You want to license cyclists, and now you're faulting pedestrians for not staying within their lines. Is this the way we all just get along? Automobiles, due to their size and speed, bring danger* to other users of public spaces. Bicycles, moving with greater force than pedestrians, can injure people in a collision. It is the primary responsibility of those who are operating the dangerous agent to ensure that they don't conflict with other users. Too often we look at it in the opposite way - I'm powerful and dangerous so it is up to you to stay well out of my way. Pedestrians, and cyclists, have a greater grasp of the immediate environment, because they're travelling in a way that is human scale. Drivers are hurtling along in an enclosed machine with blind spots, only seeing a small fraction of what is happening around them, especially when they're covertly operating a cellphone, or fiddling with the radio, or arguing with their kids in the backseat, or chatting with their passenger, or racing to pass the car in front of them or catch a yellow light. Pedestrians may seem to step out of nowhere, but the automobile is the party that has just arrived at 60kph.
Earlier in this thread you suggested that licensing cyclists is somehow a return to basics. To me, back to basics would mean acknowledging that one person in a car is of no greater importance than one person on a bike who is of no greater importance than someone on foot. No one gets preference because their choice of travel costs more money or moves faster or wins the fight in an accident. In it's most basic form this is represented in the chaotic streets of the third world, where automobiles need to pick their way past foot travelers, cyclists, rickshaws and donkeys. No one really wants that, but any kind of equitable share of the street would mean a big change from what we have now, where the car speaks loudest and everyone else is expected to scurry out of the way.
*and noise and pollution and congestion, but that's another matter