Was trying more for reducto ad absurdum. I didn't come up with the idea of having laws to separate runners from walkers, you did. I was just exploring the enforcement mechanism for such a suggestion.
Well I think the issue is that unlike the pavement, the roads are much more stringently regulated with sign posts, markings and lights.
For as long as cyclists have to cycle on the roads as we know them a cyclist should be required to demonstrate that they understand the signs and rules of the road. That could be by presenting their official drivers license, or, should they not have one, be required to take a theory test. I think that would be a sensible first step.
You could then imagine a practical test for hazard perception, efficient use of gearing and safe filtering through queues of traffic.
Naturally, people don't walk on the road, and pavements don't have the same kind of mandatory control flow unless they intersect with the road, and most children are taught how to cross the road from a young age.
I walk on the road all the time, having grown up in an area with plenty of rural roads without pavements.
I would get into a ton of shit should I visit anywhere that had jaywalking laws, though in the places they exist and are enforced, they presumably get by without a dedicated licensing and testing regime.
Dude, you're missing the point. You do not walk on the road the same way a cyclist cycles on the road. You do not walk up to T junctions, indicate with your arms and turn left. You neither come to a set of traffic lights in the same way. Cyclists have to do all these things.
And they are somehow managing to do so currently without licences.
One thing to consider is how much effect licensing has on car safety anyway. Mexico city has no test requirement at all, you just pay for permission to drive rather than sitting any test, while Peru has more road deaths per capita, despite needing a practical test, written test and medical certificate before you get behind the wheel.
