Bike fee 'not logical'

Re. Brian Kettle’s letter Bike licence fee needed (Castanet, Dec. 5)

It's not surprising to see the claim of licensing bicycles "like they have in other parts of Canada." But it is (not) logical.

The money being loaned to the (Penticton) bike lane project will not impact prices for end-users. If the reserve would be used to keep the price artificially low, that money would just be gone, poof, no more. Whereas, the money loaned to the bike lane project will be put back into the reserve so it can do the job it is meant to do in the future.

And no, bicycle licences do not exist in Canada (please correct me if I'm wrong.) The original purpose for them decades ago was to register a bike if it was stolen, police did not go around getting plate numbers to fine errant cyclists.

To try and justify them as a method of deterrence ignores all the complications that putting a plate on a bicycle would entail, i.e. how old? Does the plate move between bikes if you have more than one? How big does it have to be to be legible at a distance? How much to charge so the administration doesn't have to be subsidized?

The reason we have enforcement for people in cars is because of the responsibility given to a person operating a vehicle that so easily can inflict thousands of dollars of damage to property or injury and death to vulnerable road users.

How often do you hear of such carnage from a person on a bicycle?

While it might be difficult to perceive, most people on bikes do follow the rules. Research has shown that to be the case.

Our perceptions make us take notice of all the people who do break the rules and by doing that, we end up getting the idea that all in a group do it.

The bike lane is meant to give people more choices and lower the bar to riding a bike when it fits their purposes.

Requiring a fee would just push people to stay in their cars, not reduce traffic and not benefit the health of those who choose to do it.

Landon Bradshaw, Kelowna