Dear Editor:
Re: Cyclists Should be Licensed to Ride, Jan. 7 mailbox.
Letter-writer Jeff Weinbren is clearly misinformed about cycling in North Vancouver.
Motorists are required to hold a valid driver’s licence as proof that they are capable of operating a potentially lethal vehicle in a safe and sensible manner.
It is clear that a driver’s licence is no guarantee that motorists behave thusly, given the thousands of serious injuries and deaths and the billions of dollars spent on attending crashes every year in Canada.
Likewise, licensing cyclists would not eliminate unsafe cycling, but it would prevent many children from enjoying their first taste of independence in this car addicted culture of ours.
Mr. Weinbren and his ilk also intimate that motor vehicle licences and insurance pay for our roads and cyclists are therefore freeloaders.
The vast majority (over 90 per cent the last time I checked) of local roads are funded through property taxes and other general taxes.
Allow me to quote from the abstract of a Victoria Transport Policy Institute paper, “Whose Roads? Evaluating Bicyclists’ and Pedestrians’ Right to Use Public Roadways,” May 31, 2012, a must read for the car-driving public:
“Most funding for local roads (the roads pedestrians and cyclists use most) is from general taxes, which people pay regardless of how they travel. Since bicycling and walking impose lower roadway costs than motorized modes, people who rely on non-motorized modes tend to overpay their fair share of roadway costs and subsidize motorists.”
While I agree that too many cyclists disobey parts of the Motor Vehicle Act, I also believe that this legislation favours motorists over all other road users and should be revised for the 21st century.
It is also important to note that an unlawful and/or distracted cyclist is most likely to cause self-harm, while a motorist behaving in a like manner may cause much greater harm to far more innocent people. In summary, a bicycle licence would serve no useful purpose.
Ken Timewell
North Vancouver
