Report a Comment

A huge problem with licensing is that the administrative hassle, both for the government and for riders, would almost guarantee non-compliance. Every day, thousands of cyclists stream in to the District from every point on the compass. Some do it frequently; for others, it's a twice a year leisure trip. Still others are visiting from beyond the immediate area. How would they get their licenses? Unless it's at a dozen different locations around the perimeter open at least 12-15 hours a day, you've created a situation where casual cyclists must choose either to disobey the law or not to ride. How would a police officer know someone was licensed? Would cyclists have to wear something, which most would find obnoxious, as well as unpleasant in hot months? A plate on the bike? Difficult to read, difficult to affix to many bikes and for the rider with 3-4 bikes individually (quite common), and maybe 10 for the household, a huge hassle. Plus, what do you do about kids? They outgrow bikes frequently. What's to keep people from stealing them? Counterfeiting them? Just not complying? Who pays for it--the licensing process for drivers costs over a hundred dollars PER LICENSE?

If the benefit were gereat enough, we might be willing to put up with a system that greatly discourages a system of transportation that has enormous benefits for our region, if there were a good enough reason to have it. So far, every reason I've heard has better counter-arguments. It won't aid traffic enforcement--cops are perfectly capable of stopping cyclists now. It won't add much protection for the underinsured, since most either have their own insurance or, if the accident is caused by a driver, that person has auto insurance.

by Crickey7 on Jun 7, 2012 2:46 pm • link • report