion I was doored by the driver of a parked car; on the other, my front wheel got caught in the streetcar tracks where King St. angles into Queen. I avoided becoming road kill only because no traffic was coming up close behind.

So I'm all for making things easier, and safer, for cyclists. I take heart whenever I encounter bike traffic jams here. I'd love it if Toronto's streets were like Beijing's rivers of two-wheelers 20 years ago.

Still, cyclists increasingly piss me off. I'm getting, pardon the pun, cranky about those who weave in and out of traffic, ignore signs and, worst of all, zip along sidewalks.

It was bad enough recently that some advocates insisted cyclists be allowed to ignore stop signs. Their arguments centred on the terrible hardship of losing momentum.

[. . .]

I've come to the view that once you hit your teens, cycling on any public thoroughfare is, just like operating a motor vehicle, a privilege, not a right. I realize this is anathema to a free-spirited breed, but cyclists should be tested and licensed, and expected to obey the rules of the road, just like any driver. Past age 12 they should not be on sidewalks – period.

This would offer cyclists a few benefits, including acceptance they're entitled to be on the road; permitted, for example, to take enough space to avoid being hit by drivers who pull out or open their door without looking.

Obviously, responsible riding would make cyclists safer, since weaving through traffic, barging across lanes, running stop signs, crossing laneway and driveway exits on sidewalks, and running into people are all dangerous. Licensing might improve the tracing of stolen bikes.

The cyclists in the comments don't exactly disprove Gorrie's case.