[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Fairly recently a Councillor was contemplating some sort of motion on bike licensing - asked me what I thought. This was my reply:

1. Compliance: There doesn't seem to be a single instance where an initiative to license bicycles has resulted in any useful amount of compliance.

2. Enforcement: It is unlikely that police are going to expend additional resources (nor is it desirable for them to expend resources) to check for compliance of bicycle licensing.

3. Children: Bicycles, unlike motor vehicles are operated by people of all ages, including children. It's not practical to expect children to license a bicycle. If they are not to be licensed, are they not allowed to cycle until the licensing age? If children are exempt from licensing, what would be the reasoning?

4. Cost to Administer: In almost every jurisdiction that has instituted bike licences, they have been dropped because the revenue recovery is not enough to administer the program.

5. Accidents: There is no need to link the bicycle involved in an accident to the owner - there is only need to link the bicyclist to an the accident. There is no evidence that a licensed bicyclist operates his or her bicycle more safely than a non-licensed cyclist. Furthermore, motor-vehicles if operated irresponsibly pose a serious threat to life - bicycles do not pose the same threat to public safety.

6. Theft: I could see a program to voluntarily register one's bike with the police or some other database to assist in the return of stolen bikes, but again, compliance will be very low in a mandatory system, so it will not likely be effective.

7. Jurisdiction: The Province has the authority to mandate vehicle licensing. Under the Alberta Traffic Safety Act, it does not seem apparent that the City has the authority to introduce mandatory licensing of any vehicle type.

You mean Camrose can do something Calgary can't?