[giantg2]

"Are you saying that when driver breaks the law, it not unsafe,"

When a driver or cyclists breaks the law, it is not necessarily unsafe.

"Who can be bother with all that hassle?"

What hassle? You're implying details that aren't there. It wouldn't be difficult at all to require online training/testing for a low fee. This is already done commonly with boating licenses and us low cost and easy. And yes, kids get boater certificates too. Based on the data, they are the cycling age group that would most benefit from the knowledge in the training/test.

"It also feels entirely disproportionate to risk."

How so? The data I posted about UK cycling accidents shows about 52% involve a factor on cyclists end. If these people are at risk, then we should attempt to get this number down to zero. It seems the data suggests that even if we eliminate driver errors, we would still be left with just under 40% caused solely by cyclist error.

"If there was data, rather than hysteria,"

No hysteria here, just data.

[avianlyric]

> When a driver or cyclists breaks the law, it is not necessarily unsafe.

Sure, but I would argue that law breaking is good proxy for unsafe behaviour. And rates of law breaking are similar between drivers and cyclists, so to say that doesn’t demonstrate that cyclists don’t behave more unsafely than drivers would require you believe that driver rule breaking is somehow inherently safer (on average) than cyclist rule breaking.

> What hassle? You're implying details that aren't there. It wouldn't be difficult at all to require online training/testing for a low fee. This is already done commonly with boating licenses and us low cost and easy. And yes, kids get boater certificates too. Based on the data, they are the cycling age group that would most benefit from the knowledge in the training/test.

What percentage of children have a boater licence? What percentage of children have a bike? Do you think those numbers are even vaguely comparable? The barrier to entry for boating is very high regardless of licensing, that is not true of biking.

Schools are quite capable of running bike training courses without a licensing scheme. Just like they’re quite capable of teaching any other subject. If you want to advocate for better bike training in schools, then I’m right there with you, I just don’t see how licensing helps with that endeavour.

> How so? The data I posted about UK cycling accidents shows about 52% involve a factor on cyclists end. If these people are at risk, then we should attempt to get this number down to zero.

Where have you linked this? Additionally licensing should focus on ensuring that people can’t engage in an activity that endangers others with a demonstration of capability, not just endanger themselves. Otherwise we’ll need licensing for every human activity. I argue that cycling doesn’t substantially endanger anyone except the biker, and that there are plenty of other everyday activities that endanger people more than cycling, which aren’t licensed.

> "If there was data, rather than hysteria," No hysteria here, just data.

You haven’t provided the data I'm afraid. Certainly not data demonstrating the risk of unlicensed cyclists to non-cyclists.

[giantg2]

I'm just saying what I see in my area. The data I found was from a different state so might vary there. On top of that, yes, even with similar law breaking one group may be doing so in a riskier way. For example not having a light on your bike after dark is illegal (in my state) and dangerous. Driving without your lights on at night is also illegal and dangerous, but something I see much less of. On the other side, I see far fewer bicycles going an unsafe speed. The biggest factor is that I simply see more cars doing highways that aren't doing anything illegal and unsafe while I see more cyclists in suburban areas where there are more opportunites for illegal and unsafe actions. That's just my area and what I've seen. The data says they're about equal.

"Do you think those numbers are even vaguely comparable? The barrier to entry for boating is very high regardless of licensing, that is not true of biking."

Why do you think these numbers should be comparable? What barrier to entry; access to water? This is more common in some areas. Also, what do barriers to entry in boating have to do with this? If anything the fact that there are higher barriers and yet it's extremely easy to get a license would support my position.

"Schools are quite capable of running bike training courses without a licensing scheme."

I'd be for this. One drawback is that schools could teach a lot of things, but don't. There would be less pushback if we didn't push this into the curriculum too. The other drawback is that it doesn't cover the adults.

"Where have you linked this?"

https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/

"Additionally licensing should focus on ensuring that people can’t engage in an activity that endangers others with a demonstration of capability,"

Is this just your opinion, or is there a definition somewhere? There are licensing requirements for all sorts of things that don't provide risks to other people, but do to property, or to themselves. And particularly if one wants to access community resources, especially when the modest fees are used to provide safe infrastructure (such as boat ramps in the case of boating).

"You haven’t provided the data I'm afraid. Certainly not data demonstrating the risk of unlicensed cyclists to non-cyclists."

Considering the fact you missed my link... the main point is that cyclists contribute to their own accidents as evidenced by the data. My point about being a danger to others is common sense - these accidents caused by cyclists at least produced damage to property. There are occurances of fatalities and injuries to pedestrians too. Nobody has quantified them as far as I can tell. But we're talking about moot here because this detail doesn't matter to my main point (that everyone has been derailing). I really wish I didn't participate in many of these, but I got baited in by that troll and now everyone else is picking apart the details of the response.

If you read my comments, my main point is that there needs to be better training/testing for drivers and cyclists if we want cyclist involved accidents to decrease. The (limited) data absolutely shows near equal fault, and those faults being attributed to driver/cyclist error. Now we could say self training is sufficient. I'd even buy that if it weren't for all the issues I've seen. But these accidents do in fact cause harm to others on shared infrastructure, even if physical injuries are less common. We require permits for assemblies that block roads, permits for special events in public areas or noise exceptions, etc, because they inconvenience the public. So it seems acceptable and reasonable to require some basic training and testing instead of simply blaming it 100% on the drivers as the data doesn't support that.

[avianlyric]

> What barrier to entry; access to water?

Money. Boating is an expensive sport. Find me a boat, or even a rental, for less than $100. You can easily find second hand bikes for $50. Boating is also a pure luxury for most, where as cycling can be a necessity for those that can’t afford a car.

> Is this just your opinion, or is there a definition somewhere? There are licensing requirements for all sorts of things that don't provide risks to other people, but do to property, or to themselves. And particularly if one wants to access community resources, especially when the modest fees are used to provide safe infrastructure (such as boat ramps in the case of boating).

It’s my opinion, but find me a government enforced license where that isn’t true? For boating there’s clearly a huge safety element, every person you take out on the boat is relying on you to get them home safe. Just talk to any coastguard (or watch Smarter Every Day’s YouTube series) to see exactly how people end up drowning while boating in a manner that appears normal and safe.

> Considering the fact you missed my link... the main point is that cyclists contribute to their own accidents as evidenced by the data.

The article spends quite a bit of time explaining why you can’t draw the conclusions you’ve derived from the data, including caveats from the data collectors themselves.

> The (limited) data absolutely shows near equal fault, and those faults being attributed to driver/cyclist error.

It shows no such thing. It show contributory factors, nothing about fault. A cyclist that didn’t notice a car pulling out of junction while the cyclist had right of way, might well be marked down as a contributory factor. After all, if the cyclist has been paying better attention, they might have been able to avoid the inattentive driver, but the fault still sits with the driver for failing to properly check for traffic before pulling out.

Even if we take the data at face value and say the driver and cyclists are at equally at fault, then surely we should allocate greater responsibility to the individual in the position of greater power? After all, driver chose to get into a machine quite capable to killing as a consequence of minor fault on the part of the operator, the cyclist didn’t. Surely drivers should take responsibility for their use of such a deadly machine, rather than just expecting everyone else to compensate for their mistakes with potentially fatal outcomes?

> But these accidents do in fact cause harm to others on shared infrastructure, even if physical injuries are less common.

This applies to walking as well. There have been fatal pedestrian-pedestrian collisions. I guess we should licence and permit walking as-well? After all multiple pedestrians are killed everyday by drivers, don’t they need protecting from their incompetence as well?

If you want your licence for bike argue to hold any water, you need to explain why it shouldn’t apply to walking as well. The risk provide of cycling is substantially closer to walking than it is driving.

[giantg2]

"Find me a boat, or even a rental, for less than $100."

This is, again, a moot tangent. Please focus on the important point - that a license can be obtain very easily through online education. And yes, many people practically give away old canoes. Strap a trolling motor on it and you need a license.

"find me a government enforced license where that isn’t true?"

Apiary license, among others.

"Even if we take the data at face value and say the driver and cyclists are at equally at fault, then surely we should allocate greater responsibility to the individual in the position of greater power?"

Moot. The percentage of shared contributing factors is low.

"might well be marked down as a contributory factor."

Sure, then we can exclude the very small number with the shared contributing factors.

"The article spends quite a bit of time explaining why you can’t draw the conclusions you’ve derived from the data"

Where at?

"After all, driver chose to get into a machine quite capable to killing as a consequence of minor fault on the part of the operator, the cyclist didn’t."

Bias again. That is a consequence, although more rare, for cyclists.

"Surely drivers should take responsibility for their use of such a deadly machine, rather than just expecting everyone else to compensate for their mistakes with potentially fatal outcomes?"

Tangent, again. I never said anything about drivers not accepting responsibility for their actions. In a proper system, all participants should be anticipating faults of others for maximum safety.

"If you want your licence for bike argue to hold any water, you need to explain why it shouldn’t apply to walking as well."

No, you're the one pulling in walking and the onus would be on you to show why it should. You can research case law cycling DUI and explain to me why it applies to bicycles and not walking - there will be your answers.

It seems you're not interested in a real discussion and have provided substantial bias in your writing. Good luck. I'm done here.

[avianlyric]

> It seems you're not interested in a real discussion and have provided substantial bias in your writing. Good luck. I'm done here.

That’s ok, I can see you’ve already decided how this issue should be “fixed”, and you’re not interested in learning more. Ultimately the world isn’t heading in the direction you think it should, so I won’t worry too much about your view points.