Thanks For The Hat

June 10, 2016

I’m not going to bore any of us with the sad, ridiculous, anger-making madness that was yesterday’s city council debate over Toronto’s 10 year bike plan. killmenowRehashing tired arguments, already overwhelmingly dispelled and dust-binned pretty much everywhere else in the civilized world. Airing grievances from those who see Toronto as a special, unique snowflake, a delicate, hothouse, exotic flower, deathly susceptible to any sort of winds of change.

Bike lanes will decimate business. No, they won’t. They haven’t anywhere else where a biking network has been properly installed and maintained. But Toronto’s a winter city. Nobody rides a bicycle in the winter. Tell that to New York, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Montreal, Copenhagen, Amsterdam. But we’re not Copenhagen or Amsterdam. Did you not hear me mention New York, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Montreal? But it’s too expensive. We don’t have the money. Except for $400 million for the Gardiner East rebuild. And how many billions on a one-stop subway?

Thursday’s performance provided proof positive once again that too many of our elected local officials cannot imagine a future that isn’t just like the past. Or, in Councillor Norm Kelly’s case, one old man believing the future, the real future, is right around the corner. Why bother building terrestrial based transportation infrastructure when in 20 years we’ll all be hovering back and forth between destinations?! chickenlittleThe former deputy mayor of this city has obviously been talking to certain Russian scientists again.

That said, reason, albeit a battered and bruised version of reason, emerged from its mauling victorious. The staff recommended 10 year bike plan, slightly amended worse for wear, would go ahead. Huzzah! It’s a start, supporters claimed. A start from way back, almost so far back you couldn’t even see the pole position. Still, a start. Toronto would be spending — if my math is right here but it is in the neighbourhood – about 70% less in a decade than Oslo, Norway is spending on bike infrastructure in a year. A year, folks! Oslo, Norway! A city that once hosted the winter Olympics.

(Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. It won! Toronto now has a 10 year bike plan with some money to actually back it up. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.)

There are two thoughts I would like to further explore here, lines of attack trotted out by the most vehement of status quo supporters. Licensing and “psycho cyclists”. notthisagainYeah, I think Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti thought he was the first one ever to come up with that variation of a play on words.

Licensing of bikes and/or cyclists has never worked where it’s been tried either as some sort of safety measure or as a way of paying for cycling infrastructure. It costs too much to implement and operate, becoming the kind of red tape politicians like Councillor Mammoliti deplore in other situations. Besides, cyclists pay for the infrastructure they use, and use in a much less onerous manner than drivers do with roads, through the property taxes they pay, and every cyclist, renting or owning a residence in Toronto pays property taxes. Many cyclists also drive on occasion, and will further contribute to transportation infrastructure costs when they pay gas taxes.

Licensing cyclists makes no sense.

As for the scourge of the “psycho cyclist”? Yeah, well. Given the daily, hourly carnage on our roads done by those behind the wheel of motorized vehicles, and the pathological disregard for the rules designed exclusively for their mobility, railing about wayward cyclists is… there’s not even a word in English robust enough to describe that kind of hypocrisy. The Germans, I’m sure have a word for it, and I imagine it isn’t very pretty. crazycyclistThe kill-rate and injuries inflicted on others by those on bicycle is so infinitesimally small as to be barely worth mentioning. Anecdotes, really. Remember that time when that person on the sidewalk…

From a 2012 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey, the 6 Most Frequent Sources of Pedestrian Injury were: “Tripped on uneven/cracked sidewalk” 24%, “Tripped/fell” 17%, “Hit by a car” 12%, “Wildlife/pets involved” 6%, “Tripped on stone” 5%, “Stepped in a Hole” 5%.

Aside from the obvious need to repair pedestrian infrastructure and the general clumsiness and inability to safely walk their dogs of the pedestrian population, what jumps out at me from that list is the absence of cyclists. Apparently, they’re not quite the menace anti-cycling activists try to make them out to be. Oh, there was that time I was walking across the parking lot and that guy on the bike nearly clipped me. I saw that cyclist riding the wrong way down the street. He could’ve killed someone. (Are you sure it wasn’t a counter-flow lane?)

This is not to say there aren’t asshole people riding bikes in this city. They just ruffle feathers, get under peoples’ skin and, no doubt, at times inconvenience other street users. livestockonbikesThat’s a long way from the killing and injuring inflicted by asshole car drivers.

Here’s where I diverge from some of my cycling allies. While not condoning bad cycling behaviour, I most certainly understand it. Hell, I even engage in it from time to time. Because I’m a rebel and scofflaw? No. Because most of the streets I use have been built, designed and are operated almost exclusively for the movement of motorized vehicles, motorized private vehicles, no less. Pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders are all after-thoughts.

Here’s a personal example.

I’m out for a run yesterday, heading west, nearing the intersection of Ossington and Argyle, just that side of Trinity Bellwoods Park. You know it. It’s got that pho place on the south-east corner.

I see that the soutbound pedestrian signal on Ossington is counting down to zero, meaning the light will change in my favour and I can continue running without stopping. Sometimes runs just break like that. waitingataredlightThere’s, I don’t know, 5 or 6 pedestrian waiting to also cross the street, and that many people on bikes too.

Except that there are no cars on Argyle waiting to cross Ossington. So that southbound pedestrian signal hits zero and turns back white, meaning the north-south traffic signal didn’t change. Apparently none of the pedestrians or cyclists pushed the button to announce their presence at the intersection, so by all traffic control measures, none of them exist. Even when I do stop to press the button, I’m not immediately acknowledged. We’ll all have to wait until the full cycle is complete.

This, on a street that HAS A FUCKING PAINTED BIKE LANE ON IT! This, when there’s no north-south car traffic in sight along Ossington. So a bunch of pedestrians and cyclists wait for non-existent cars before they are expected to cross a road with the light.

I don’t wait. I continue my run through a red light. Other pedestrians and cyclist make their way across too.

Until we start to design and rebuild our streets and roads more equitably, stop forcing non-drivers to play only by driving rules, deathrace2000there’s going to be law-breaking, tension, and continued lethal competition between the various modes of mobility, with drivers almost always coming out on top and fending off any attempts to level the playing field. Yesterday’s approval of the 10 year bike plan is a start in the right direction. A grudging, tiny, tiny start. But it’s Friday. I will force myself to be content with that.

impatiently submitted by Cityslikr


Bike Lanes On Bloor

April 28, 2016

I imagine you’ve heard about the proposed pilot project to put bike lanes along a 2.5 kilometres stretch of Bloor Street west. If you haven’t, what the hell’s a matter with you? PAY ATTENTION!

hardofhearing1

If you have, you’re probably surprised we here at All Fired Up in the Big Smoke haven’t said anything about it in these virtual “pages” so far. We haven’t written anything about it, have we? I’m pretty sure, no.

Actually, we did write something after Monday’s Public Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting where the item was debated. Only not here but over there, at Torontoist. Yeah, we had some things to say. Man, did we have some things to say. You really need to click on the link and read it. Seriously. Do it. Now. What are you waiting for? Click on the link already!

gothatway

torontoistly submitted by Cityslikr


At The End Of The Day…

January 13, 2016

Here’s what I know.

In November 2012, there was a collision between a minivan and a cyclist. The cyclists died. landsdownedavenportThe driver of the minivan fled the scene and did not turn himself in for nearly 2 days.

Yesterday, that driver was sentenced to 6 months in jail and a two year ban from driving. But since he’d already spent 3 months under house arrest and curfew, he’d only have to go to jail for 3 months which he could serve on weekends, 15 of them probably. The cyclist remains dead.

How you react to that news, I think, pretty much reflects your view of the hierarchy of getting around the city, the unwritten rules of the road. For me, this decision comes from the point of view that “accidents” happen, injuries and fatalities just come with the territory. People are fallible. Mistakes occur. There’s always more than enough blame to go around. No need to pin it all on one person.

So, this driver doesn’t get convicted of anything to do with the collision other than the fact he fled the scene — groundedleaving another person to die on the street — and didn’t step up to accept responsibility for 40 hours. That alone seems to make this an unseemly light sentence. House arrest, curfew, weekend stints in jail. Sentenced? More like grounded.

As for what exactly happened, we’ll never know, I guess. Just another “accident”, right? These things happen. Unfortunate tragedy. What are you going to do?

That the police initially, and erroneously as it turned out, said that the cyclist had pedaled through a red light, pretty much evened the playing field. Sure, the driver fled the scene after the collision but, come on, running a red light? The cyclist got what was coming to him.

Turns out the man’s family didn’t accept that scenario and hired a lawyer “to examine the evidence” who, after some digging, determined that the cyclist was stationary or moving very slowly which doesn’t sound like the actions of someone gunning through a red light. Why did the investigation simply end there? Why, in the words of the judge delivering up the sentence, was consideration not given to whether the hit-and-run driver caused the cyclist’s death? crushedbikeA man, essentially sitting still on his bike, gets struck by a car to such an extent that the damage leaves no doubt the driver knew he had hit the cyclists, and no consideration is given to whether that collision caused the man’s death? The driver is charged, convicted and sentenced “for failing to stop at the scene of an accident causing death”, an accident the driver appears to be largely responsible for not one he was simply some passer-by at.

He’s going to jail for not remaining at the scene of an “accident” he, in the eyes of the law, it seems, had no part of.

And why is he going to jail only on weekends? In order to not, I don’t know, disrupt his life too much? So he can keep his job and go back to normal when he’s done his time. He killed somebody while behind the wheel of his minivan. Why does he get to go back to normal with a minor inconvenience to his social life for a few months?

This isn’t retribution I’m talking about here. chalkoutlinebikeI don’t mean to diminish any loss of freedom or the impact spending time inside a jail cell even on weekends. I don’t even know if I think drivers who are “accidentally” responsible for the deaths of other road users should go to jail. I’m not strident enough on this issue to be unable to distinguish between that and a willful disregard for the safety of others through speeding, impaired driving and whatever forms of reckless driving take your fancy.

It is beyond me, though, why this particular driver would ever be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car again. After displaying such wanton indifference and disdain in his operation of a motor vehicle, why is he banned from driving for just 2 years? What sort of right to drive are we granting people that they can strike and kill a cyclist, flee the scene in panic and/or to get their story straight and still expect to drive again after a couple years? That’s the kind of behaviour, frankly, that red flags someone’s fitness to handle the responsibility of a machine capable of inflicting death and mayhem.

And what kind of signal does such lenience send out to everyone else?ghostbike

Try to be careful, drivers. Be aware of more vulnerable users of the road. Do your best not to run over them and kill them. Even if you do – Hey! Accidents Will Happen! – we’ll bend over backwards to accommodate you. The presumption of innocence combined with the dead telling no tales.

Outcomes like this let everyone know exactly who the kings of the roads are. It’s the same sentiment expressed by the noted road warrior, then councillor, then former mayor, now again councillor, Rob Ford, when he stood up and railed against installing bike lanes. He was mocked for it but, judging from this news, it’s impossible not to acknowledge he was telling the truth.

astoundedly submitted by Cityslikr


Car Troubles

December 2, 2015

Last week, Toronto writer, Shawn Micallef, fired off the following tweets:

It’s been a bad few years for pedestrians in Toronto, deaths up 90% over the past 4 years, 34 so far this year (and counting), compared to 18 in 2011. speedingcarsAs Jessica Smith Cross wrote in Metro over the weekend, that accounts for 59% of road deaths in Toronto this year. In the first 10 months of 2015, over 1500 pedestrians have been struck by cars.

And the official response from those tasked with the oversight of street safety, the Toronto Police? Do The Bright Thing. “We have to put ourselves in the position to be seen,” Constable Hugh Smith informs us.

How twisted is that? Those most vulnerable, the ones not behind the wheel of a heavy vehicle, sanctioned to go lethal limits of speed, those of us with the least control, are held responsible to make sure we don’t get run over. Because, you know, drivers have places to go, people to meet.

So even when we are full in our rights, crossing a street legally, as Micallef pointed out, we have to check and re-check around us to make sure somebody’s not rushing to make it through that light or checking their phone or just simply zoned out, unburdened of any consequence of their inattention. overthespeedlimitHow many of us pedestrians have had to stop up short in an intersection out of fear that driver may not have judged his stopping distance correctly? Who amongst us pedestrians haven’t had cars blow through a well-lit crosswalk or open streetcar doors?

Why just yesterday, in fact, I had to pick up my pace crossing a street at a green light as some fucking jag off making a left turn, committed to going despite me being in his way in order to avoid a collision with oncoming traffic. A collision, no doubt, that would’ve harmed me, the literal innocent bystander, more than any of the occupants of the cars involved. And in the end, invariably written up as an “accident”. An unfortunate “accident” but an “accident” nonetheless. Harm but no foul.

Drivers go about their driving business with relative impunity. Even the most egregious transgressions, like impaired driving or vehicular manslaughter, are rarely met with the severest of punishments. intheintersectionJail, sometimes, but usually not for very long. How many people do you know who’ve ever had their licence revoked permanently?

Is that too much to demand from someone who’s got into a driver’s seat drunk and killed somebody as a result? Never mind incarceration. Should they ever be allowed to drive again?

Or how about those driving at dangerously high speeds, just one little unforeseen glitch away from losing complete control of their vehicle? They do so knowingly, not only at the risk of their own lives but everyone who just might be in their path. Another tragic “accident”.

How much over the speed limit is too much? 20 kilometres an hour? 40? 50? At what point do we say, you know what? Maybe you shouldn’t be driving a car?

We know a car travelling at 30 km/h puts the odds of a pedestrian dying if struck down at about 5%. At 50 km/h? 37-45%. 64 km/h? 83-85%.pedestriandown

We know this and yet, as Mr, Micallef pointed out, cars whipping down Jarvis Street are regularly travelling at 10-20 kilometres over the legally posted limited of 50 kp/h. That puts them right smack dab in the high probability kill zone if they hit a pedestrian or mow down a cyclist. Even without the possibility of casualties, racing cars make for an unappealing environment for anyone else not driving in the area.

We know all this and still, not only do we put up with it, we accommodate it with wider lanes to compensate for driver error, tearing up bike lanes which, according to Janette Sadik-Khan, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Transportation under then-mayor Michael Bloomberg, slow traffic down and greatly reduce the rate of road fatalities. pedestriandown1New York has recently experienced the fewest traffic deaths in a 100 years! But here in Toronto, whatevs. Mom’s got to get home a few minutes quicker to have supper with the kids.

My intention is not to demonize drivers here. I’m demonizing the system that continues to coddle them, entitle them, under-charge them and very, very, rarely penalizes them appropriately for the life-altering and often life-ending choices they make (largely for others) when they are behind the wheel of their vehicles. The political and societal clout the cult of the automobile is far greater than any good it delivers, often falling short by orders of magnitude.

Others cities throughout the world have recognized this and are attempting to reorder the hierarchy of their transportation system. Not just European cities. Cities we here in Toronto look to in terms of inspiration. New York City, for example. De-escalating our car dependency can’t be written off as simply some lifestyle choice. deathrace2000It is now nothing short of an absolute necessity.

Unless Toronto’s car-bound leadership recognizes that fact, we will jeopardize whatever competitive advantages we have as an international city. We have to stop pretending that somehow Toronto’s different than other places. We aren’t. We built this city on the belief that prioritizing car travel was the future. It wasn’t or, at least, that future didn’t last. It is our duty to now fix that mistaken but hard to shake belief.

demandingly submitted by Cityslikr


De-Pave Paradise And Tear Down That Parking Lot

September 14, 2015

guestcommentary

(A post-concussion follow-up to yesterday’s post from All Fired Up in the Big Smoke’s Los Angeles correspondent, Ned Teitelbaum. Another in our series, To Live and Drive In L.A., The Battle for Road Space edition.)

***

Still emerging from the fog of my concussion, the city starts to come back into focus.

I see how the City Council passed the Mobility Plan 2035 by a broad margin, with all but two of our city council members voting in favor of it. rowenaavelaThe plan is a series of goals that includes such boiler-plate objectives as expanding bicycle ridership and providing frequent, reliable on-time bus arrivals. It looks great on paper. But implementing it without pissing off drivers? Well, that’s another matter.

Take Rowena Avenue, for example, in our Mayor’s own Silver Lake district. The street was one of the first to be put on a road diet two years ago, and there has been nothing but controversy since. Traffic is backed up, and nobody seems to be using the bike lanes. Drivers are frustrated, and frustrated drivers go where frustrated drivers go, namely onto our residential side streets. But the change looks likely to remain since it helps the city move toward its Vision Zero Initiative of reaching zero traffic deaths by 2035.

Bravo, I say.

But the acrimony over the Rowena fight has now wafted over to the Hyperion Bridge fight next door. hyperionbridgelaThere, another re-striping war has been engaged. Once again, activists want to reduce the car lanes, this time from four to three, with the extra space going to both sides of the bridge for walkers and cyclists. A template of a letter that people can e-mail to their City Council representatives was put out by the advocacy group LA Walks and urges the city to back this plan so people can enjoy “the bridge’s beautiful and historic belvederes,” from both sides. And indeed, one major difference between Rowena and the Hyperion Bridge is the latter’s almost irresistible invitation to stop and gaze, to take up the river breeze and just breathe. The letter asks, “Why do we want to prevent people from enjoying one of the city’s best views of what will soon be a revitalized LA River?”

No arguments from me. But the Board of Public Works has already balked once at the idea, and even the Mayor’s own rep at the time of the vote, Matt Szabo, refused to back the plan. Said Szabo, referencing the Rowena traffic clog, “I can’t in good conscience vote for anything that would compound that situation.”

toliveanddieinLA

Perhaps Mr. Szabo should take another look. Yesterday, I was on Rowena, and I noticed a distinctly calmer traffic flow. I even spotted a cyclist. I said ‘Hi’ but I don’t think he heard me.

sunshine hazily submitted by Ned Teitelbaum


Blessed Be The Bicyclists

August 15, 2014

I know you think this post is about me, don’t you, don’t you..

carlysimon

But it’s not. At least, not directly. My relationship to biking is in another place. A certain fatalism where I am now convinced I will end my days, knocked from my bike and crushed under the wheels of a passing streetcar. A bloodied, broken pulpy mess of irony. And I’m almost certain I’m using the term correctly. I love bikes. I love streetcars. Yet both conspired to kill me.

This scenario isn’t as morose as it might seem to some if you compare it to how I previously thought I was going to die, aneurysming out while doing my business on the toilet. There’s no glory in that, no becoming a martyr to a greater cause. bikeintraffice1Only… only… me and Elvis.

No, this one’s about the two cyclists I encountered a couple days ago, waiting to turn right onto Queen Street at the t-junction of McCaul Street. I pulled up in a row behind them. Queen Street was jammed full of slow moving cars. Clearly there must be some serious stoppage beyond my view. So I waited too.

Until I saw a guy on a bike blow past us going westbound without so much as slowing down.

So I slipped slowly around the two in front of me for a closer look. To my eyes, my already dead biking eyes, there was a clear path for cycling ahead. Between a long row of parked cars on the right and a line of gridlocked ones with increasingly jittery and impatient drivers behind the wheel to my left. Par for the course, I thought as I headed into the traffic, leaving the other two cyclists to figure out the path they’d eventually decide to take.bikeintraffic

As I made my way through the traffic, it occurred to me that these two noble spirits were probably just intimidated or scared. Who, in the right mind, wouldn’t be? This kind of cycling was something of a death defying stunt where one mistake, one moment of distraction or simple misjudgement could you send you off your bike, flying into the path of an oncoming car. Granted, at this particular moment, the end result of that would be some cuts and bruises. Nothing was moving fast enough to inflict a fatal injury.

Still, here were these two cyclists, arriving in a spot where pressing on seemed like they might be taking their lives into their hands (but our hearts would bleed for them). The only other alternative would be to turn around, retrace their route, searching for a safer passage. That isn’t a viable mode of urban transit. It’s 16th-century style exploration.

Build it (and maintain it throughout the year) and they will come.

If people aren’t convinced that there’s a safe, easy way to get around the city by bike, they simply won’t try. For them, biking will remain a recreational pursuit, left for the times they can get off-road. bikeintraffic2The number of cyclists doesn’t justify the money we put into biking infrastructure! No. No, the biking infrastructure doesn’t justify the number of cyclists. Frankly, Toronto has more people getting around the city on bike than it’s earned. Supply is lagging behind demand.

In most places governed by reasoned arguments and rationality, this argument’s over. Biking can be a strong pillar of a functioning transportation system. It’s a low cost way to get people out of their cars and off public transit, providing relief to both modes of transit.

But in order for that to happen, a city must invest in building a real bike network. A connected system of bike lanes that offer the opportunity to get around quickly and safely. Really induce demand, in traffic planning parlance, to accommodate the numbers that will inevitably appear to happily take up the space offered.

Build it (and maintain it throughout the year) and they will come.

Until such time here in Toronto, I salute you, you intrepid two-wheeled sojourners who’ve yet come to terms with your inevitable cycling deaths but still venture out there, creating a culture of cycling for others to follow. jacquescartierYou are trailblazers and map makers, my friends. History will look upon you approvingly.

I would be remiss not to throw out props to that driver in some sort of white SUV who, further west along Queen Street, where the construction began, gave me ample room in front of him to take the left lane for a few blocks as the street narrowed. He understood. I waved in appreciation as he eventually drove past me. We’re all in this together, equally.

applaudingly submitted by Cityslikr


For Hamish and Jared and Janet and…

May 15, 2014

If cycling advocates can’t agree on the best way forward on building a better bike network throughout the city, disagreehow exactly does one get built?

Some believe that protected and completely separate bike lanes, installed where conditions warrant, will encourage more riders, many too fearful for their lives (somewhat correctly) to mingle directly with car traffic, to take up cycling. Ridership grows. A network grows. Others contend that just starting out with brightly coloured lines that seamlessly connect easy routes from east to west, north to south will increase ridership that will ultimately justify further spending to build a more permanent cycling infrastructure of protected and separate bike lanes.

Two opposite approaches aiming for the same ultimate goal. The elevation of cycling to equal consideration as part of the city’s transportation grid.

Into the void of tactical disagreement, let’s call it, step the decision makers, bikinghippiessome who don’t believe cycling has any place within our transportation system, who can’t comprehend how more people on bikes, getting around the city, could possibly help alleviate Toronto’s congestion. For them, cycling is a diversion, a pastime not used by serious people intent on going about their business in any sort of serious way. It’s something done by elitists or hippies, physical fitness nuts. Real commuters don’t commute on bikes.

Our current mayor is one of those types. Bikes have no place on the roads, he once famously said, comparing it to swimming with the sharks. At the end of the day, yaddie, yaddie, yaddie.

So, in many ways, it’s kind of remarkable that 4 years into his term, the streets of this city remain as full of cyclists as they do. sherbournebikelaneDMWI know it’s cold comfort to say but the situation could’ve been so much worse. Things have ground to a crawl but haven’t been irretrievably reversed.

That fact is even more remarkable given the person sitting in the Public Works and Infrastructure chair, the committee that oversees road construction and design, is Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong. He is no slouch when it comes to car-centricity. Why, just yesterday in fact, during a PWIC meeting, he wanted to make sure there was a representative from the CAA present when going forward with school zone safety measures. Why? Well, because drivers of cars that “allegedly” hit pedestrians need to have their voices heard too.

Or something.

*shrug*

Yes, under PWIC chair Minnan-Wong, the bike lanes of Jarvis Street were torn up and moved a couple blocks east to Sherbourne where, ostensibly, “better”, “protected” and “separated” lanes were built. The more I ride them, the more ridiculous they seem, having to share the space with public transit sherbournebikelane(which they didn’t have to do on Jarvis) and almost never are they fully protected or separate. Cars and delivery trucks easily and regularly breach the porous barriers.

I will set aside my normally disparaging opinion of the councillor and refuse to accept the possibility that he simply threw cycling advocates a few small bones purposely to hear their cries of outrage in order to throw up his hands and claim that these people are never happy. There’s never any pleasing them. They want the entire road or nothing.

Instead, I choose to believe that he did the best he could, given the circumstances at hand and his inherent lack of understanding toward anyone who might willingly decide not to get around town in any way other than by car. He did not kill cycling in this city. He merely succeeded in frustrating it.

Of bigger concern is the next four years. What direction the incoming administration will go in terms of biking. emptypromiseSo far, there’s little to get excited about and much to be fearful of.

Mayoral candidate John Tory had this to say to Global News’ Jackson Proskow about the PWIC’s decision to approve a pilot project for bike lanes along Richmond and Adelaide Streets:

“My priority from day 1 as mayor is going to be to make sure we keep traffic moving in this city, and I am in favour of making opportunities available for cyclists to get around the city too because that will help, in its own way, to get traffic moving too. But I want to look at the results of discussions that are going on today and other days and make sure that whatever we do we are not putting additional obstructions in the way of people getting around in this city, because traffic is at a stand-still at the moment and that’s costing us jobs, it’s hurting the environment, it’s not good for Toronto.”

There is so much wrong and mealy-mouthed about that statement that it’s impossible to imagine the person saying it actually lives in this city let alone thinks they can lead it. Bikes in no way constitute traffic. The idea that more people riding bikes, especially in the downtown core, means less people driving cars (or using public transit) seems incomprehensible to someone like John Tory. Bikes are nothing more than ‘additional obstructions’ for people – people being car drivers – ‘getting around in this city’.

“I am in favour of making opportunities available for cyclists.” John Tory might’ve well said roads are meant for buses, cars and trucks. littlewinsThere’s not much daylight between the two sentiments.

It isn’t going to get any easier going forward. Cyclists and those fighting for them at City Hall have to accept the little victories, the pilot projects, as serious steps forward. The status quo never gives way easily, and the status quo in Toronto remains tilted in favour of cars. Two generations of bias don’t change overnight. Or in a day. Or in a week. Month. Year. Decade….

hopefully submitted by Cityslikr