Bicycles really do need to be licensed ! - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14657290
This is a huge problem and a solution needs to be found

They can Hit people or do anything else and just drive away with no accountability !

I was hit by a bike ...I was laying on the street as he biked away I had no way to identify him...

Is this this right ?

This a very serious issue.

IF they were licensed, they would also be required to have proper visibility equipment as well

They need to be held accountable as anyone on the road should be !!
#14657292
No, bicycles do not have to be licensed. No, we do not need additional regulations for bikes, we need less.

No, we do not need a law to solve every problem, especially the most anecdotal or minor ones, or the ones that laws are bad at solving. If anything we need less laws. And I say this as someone who appreciates existing big governments.
#14657305
As a motorist and born hater of cyclists I must admit to a certain spiteful glee at the prospect of them having to swallow a little taste of the bitter medicine that we motorists are forced to gulp down. They are often wildly irresponsible road & pavement users too. Yet *sigh* more regulation? What will be next? Pedestrians being forced to pay for licences to use their own legs..

Just try not to fall asleep while you are wandering about aimlessly and watch for hazards like wildly careering cyclists.
#14657347
taxizen wrote: ...They are often wildly irresponsible road & pavement users too...


You see wildly irresponsible car drivers as well...I suspect you see them in rather large numbers, at that. Yet most people only "see" events that fall outside of the normal range of experience.
#14657360
I am not a fan of cyclists running down people, either, but I am against them actually being licensed. If you use one in a business(like courier service and for insurance), then I'd look at it differently, but I don't think every person with a bicycle needs licensing. I don't want the police wasting time on bicycles when they already spend far too much time policing motorists.

Harmattan wrote:No, we do not need a law to solve every problem, especially the most anecdotal or minor ones, or the ones that laws are bad at solving. If anything we need less laws. And I say this as someone who appreciates existing big governments.
QFT. We already have too many laws pertaining to public drinking, and other things, which are just plain STUPID, and punish all for the rare incident that "could" happen.

Punish people for crimes they commit, not that they COULD commit.

Most cyclists do not require licensing(aside from being licensed to serve alcohol-Bar Bikes... cool!). End of story.
#14657365
It would be awesome if bicycles were licensed....

....to serve alcohol.


Or licensed to kill. We could watch James Bond movies set in an eco-friendly and carbon neutral paradigm.
#14657372
I agree that you should wear a helmet, but you should not HAVE to wear a helmet. It's your own well-being at stake here. If you want to take the risk of dashing your brains out, then that's up to you. We don't need stupid laws!

I, and most people I know, grew up without wearing bicycle helmets. In fact, the only person I know who suffered brain trauma, was wearing a helmet when he was doing BMX racing and got in an accident.

I am also for removing seat-belt laws(for adults). Let people police their own personal safety. It shouldn't be society's responsibility to protect you from your own stupidity.
#14657387
I will reply to you Godstud, because... I understand where you are coming from and because... I don't think you're a bad guy and I think you will trust someone if you see that they are fighting for the right reasons...

Anyhow, the argument against bicycle helmets is that it would increase liabilities for the state because people who get into accidents without insurance will for example take up more emergency services and this will lead to more deaths because stretched limited resources will be wasted on cases that could be easily prevented. My comment was more facetious and directed at the OP because I really don't like people creating "throwaway" alt accounts to try to insert their ideas on a forum because they're too cowardly to state their opinions under their normal account on the forum especially since they use a woman's name which I presume is a way of deflecting hostility that is usually more easily directed at men. Obviously, I do not know for sure that is what is the case, but usually because trolls are cowards and quite dumb just like bullies in real life these are their tactics. Sometimes it is hard to restrain myself from these harsh comments, but hopefully my character, such as it is, will display itself and you can determine who to trust. So for someone like me who is just tired of seeing trolls advocating things that will lead to more death because they are ignorant, selfish, and greedy it is easy to get angry hopefully, someone like you who I think is more prone to what I would characterize as a "righteous anger" because you do genuinely value freedom and humanity can see where I am coming from and forgive me.
#14657394
Well said.
I think the state is too overprotective, and I do not believe that there is justification for many laws, that we have to obey. I do not think there is enough medical expenses to justify many of the decisions the state makes to "protect us".

Even the helmet laws end up just having a certain amount of people who obey them, and those who find ways around them(like wearing the beanie helmets that really provide no protection).

I wear a helmet, when I ride my motorbike, most of the time. When I am going down the block at 30 kph in my nieghbourhood, I know the risk is extremely low. When I go on the highway, I wear a full helmet to protect my noggin, and face from road debris, stones, insects, etc. It's logical.

I do not wear a bicycle helmet, now. I had one in Canada, that I wore, but only because it was illegal to do otherwise.
#14657491
Harmattan wrote:No, bicycles do not have to be licensed. No, we do not need additional regulations for bikes, we need less.

No, we do not need a law to solve every problem, especially the most anecdotal or minor ones, or the ones that laws are bad at solving. If anything we need less laws. And I say this as someone who appreciates existing big governments.


And what do you do if you're hit by a bike, or one swerves into the path of your car?
#14657495
Heinie wrote:Licensing will neither protect pedestrians from cyclists nor cyclists from drivers. I recommend you look both ways before crossing a street and proceed only if safe too do so.

Image


And what do you do if you're hit by a bike, or one swerves into the path of your car?

1) It will protect car drivers pedestrians and bike users !

2) They will be identifiable and held accountable..

3) and they will be required to wear clothing or use equipment that make them visible..

What is there about those facts that you are unable to comprehend?



#14657498
Elyzabeth wrote:And what do you do if you're hit by a bike, or one swerves into the path of your car?

And what do you do if a pedestrian crosses the road? Or a deer? Should we chip and armor every human being and animal?

And what about those fucking asteroids? They can land on your house any moment and cause a massive extinction and the government does nothing! And what if a plane decides to throw an anvil over board? I am pretty sure anvils are not matriculated. And don't start me on volcanoes...


Pedestrian, 2031 A.D.:
Image
#14657505
Elyzabeth wrote:And what do you do if you're hit by a bike, or one swerves into the path of your car?


If I was a pedestrian hit by a bike, I would probably just help the cyclist off the ground after he or she is knocked to the ground in the collision.

If I was a motorist and a bike swerved in front of me, I would do nothing as I would be a safe distance behind the cyclist.

Mind you, cyclists tend not to do that because of the danger they would be putting themselves in.
#14657533
This is a great idea. Personally, I believe we should license, monitor, and track all cyclists, starting with Quebec to see if this would work. We could hone in on cyclists from Montreal, and further narrow down our parameters for surveillance targets to people who might be Muslim, gay, and eco-friendly. This would provide us with a lot of data on environmentally conscious individuals belonging to minority groups.
#14657539
Ummon wrote:Anyhow, the argument against bicycle helmets is that it would increase liabilities for the state because people who get into accidents without insurance will for example take up more emergency services and this will lead to more deaths because stretched limited resources will be wasted on cases that could be easily prevented.

The counter argument is that requiring helmets reduces cycling rates so people get less exercise and cause more pollution and congestion via increased car use. Driving a car also endangers others due to the injuries and illnesses caused by collisions and emissions.

I find the complaints people make very telling. You see dozens of cars breaking the speed limit or parked illegally and it doesn't bother you. You see a pedestrian cross on a red light and you don't even notice but as soon as a cyclist does anything it's, "HOW BLOODY DARE YOU!!!"

If you want to improve road safety make the highway code part of the national curriculum and dedicate 1 day at primary school and 1 at secondary school to cycling safety where you set up a course and ensure kids can ride with sufficiency.

PS Does Elyzabeth remind anyone of Olly the Brit?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
Election 2020

T he inflation of college prices has far outstripp[…]

EU-BREXIT

It's the fundamental worldview of the British rul[…]

@Presvias If there are hundreds of poignant e[…]

@Presvias , I’m a died-in-wool European who cele[…]