The proposal is that "The license would ensure that both drivers and cyclists are safe and accountable."

Let's see now. Currently motorists must be licensed. The might be accountable, but it can't reasonably be argued that they're safe.

If we spend a fortune to maintain a bicyclist licence bureaucracy, what will the result be? The only difference will be that ICBC will be able to more easily assign blame after the fact (in cases where cyclists are to blame). Things won't be safer. They certainly won't be won't be greener. No vote.

The fees from the licenses could be used for insurance coverage, with profits going to bike repair shops.

I wouldn't want to live in a city where 5 year olds can't ride bikes because they need a license. However, cyclists should indeed be more responsible when using the road.

Programs for the licensing of bicycles have generally been found to be more expensive to administer than the fees it brings in. But investing in further education for Cyclists and Motorists would be money well spent.

I was mowed down by a cyclist who did not stop at a 4-way interection. I recieved a broken arm, and 2 cracked ribs. After getting on his bike, he rode off, never to be seen. I had prescription expenses, and had to take time off work. If this guy had a license, he could be tracked down. I still see bikers going straight through the 4-way without stopping, but after this experience, I never assume that they're going to stop!

OK, so if we start reducing the number of cars on the road, where are we going to get the money to keep the roads and bike paths in tip top shape? Gasoline tax helps with the maintenance of roads and highways. If the future has a significant drop in cars on the road, where are we going to get the money from? I think the people who use the services need to pay for the maintenance including bikes.

As more and more bicycles hit the road each day, more problems arise that require some sort of attention.

I watch bicycles run red lights, cut off cars, ride 2 or 3 wide, and just generally do not care about the cars. Very much like our bus drivers... We need to start doing something about it now before it becomes a bigger problem.

A bike licence would ensure that those who are responsible riders will be able to keep riding on the same public roadways as everyone else. Those who are dangerous, should NOT be on the road at all.

More rules? Jesus Christ. Let’s reward those who are doing their part for the environment with more rules and regulations. While we're at it, let’s defy all logic and refuse an initiative to increase motorcycle/scooter access in high traffic areas which causes no inconvenience to anyone. And while we're at it, let's also refuse the e-bike initiative for toll e-bikes/scooters based on easily rectified liability issues. To succeed with a green initiative, the City needs to let go of its money grabbing mentality, and stop making rules to address every issue that arises.

It's always mind-blowing when a government/municipality defaults to increasing rules/regulations, or rejects an idea outright, when private insurance is easily affordable and accessible to cover the risk. And what happened to the idea of people being accountable for the risks they take? Rules won't make 100% of the people 100% safe all the time. Nor will rules make anyone any more accountable. Niether will a license.

Check out one of the hundreds of other cities that are light years ahead of us in this regard. We do not need any more rules.

Also, before imposing rules/licensing requirments, how about taking a look at the actual at-fault statistics for vehicle/cyclist collisions. The only good idea here is increasing driver awareness of cyclists.

Very true Bobbie... but there should be a way to identify them when running a red light and almost causing an accident. Automobiles and cyclists all need to obey the same rules when driving or riding on streets.

Here are a couple of articles on this issue:
http://singlespeedseattle.com/2010/07/19/bike-licensing
http://momentumplanet.com/articles/licensed-to-ride

Basically every time this has been suggested in a jurisdiction it has been rejected because it costs too much and has too little benefit.

If we are really concerned about safety and reduction in injuries we should look to jurisdictions that have lower injury rates than we do. And they don't require bicycle licenses.

Ahh, no, I don't think so.
We had driver licensing for about 100 years now and look at how many car drivers drive like they won their license out of a "Cracker Jack" box.

I agree 1000000% - Cyclists get away with cutting off cars and causing or almost causing accidents with no way to identify them except for that it was a cyclist with a helmet and a blue jacket.... WTF? Why am I responsible for irresponsible jerks?