112
California Wants to Create a Driver’s License for Electric Bikes (electrek.co)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/bicycles@lemmy.ca
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The move is in response to many young electric bike riders who often take to the streets without having tested for or received a typical driver’s license for a standard car. That means they are often ignorant of many traffic laws and safety information.

Assembly Bill 530, which will soon enter committee, would require both an online written test and a state-issued identification for riders who do not have a driver’s license. The bill would also ban riders under 12 years old from riding e-bikes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 3 years ago (7 children)

A little basic road rules so that they aren’t behaving "unpredictability " to cars.

The moment you start adding these rules for "safety", the quicker car drivers will find themselves exempt of guilt if they get involved in an accident that could be avoided if the driver was paying more attention.

Most importantly I want helmets actually being enforced. Normalized.

Take a look at the Netherlands, see how many people use helmets.

The more barriers you require from people to use a particular mode of transportation, the less people will use it. We need to increase the amount of requirements to drive cars, less from cyclists. "Enforcing helmets" is counterproductive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I mean, we do in Australia - though to be fair, I've seen more of a drop off in use after the rental scooters came to town; but almost everyone I see on their own bike is wearing a helmet.

    Guess we have to protect ourselves in the face of such little bike infrastructure

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That's because of the model. Bike sharing is spontaneous, unplanned. People who are planning on riding a bike will bring their own bike and helmet.

    But to require a helmet to use a bike rental service means planning ahead and bringing a helmet. If a person was planning ahead they would use their own bike.

    Helmets, bells, hand signals are BS attempts at making cycling safe. It blames the victims in the event of an accident. If you get badly injured by an SUV it's because you didn't have a helmet and didn't tell the driver you were stopping. It's not their fault

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I hear you, but it's different here so that isn't inevitable - our scooters have helmets clipped in so unless it's been nicked or something there's usually one there to use and (admittedly because our cycling infrastructure is, on par, outright dangerous) we have laws here that put the onus on drivers. For us, it is their fault - they're legally meant to stay 1.5 metres away from us on roads.

    I mean, the safety stuff is pretty essential here tbh, aforementioned infrastructure being what it is - I wouldn't trust Australian drivers (or even the road itself in some cases) with my safety, so I think we might be in different contexts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    I guess enforcing helmets and a saftey course is counter productive if you value the increase of people using bikes. I understand, this is something you're passionate about and it's better for the environment and overall health of the community.

    What I value more is not having children with lifelong brain damage. Adults can go ahead and make their own bad decisions. I don't agree that accessibility should be prioritized over saftey of children that have no road experience and underdeveloped risk assessment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I value more is not having children with lifelong brain damage

    First, you were talking about enforcing helmets as something that should apply to everyone, now you are talking about kids. Meaning, you just moved the goal posts.

    Second, and to go back to the point, if you are concerned about children's safety we need to have (a) proper bicycling infrastructure and (b) less and smaller cars. In the US, I'd venture there are more kids dying because they are being run over by those ridiculous trucks than because of bike accidents.

    Third, at least here in Germany the law is quite simple: kids until age 12 must ride on the sidewalk. That basically (a) forces them to go slow due to pedestrians and (b) avoids the whole issue of having to deal with traffic. Helmets are not mandatory, but absolutely normal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    First, my entire original comment was focused on kids. I'm sorry that I wasn't explicitly clear on that but no I'm not moving goalposts.

    Second, and to go back to the point, if you are concerned about children's safety we need to have (a) proper bicycling infrastructure and (b) less and smaller cars

    I agree! But that's a long term goal that would require a lot of politics, money, planning, construction, and most of all time to happen. It's not all or nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    If a bike blows a stop sign going 20 and I have stopped, scanned, and advanced, and they go over my hood, I sure fucking want to be exempt of guilt.

    For the rider's benefit they should be coached on traffic safety.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent