City
5 reasons why licensing cyclists in Toronto is a bad idea
City Hall took the first (small) steps toward licensing cyclists Wednesday as the public works committee asked staff and Toronto Police to find ways of better enforcing cycling by-laws, with an apparent focus on cracking down on riders using the sidewalk (though it's quite possible there's an ideological bent to this request). The idea of licensing cyclists isn't a new one in this town — according to a 2005 City briefing note, between 1935 and 1956 it was mandatory for all bicycles to display a license plate. Since then, the City council has rejected proposals for bike licenses on three separate occasions — in 1984, 1992 and 1996. Here's why the scheme didn't work in the past, and why it won't work now.
1. It costs too much
When city council is trying to keep expenses down, it doesn't make sense to spend money on a costly license implementation and enforcement scheme for cyclists. Yes, some bikers break the rules, but there are only a few reported cases of pedestrians and cyclists colliding each year. Contrast that with roughly 1,100 bike and motor vehicle accidents in the same period. Even if every incident was reported and resolved with a fine, the cost of enforcing the scheme will always outweigh the financial return.
2. It doesn't work
We know because we've tried it. Not only that, bike licensing isn't common in major North American cities. There's no reason to believe a licensed cyclist will refrain from cutting across the sidewalk simply because there is a plate attached to the bike for the same reason some drivers break the rules. Issuing tickets to offenders is the best way of snuffing out the occasional pedestrian-cyclist collision and boosting the number of bikers wearing helmets and using lights at night. (Ed.'s note: it is only illegal not to wear a helmet in Ontario for those under 18 years old).
3. There are too many complications
Figuring out how to handle cyclists from outside the licensing boundary, one-off Bixi riders and children biking with pedestrian parents are just a few of the obstacles any scheme will have to overcome. The inevitable disputes over individual infractions could also prove costly to resolve.
4. It discourages new riders
Why make riders jump through hoops at a time when the City should be encouraging people to climb into the saddle? The savings compared to driving or taking the TTC are a major reason people choose to don a helmet. A complex system of licensing and fees is not the way to coax down those on the fence about biking. City Council needs to spend its cash finding ways to make the streets safer for those without the benefit of metal armour.
5. It doesn't educate cyclists
I'm almost certain a straw poll of cyclists on the road today would find many are unaware of some of the basic rules of the road. Issuing correct hand signals when turning, wearing the appropriate gear and staying off the pavement are covered by by-laws in Toronto without the need for a license. Channeling the money into educational schemes has proven a more cost-effective way of reducing accidents.
Despite the negatives, a scheme designed to directly benefit cyclists and improve infrastructure could be a positive thing. When licensing schemes are implemented elsewhere, the cost is low (usually under $10 for several years) and the money is used to track stolen bikes, keep cycle lanes clear and give pedal-powered road users a voice. Perhaps if the scheme was approached from a positive angle instead of one designed to punish the occasional rogue biker it might get more support.
Related:
Writing by Chris Bateman / Photo by Derek Flack
Discussion
85 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
I am a cyclist with the means to pay for licensing, but I would much rather see resources go to strict enforcement of the rules of the road (i.e., active policing and hefty fines). Aside from thoughtless (and downright stupid) drivers, my biggest pet peeve is other cyclists that think they can do anything they want.
BTW, I'm all for a crack-down on bad behaviour by cyclists. I bike to work most days and from what I can see the majority of my fellow cyclists disobey traffic laws on a regular basis. Some out of ignorance, and some because they are simply arseholes who wilfully ignore the rules. If cyclists are to get more acceptance by drivers and policy-makers, we've got to lead by example.
Increasing the Toronto Police Services budget is the ultimate aim of this scheme. The pretext of public safety and the need to be protected from dangerous cyclists provides the needed excuse.
The Toronto Police are well aware that this is not an actual issue and further enforcement won't be necessary, outside of the typical dog and pony show referred to as a "blitz". They will, however, take more money if its offered.
The additional funds can then be diverted to other areas of an already grossly over-inflated police budget.
i think a larger part of some cyclists breaking the rules on city roads is that there arent any rules to protect them, or rather, to protect us. so we do what we must to avoid situations where we'll be on the losing end.
PS - like with cars, there are people that shouldnt be allowed to cycle on roads. namely the really slow, unsure, unaware, oblivious ones. licensing at least would keep them off the road.
I'd love to see high-school bicycle rules-of-the-road and safety training in Phys Ed. classes though!
(Just so you know NOT AT ALL!)
Just remember kids, they have no bike licences in Mississauga. So if you're stopped by Ol' Bill just tell em you moved from Mississauga.
Tell 'em Hazel sent ya!
Noticed an error near the end of reason 2. You note that giving out tickets would increase the number of cyclists wearing helmets. In Ontario, not wearing a helmet is only a bylaw infraction of you are under 18 years old.
Having a license doesn't stop people from making poor decisions. We should focus on improving cycling education, in tandem with enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act rules that are already in place. Mind you, those could probably use a rethink regarding their application to bicycle transportation...
2) Because it doesn't work, I can break the rules? Even more interesting.
3) There are no complications. There are a set of rules which are valid for everyone who is using a public road. I have to learn the rules when I get my driver's license. Why is a person who is ridig a bike exempt? A cyclist is using the same roads, which means he has to obey the same rules and must be punished as everyone else who is not obeying the rules.
4) Why, because not being able to break the law without consequences is not attractive anymore?
5) Might be true, but it is a start. As already mentioned in my comment for point 3, cyclists have to obey the same rules.
Nobody cares, if I drive my car without a license on my own property (e.g. in my garden), but I have to have a license, if I want to use a public road. Same should be true for EVERYONE who wants to use a PUBLIC road.
Stay off the internet, ok creep? Maybe you can use that time to better educate yourself and learn how to write above a 1st-grade level.
I see another commenter already beat me to this. He's probably the goof I saw the other day riding the wrong way on a sidewalk without a helmet.
If not, why do we have laws at all?
Do you seriously not know that there are already traffic bylaws on the books that address all of the biking infractions some people are endlessly wringing their hands about, these days? Cyclists who run red lights, ignore stop signs, bike on the sidewalks and generally endanger other people by riding recklessly are already subject to fines and charges. All the cops have to do is choose to enforce those rules, no silly bike licensing scheme required.
stayed the he11 off the sidewalks
stopped at red traffic lights
stopped at stop signs
signaled their lane changes/turns
rode with lights at night
rode with helmets
they would deserve more bike lanes
If you want to make it illegal for a car (vehicle) to pass a bike (vehicle) on the left in the same lane, I'm good with that. Until than, the coexistence of two vehicles is required, and acknowledgement of their vastly different physical properties is at least partly acknowledged in law. What's missing is a lot of detail, much education, and a whole lot of enforcement.
In the meantime, arrest the guy who leapt out his car and physically threatened me after playing 'chicken' - my crime? I took a photo of his license plate.
I understand that in a perfect world, both sides would cope with each other. We do not live in a perfect world. Have you ever seen how the traffic works in Asian or Arabic cities? It looks like chaos to us, but it actually works, because a cyclist understands that he will lose, if he's not being careful. In North American or European cities cyclists do what they want, break the law and will most likely win any dispute in court, because they are the 'weaker' party. I'm getting sick of this double standard. You want to use the road, then behave like everyone else. Otherwise don't blame others, if you don't survive an encounter with a car. Do you also need a sticker on your RV that tells you that you shouldn't stand up while driving? I'm sure you don't, so why is it so complicated to understand that the same rules should apply to everyone?
Underneath your rant is also sexism and classism, and the butt-hurt whining of the majority a la 'Ford nation'.
So busy making people wrong (oh, there are some) that you overlook basic precepts. Like when you drive a car, you learn and agree to the rules. It's called a license. Bicycles have no such agreement. You're lucky you get such good behaviour from the majority. I can just imagine the roads if a bunch of youse guys were let lose with no license, training, signals, or enforcement. You'd find something to be butt-hurt about, no doubt.
they don't go through stop signs because they don't know what they mean. they do it because it's safe to do so.
don't be jealous drivers, get on a bike, you can do it too.
note: sidewalk riding i disagree with.
Traditionally license fees are levied to offset the cost of issuing and maintaining the license, not to support infrastructure and education programmes not directly associated with the license. If a license fee is set high enough to apply some of the collected monies to such things as improved bike lanes or driver education programmes, the excess money is, in fact, a tax.
Much more better we focus our efforts on replacing the man who calls himself Mayor F**king Ford.
also, if bikes were made of bacon, maybe i'd be an even bigger fat turd!
a bicycle and rider weigh marginally more than the rider themselves, can stop on a dime and generally, save a freak accident, don't kill or hurt anyone.
there should be different rules for different road users. for example, in denmark, one way streets with posted speed limits of 50km/h or less are by default two way for cyclists.
Q: Why would Rob Ford want to licence bikes and/or riders?
A: Quote your article: "4. It discourages new riders"
Re suggestion that some cyclists break traffic rules, it may be because the rules are made for cars and additional rules for cycling are mostly cycling negative. For example, it is high time that the "Idaho Stop Law" be more widely implemented. This law states that cyclists may treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs. This law has been recently reviewed and has shown that safety for all road users has improved as a result of the law.
Also, it has not been emphasized enough that drivers and cars are licensed because cars can inflict a huge amount of damage. How much damage can a bicycle cause?
If bikers want respect on the roads, they have to pay for it. Until then bikers are using roads and bike lanes for which I, asa motorist, have paid for and allow them to use.
But never mind that: Where does this idea that the taxes you pay entitle you to more or better services & infrastructure come from? That's not how our society works.
Since when is being logical equal to not having common sense? Not my fault, if 1+1=3 for you.
A City bylaw allows cyclists with a tire size of 61cm or 24 inches or less to ride on the sidewalk. The intent of this bylaw is to allow young children to cycle on the sidewalk while they learn to ride. The bylaw is based on wheel size because it is difficult for Police to enforce age-based bylaws, as most children do not carry identification. This is a municipal bylaw and rules vary in communities across Ontario.
The Toronto bylaw states that riding a bicycle with tire size over 61cm (24 inches) on sidewalks is prohibited, as is riding/operating a bicycle (or roller skates, in-line skates, skateboard, coaster, toy vehicle) on a sidewalk without due care and attention and reasonable consideration for others. The fine in downtown Toronto for not following this bylaw is $90 and aggressive cyclists can also be charged with careless driving.
Actually, everyone contributes to road upkeep via their property taxes, whether they actually use those roads or not. Since I don't drive, but still have to pay for the roads you use, seems like you're getting a free ride at my expense. You're welcome.
You can say the same about people walking past your parked car too. What if a drunk falls on your hood and scratches your paint with his zipper? What about the stupendously large pothole, created by other heavy vehicles, that damages your under carriage? This kind of talk can go on forever. Really, what has to happen is you, the owner of a big hulking technological machine which slaves for you, has to swallow your feelings and view miscellaneous damage as a cost of ownership. Cyclists are fine miscellaneous damage to their vehicles, as exemplified by their hands-on repair and cleaning of the machines, and being okay with scratches more or less.
co-exist with cars too. I'm all for being accountable for your actions!
Maybe licensing isn't the answer but certainly enforcement of laws should be done. I think the issue becomes tracking a logging the offenses/tickets. Without a license (either drivers license or licensed vehicle) how do we track who made the offense? Do all bicyclists carry government ID with when riding? Will the willing surrender their ID to a convicting officer?
If the person who calls himself Mayor F**king Ford is truly concerned about enforcing the existing laws, he should simply provide adequate funding to allow Toronto's Finest to apply a convincing level of enforcement of those laws.
And how much enfocement is "convincing"? Not much. Not much at all. It just needs to be seen being applied.
Obviously, I'm anti this scheme. Also, I live in...whatever suburb I'm closest to the next time I get caught cycling without my license.
So, yeah, it's technical legal to be a sidewalk riding douchebag on a folding bike with tiny tires, but you're still a douchebag.
1. "It costs too much". Then you go on and use reasoning that is the same that is used to enforce all motorists, so why won't it work with cyclists? You also are insinuating that all car/cyclists collisions are at the fault of the motorist...which is biased and untrue, even if the current (and outdated) highway traffic act assumes so.
2. "It doesn't work". So it's alright for cyclists to just ignore the rules? This is exactly the same as saying that enforcing stop signs and red lights for motorists won't work "because they'll just do it anyway". The whole point of laws/tickets/enforcement is that if it is done enough then the offenders will learn there lesson or pay for it financially.
Saying that there is not enough police to enforce it is the same as saying there aren't enough to enforce every car. The goal is to enforce the main routes where occurrences are more likely to happen which will then shape the way people ride/drive.
3. "too many complications" The bixi bike argument is the same as referring to rental cars being to hard to enforce.
4. "It discourages new riders" Again a flawed argument. Owning, insuring and the upkeep of a car are far more expensive than a possible bike license and it does not discourage new drivers. Yes there may be some people that look at alternative options but until this city has a transit system that is actually accessible and convenient (ala. NYC), then it is not a true viable option over the car.
5. "It doesn't educate cyclists". When deciding to operate any vehicle, whether peddle powered or otherwise, the owner/rider is responsible for understanding the rules of the road. Why would someone just get on a bike and mix in with motorized vehicles made of thousands of pounds of metal without knowing how to properly operate their own vehicle?
For once I would like to see an unbiased article written about cyclists in this city. The truth of the matter is that there are many cyclists in this city that have a sense of entitlement and a blatant disregard for most traffic laws (ie. stop signs)
I was born and raised downtown and still live here so this isn't some "905er" mentality that all the elitist hipsters always cry about.