RSS Feed

Category Archives: Bikes

Dear Council, I’m confused

Posted on

In listening to the infuriating debate in City Council today, I have a number of questions related to the debate.  If only they’d answer me.

1. Councillors arguing in favour of removing Jarvis lanes have said that bike lanes were never in the plan. They argue that the original plan was about increasing the pedestrian streetscape. And yet they want the bike lanes removed in order to restore the 5th lane of traffic which also is contrary to the original plan of returning Jarvis street to a pedestrian-friendly cultural corridor.

Contradiction much? If you agree that the street should be better for pedestrians, surely it is better to have 1 less lane of traffic than it is to have a highway that allows for high-speed vehicle travel.

2. Many councillors agree that cycling downtown is “dangerous” and that is why they support the separated bike lanes. Councillor Minnan-Wong said that “a painted line doesn’t make it safer.” So doesn’t it follow that the reason cycling is dangerous is BECAUSE of cars, not because of a lack of separated lanes? And as such, there should be fewer cars on the streets to keep cyclists safer?

Biking for Life: A Profile

Posted on

“Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever.”

– Lance Armstrong

Long-distance cycling is not for the faint of heart. It takes training, endurance and drive.

Every July, more than 400 cyclists prove they have what it takes when they participate in the Friends for Life Bike Rally – a 660km trek from Toronto to Montreal in support of the Toronto People with Aids Foundation (PWA). Last year, Todd Tyrtle was one of them.

Tyrtle, a 39 year old cyclist and cycling advocate from Toronto, completed the trip for the first time on his foldable Dahon Cadenza bike. Tyrtle hadn’t undertaken a ride like this before — he had the desire and sense of adventure for a long distance bike trip but nowhere to focus his energy. Once he discovered the rally existed, he was sold.

“I realized that to do a long ride and not help someone would almost be selfish.  Here I was with the interest in a long ride, the bike to do it, and if not the physical condition to do it right then, the ability to get into that condition.”

Though he refers to himself as a “year round cyclist”, Tyrtle began serious training for the rally in December 2009. He attended spin classes three to four days a week, and after the weather warmed up, biked the 40km round trip to work every day. Beginning in April, he participated in weekend training rides organized and run by rally volunteers.

That’s not all the bike rally volunteers offered in advance of the ride.  Seminars on fundraising, proper riding gear, physical strength preparation, nutrition counselling and bike repair were offered to participants to ensure they were able to complete the journey.

The fundraising seminar is particularly important because each rider must raise at least $2,200 in order to participate – a task Tyrtle originally considered off-putting despite raising $2600 by race day: “this was the most daunting thing for me and what kept me from doing it for several years. As it turned out, while it took a fair bit of effort to raise the minimum $2,200, it was not as difficult as I thought it would be.”

Though the fundraising goal is much higher for this event than other charity cycling events such as the Ride for Heart, so too is the physical effort, time commitment and dedication required by participants.

The money goes to the Toronto People with Aids Foundation, the largest direct service provider in Canada for people living with HIV/AIDS.  The organization provides meal delivery service for people who cannot shop and prepare their own food, financial assistance for medical and supplemental therapies, counselling that offers crucial information about accessing treatment, and food bank services that address the special dietary requirements of HIV positive Canadians.

But a five-day bike trip across provincial lines would make even the most benevolent person nervous.

When I asked Tyrtle if he would recommend the rally to a less experienced cyclist, he responded with a confident “Absolutely, and without hesitation.”

Unlike cycling in Toronto, the route to Montreal is mostly on rural roads where drivers allow cyclists more space.  In high-traffic areas, the group was funnelled into a dedicated lane to ensure their safety, and once they arrived in Montreal they were given a police escort.

After 12 years of running the event, the bike rally volunteers and organizers have figured things out.  “Road safety” vans escort riders along the route, and volunteers in a variety of lively costumes are always present to ensure cyclists stayed the course.

If safety isn’t enough, other perks include three meals a day plus snacks along the route, skilled mechanics to care for bikes, and massage therapists and chiropractors available at camp to comfort sore muscles and spines.

Tyrtle described the ride as an “overwhelmingly positive” experience because of the organization, the people, and in one case, the fans: “At one point, on the last day of the ride, a group of us stopped in to a McDonald’s for a snack.  When we went in, a woman came up to me and said she’d seen all of us riding earlier in the day and wondered what we were doing. . . A few minutes later, though, she came back and tracked me down to give a donation.”

If you’re thinking of giving it a shot but not sure you’re up for the distance, you’ve got plenty of time to train. Says Tyrtle: “I think the most important is that if you’re considering it, just do it. You might not be in shape to do it today but you would be shocked at how quickly you can. We were not a ride filled with road warriors but of regular people from age 18-71 of varying degrees of fitness.”

Motivated by his experience, Tyrtle immediately signed up for the 2011 rally and has pledged to ride as far as Halifax on his own if he meets his fundraising goal of $6000. I asked him if he was simply a glutton for punishment and he told me this:

When I arrived in Montreal part of me was, of course, thrilled to have made it.  But there was a large part of me that felt as if I’d only just started.  I’d only just figured out the routine for setting up and taking down camp, to riding every day. . . [I have] the ability and desire to go further and if I can use that to help [People with Aids] more this year than last, I’m going to do it.

A Letter to Jan Wong

Posted on

Re: “Get off the Road” by Jan Wong (September 2010)

Share the Road Sign by Hey Paul on flickr

Who decided that roads were only for fast-moving cars? Roads are connections between people and neighbourhoods. They’re public spaces.

It’s only fitting that roads be used for cultural events, fundraisers, or street parties – even if it slows people down. Engaging with each other in the streets fosters community.

Street festivals also bring in revenue and showcase the city to tourists. Pride week is estimated to bring in $100 million to the local economy. Caribana infuses more than $400 million into Ontario.

Supporting that doesn’t make me meek, or a caricature of a Canadian. It makes me proud that I love my city enough to want people to experience it, not drive right through.

Get over yourself, Jan. Take the subway, ride a bike, walk, or simply stay home and weed your own lawn. But don’t tell me that only drivers have a right to use our city.

This letter appeared in the November 2010 issue of Toronto Life Magazine.

The Candidates go for a ride

Posted on

“People are people and sometimes we change our minds”  -  Taylor Swift

If you’re Rocco Rossi, you change your mind anytime you smell the opportunity for a vote.

This morning, eight mayoral candidates, (including Rossi, but not including Ford or Smitherman) took a ride around town on two wheels.

Toronto Cyclist's Union Candidates' Ride

Toronto Cyclist's Union Candidates' Ride (photo from TCU)

The press release from the Toronto Cyclists’ Union  was positive: “The 30 minute ride, which stayed within the downtown core, allowed candidates to experience almost the full range of scenarios faced on a daily urban commute by bicycle.”

Except it didn’t.  Not even close.  The candidates were riding in a large group escorted by police– hardly representative of what I go through on my way to work every day.

After the ride, Rossi held a press conference and announced that he is suddenly in favour of physically separated bike lanes on arterial roads!

Rob Ford’s a buffoon. But he’s a sincere buffoon.  He hates cyclists, spending, services and parties.  At least I know where he stands.  I thought I knew where Rossi stood.

When he first announced his candidacy, Rossi had a list of campaign promises clearly defined.  Sure, they went against everything I believe in, but he put ‘em out there for the world to see.  And though I loathed him, a part of me respected him for telling it like it is (in Rossi land).

Rossi now appears desperate. He was endlessly mocked last week for proposing a giant tunnel to downtown, and tried to convert Rob Ford supporters by echoing plans to cut council in half and clean up city hall.  He’s in last place (of the big 5) and has been left to grasp at straws.

BlogTO alternate Rossi Ad  http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/09/create_your_own_rocco_rossi_spoof_ad/

BlogTO alternate Rossi Ad

Rocco Rossi isn’t a leader.  He’s a panderer. I hate panderers.

I hated it when so many of the candidates were desperately seeking suburban car votes, and I hate it now.

Flip-flopping is one thing.  But this is a vote grab — and proof that Rossi doesn’t get it.

He didn’t come out and say he’d made a mistake, or even admit that his threats to paint over the Jarvis bike lanes were unfair and stupid (there’s no gridlock). Either Rossi didn’t believe what he said in the beginning, or he doesn’t believe what he’s saying now.

No dice, Mr. Rossi.  You don’t deserve the cyclist vote. I want safe cycling infrastructure and good policy.  But mostly I want a mayor who can lead.  If you can’t do that, you might as well just be another angry, bald man yelling on the street corner.

The Great Helmet Debate

Posted on

 

Courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/50826080@N00/3995708733/

Courtesy of SFB579 on flickr

The great helmet debate just won’t end.

When a 40-year old Toronto cyclist died last week after falling from his bike and hitting his head, people noticed – at least they noticed he wasn’t wearing a helmet. And so began the most recent battle of “should we” or “shouldn’t we” legislate helmets for adult cyclists.

The local media outlets covered the story. Toronto Police Services issued a press release. Opinions ran wild in the Twitterverse, the loudest screaming “personal choice.”

A CBC Metro Morning debate occurring days later between Yvonne Bambrick, communications director of the Toronto Cyclists’ Union (TCU), and Sgt. Tim Burrows of Traffic Services, made it clear that “choice” is the lynchpin of this argument.

The official position of the TCU is that it “supports and encourages helmet use, but [it] also supports the current laws that allow adults to make that choice.”

The same day, the cycling website BikingToronto.com hosted a forum on helmet use. Site founder Joe Travers had this to say “Helmets save lives, as do safe infrastructure & higher numbers of cyclists. I personally wear one, but don’t fault people who don’t.”

That’s where I get lost.

Lots of things in life should be based on personal choice: who we love, where we live, Team Edward or Team Jacob. But choosing safety is not something we, as a society, have allowed individuals to do for a long time.

Employers are required to abide by WSIB rules to protect workers. We have Canadian Aviation Regulations for flight, and the Highway Traffic Act to rule the road.  We have life jackets in boats, seatbelts in cars, and motorcyclists and e-bike riders (who reach a maximum speed of only 35kmph) must wear helmets.

We are a regulated society and we’ve collectively given the government permission to make these rules. So why are we letting cyclists off the hook?

Maybe it’s because cyclists aren’t taken seriously enough. Maybe it’s because, despite the evidence, not everyone believes that helmets protect cyclists.  But I think it is because people are so busy arguing that helmets aren’t the cure to cycling fatalities that few prominent advocates are willing to stand up and say that helmets are a step in the right direction.

Any advocacy is good for cyclists.  But refusing to actively encourage safety equipment, particularly for inexperienced cyclists, in the name of “choice” is just dumb.

Helmets work. They’re not perfect, but they work.  In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, it was found that “riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury … and an 88 percent reduction in their risk of brain injury.”

They’re easy, and other than ruining your hairdo, helmets don’t cause harm.

Some people criticize helmets because they won’t do enough if a cyclist is hit by a car, or because they may give some cyclists and drivers a false sense of security.  But I’ve yet to hear anyone tell me that having an extra layer between one’s head and the sidewalk in the event of a fall is not a good idea.

Arguments against legislation often assume helmet laws will deter cycling in the city and, as Bambrick puts it, “make cycling look less safe than it is,” but I don’t buy it.  The automobile industry survived seatbelts and airbags. People still build pools even where they’re required to put a fence up. Our history of regulation shows us that people adapt.

The reality is that cycling isn’t completely safe.  Better infrastructure and education would go a long way in making it better, but we’re not there yet.

So in the meantime, why not protect your head?  If the government believes in consistency, soon you may not have a choice.

Ask a Candidate

Posted on

The following is a question I’ll be sending to the candidates at tonight’s CP24 Mayoral debate.  If you think we deserve an answer, you should send it in too.

A complete streets policy ensures planning for entire roadway keeps all users in mind – including cyclists, public transportation vehicles and pedestrians. Will you commit to keeping all Torontonians safe with policies proper infrastructure even if it slows drivers down? If no, why aren’t all Torontonians equally entitled to safety and enjoyment of their city in your mind?

Torontonians are invited to participate by emailing their questions to now@cp24.com and please include the subject “Your Vote”. You can also tweet your questions and comments to @CP24 with the hashtag #CP24mayor.

Fundraising for a great cause

Posted on

Hey everyone,

My pal Todd just rode 660km in support of the Toronto People with Aids Foundations. Impressive, huh?

It gets better.  Next year Todd will do the whole trek over again, only he won’t stop in Montreal if you help him.

Todd’s goal is to raise $6000 . If he’s successful he’ll ride all the way to Halifax – almost 2000km.

Click here to support him and to help a great cause.

The Complexity of Dropping the Charges: Bikes, Bryant, and Tragedy

Posted on

This going to be extremely unpopular with some Toronto cyclists – particularly the ones who follow me on Twitter, but the decision to dismiss the charges in the Michael Bryant case don’t seem completely unreasonable to me.

But before I get death threats let me just say this: I don’t think what happened was OK.  No one ever deserves to die, and no one is above the law.

I’m not even sure how I feel about Bryant escaping without punishment.  But allegations of a “two-tiered” legal system, accusations of murder, and a call for cyclists to unite in protest to this ruling are unfair, to say the least.

BlogTo had a particularly thoughtful post about the topic.  But like my cycling pals on Twitter, author Derek Flack wrote about this as a cyclist’s issue.

This is not a cycling issue.

This is not the same as when driver’s don’t look and run cyclists off the road, or open their doors into traffic.  It is not the same as cars passing too closely and brushing bikers.  It is not the same as honking, harassing, and threatening cyclists.  The altercation between Bryant, and Shepherd – who happened to be on a bike – was about misdirected anger, poor judgment and violence.

By making this a issue for cyclists to unite behind, Darcy Allan Sheppard becomes a straw-man poster boy for the cause of cyclist rights.  But the altercation could easily have happened in a bar somewhere.  If Sheppard picked a fight (like the evidence suggests), and Bryant over-reacted (out of fear, anger, malice, I can’t say) and used an available weapon to fight, it would similar.  The road was merely the setting for the events.

I can’t know what really happened that day, so I have no choice but to interpret the information I have available to me. Something tragic happened and it only took 30 seconds.

Now I’m no legal expert, and I fully support a person’s right to challenge decisions that appear unfair, but I’ve read the decision and the only thing that is clear to me is that nothing is clear.

The media seems to have only picked up on the part of the decision about Shepherd’s past – as if that is the only thing the crown considered.  If you’d only read the first page of the decision, you might think the Crown acted unfairly.  But if you read on, the decisions says this:

Because there is an allegation in this case that Mr. Sheppard acted as the aggressor in the confrontation with Mr. Bryant, the law requires us to consider the prior conduct of the deceased. . . . No one “deserves” to have a criminal offense committed against him, regardless of his background or prior conduct.  The deceased’s propensity for aggressiveness or violence, however, is relevant to considering whether the accused was attacked by the deceased and to show the probability that the deceased was the aggressor in the altercation.

The Crown also looked at witness testimony (some of which was proven to be inaccurate when compared with forensic evidence), and video tapes.

Some people have suggested that the charges against Bryant were dismissed because of his former position as attorney-general.  I’m not naive enough to think that high-profile people don’t ever get special treatment.  But I’m also not naive enough to think that those same people weren’t convinced of that special treatment the second they discovered Bryant’s position.

Several people have told me that they were upset that Bryant didn’t at least go to trial – as some sort of proof that justice was carried out – but I’m not convinced.  After all, it wouldn’t be fair to Mr. Bryant to have a trial when it wasn’t warranted just to prove impartiality.  The proof of impartiality is applying the law to a high-profile defendant in the same way you would to anyone else.

Just by hearing so many perspectives on the case, I understand why the Crown felt they couldn’t make the case.

The law, according to the decision, states the following:

Dangerous driving requires proof of a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver having regard to all the circumstances, including the accused’s reasonable perception of the facts.  Mere civil negligence, carelessness or errors in judgment that fall short of the above standard are insufficient to establish criminal liability.

The law with respect to the offence of dangerous driving recognizes that momentary acts of panic in reaction to an unexpected situation will often fall short of proving an offence of dangerous driving.

This doesn’t sound like unfair treatment, or an unreasonable thought process.  It doesn’t mean that Bryant’s defense is true, it means that the lawyers looked at the evidence they had available to them, and had to make a decision to the best of their ability.

I’m not saying I think Bryant is blameless.  But if I take his side of the story to be true, it doesn’t sound completely unreasonable that he was scared and seriously fucked up.

I think what really rubs people wrong in this case is that it is seemingly unresolved.  But not going to trial doesn’t mean that justice wasn’t carried out.

Sometimes the law disappoints.  That makes me sad.  But a law that gets applied differently to different people is a far more upsetting thought.

The Tedium of the Never Ending Bike Lane Debate

Posted on

The bike lane discussion is getting rather tedious, isn’t it?

It boggles my mind that the idea of keeping citizens safe is up for debate.  Maybe debate is the wrong word.  How about “Hate Campaign”? Because in this case, one side (cyclists) is fighting for the right to exist, while the other side (people who want the road to be exclusively for motorized vehicles) is fighting to rule the road with no regard for anyone who might get in their way.

And somehow, bike lanes appear to have become the election issue for Toronto in 2010.

Let’s not kid ourselves here: People who oppose bike lanes oppose cyclists on the road in general, not just in certain places.

Of the five major mayoral candidates, zero have taken the position that bike lanes need to exist even if it slows cars down.  Sure, Sarah Thompson says she wants bike lanes, but she doesn’t want them on Jarvis (despite it having already been decided).  And George Smitherman claims to be in favour of bike lanes, but wants to put construction of lanes “on hold” so that he can assess the situation.

On the more extreme side of things, Rocco Rossi thinks bikes should never be on arterial roads and Rob Ford hates cyclists. Oh, and the only thing Giorgio Mammoliti knows about cyclist in Toronto is that one time he saw someone kick a car (but I guess didn’t bother to find out any more of the story or watch any other cyclists).

While I understand that these candidates will have to face some angry Torontonians who cannot fathom giving up part of the road to others, I don’t understand why they have made pandering to car crusaders integral to their campaigns.  Don’t they think that all citizens of Toronto have a right to use this city and be protected?

Some opposed to bike lanes suggest that people should be using Toronto’s ravines or secondary roads for cycling.  Both ideas sound great for recreational cycling on a Saturday afternoon, but neither is going to get me where I need to go — at least not in a reasonable time.

The ravines only cover a very small part of the city and generally go in a straight line. That’s not particularly helpful when trying to get to work downtown.  And biking on side streets is often inefficient because many side streets are filled with stop signs at every corner, or they change direction to reduce traffic or simply end.

Bike lanes – although the safety of many in this city is questionable – exist to make cycling safer and to help the flow of traffic.  Cyclists are entitled to take up an entire lane – they’re a vehicle after all.  But we all know perfectly well how drivers would react to cyclists actually exercising that right on a regular basis (I can say, from experience, that it often involves honking or pushing cyclists to the fringes).  Bike lanes actually help cars by keeping bikes contained to one side and allowing cars to move freely.

I grew up in a car-culture town, got my license on my 16th birthday and my first car shortly after.  I couldn’t understand how anyone could exist without a car.  And then I moved to Toronto.

In Toronto, the streets are narrow, people are everywhere, and driving is nearly impossible in much of downtown.

But not once did I have the reaction that bikes were to blame for traffic congestion, or that bigger roads should be built to accommodate more cars.  Not once.

Instead I thought “Toronto is just not built for cars.  It is way too time-consuming and stressful to drive in Toronto every day.  I better look into alternatives”

Those alternatives weren’t just biking (it took me six years to get on a bike in Toronto) – they were transit and walking.

But I can spout out the benefits of cycling until I’m blue in the face.  Those who are opposed don’t seem to be budging on their ignorant opinion.

And those people are entitled to their opinions.  But opinions and policy are (or should be) different things.  Politicians are elected to do what is best for the population as a whole, not just for a few cranky drivers.  And while city councillors are elected by a portion of the city of Toronto, councillors are still responsible for the city as a whole, not just the desires of their loudest constituents.

I know lots of drivers are respectful on the road, and I know some cyclists are not.  It’s really not about that.  What it is about is that the law says that bikes are vehicles and therefore have the right to be on the road.  And if they have the right to be on the road, they have the right to be safe while using it.  There can’t be a debate.

I keep thinking that at some point people will give into rational thought and realize that transportation based exclusively on single-passenger cars is no longer feasible with the populations and environmental situation we’re in today.

But apparently nothing can be left to “reasonable” when the thing in question might force people to change.

Something is going to have to give.

Until a Mayoral candidate steps up and says that all citizens of Toronto – not just those with cars – matter, then I’m not interested in what any of them has to say.

I Made it Alive!

Posted on

Today was a big day for my bicycle… err… for me on my bicycle.  I not only took my bike on the TTC for the first time, but I rode home from work at Eglinton and Avenue Road.

That’s not exactly a big deal for people who commute by bike everyday in Toronto, but it was certainly a big deal for me.

I was nervous – both about the bus and the ride.

I knew I wouldn’t be able to make it up to Eglinton by bike – I’m far too out of shape to ride uphill for 30 minutes straight, and I figured I shouldn’t be too exhausted to do anything by the time I got to work – so the bus was really the only option.

The TTC has bike racks on most of their buses on major routes these days, but I’ve rarely seen anyone use them.

I had visions of an angry bus driver who would get mad at me for not knowing how to use the rack, and I half-expected my bike to fall off in traffic and get run over by the bus (I had a dream about that the other night).

But none of that happened, and I lucked out and got the regular driver I was hoping for (the perfect TTC employee).

Then there was the issue of getting home without dying.

There are very few bikes in the uptown area, and even fewer bike lanes.  Even worse, so many of the side streets end, wind, or change directions that it can be really difficult to find a route that gets you all the way downtown.

Luckily, Joe at BikingToronto answered my Twitter plea and helped my find a route.  I altered it a little bit, but I would never have known about the wondrous Russell Hill Road had it not been for him.

The road doesn’t start at Eglinton, but otherwise it is perfect.  It is a lovely, winding route through a beautiful (and rich) neighbourhood, with a bike lane all the way from St. Clair to Davenport.  There was barely any traffic, and riding beside the park felt like I wasn’t in the city at all.

Oh yeah, and for scaredy-cats, the hill isn’t as steep as Avenue Road so it makes it a much more leisurely route for newbie cyclists like me.

I’ve come a long way from crying at the bike shop.  Yay me!

If you’re afraid of making mistakes like I am, and want to learn how to use the racks, check out the video on the TTC’s Bike Page

If you happen to be biking from Eglinton to College, here’s my route: View Larger Map

Wars on Wheels

Posted on

I’m a very careful cyclist.  I obey traffic laws, ring my bell often, and keep as much distance from parked cars as I can.  But all these precautions meant nothing when a taxi driver cut me off with a sudden u-turn last weekend.  I swerved and came to a squealing stop in front of the cab, only to look back and realize that the driver was completely unfazed by the fact that he nearly killed me.

The experience left me shaken and scared, but also pissed off.  Not just because the driver showed no remorse for his aggressive broadside, but because I live in a city where a lack of infrastructure ensures that my safety as a cyclist is less important than the safety of someone in a car.

The city of Toronto has promised to expand the current cycling “network” to include 495 bike lanes, 260 shared roadways, and 249 off-road paths.  Currently, fewer than half of these projects have been completed, and the ones that have been are plagued with potholes and safety issues.

Many existing bike lanes, like those on St. George Street, often run parallel to parked cars that put cyclists at risk of being “doored” every time they use the lanes.  On Gerrard Street, bike lanes simply end 20 feet on either side of the intersection.  Other routes disappear without connecting to another route.  The Beverly street bike lane ends at Queen Street West – an area so congested with cars, parking, streetcars and pedestrians that trying to bike on that street would be potential suicide.

But the real problem isn’t just the state of bicycle lanes in this city, the problem is this: drivers get preferential treatment in North America and any attempt to even the playing field is considered an attack on cars.

This becomes clear when a simple thing like removing a lane of traffic on Jarvis Street to accommodate bike lanes and overall beautification gets spun into some sort of insidious plot to banish cars from the world. Conservative city councillor Case Ootes called the move a “guerrilla war.”  Councillor Rob Ford simply stated that “bikers are a pain in the ass”.

Mayor Miller and many other councillors are strong supporters of sharing Toronto’s roads, but they lose sight of their goals when they waste their time defining their positions as anything but a war on cars.  What Toronto has now is not even close to a war.  It is all just polite negotiations.

We see this in the newest effort by the Toronto Cyclists Union.  They’ve started a campaign to applaud drivers for being courteous to cyclists in an attempt to establish goodwill.  Cyclists can now hand out a thank you card to any driver who doesn’t run them down or squeeze them off the road – as long as they can somehow manage to make the exchange in traffic without being run over.

I applaud the effort because I really like it when vehicles respect my right to exist on the road.  But just like I don’t thank my partner for washing dishes in our home, I don’t need to thank drivers for something that is a shared responsibility to begin with.

This debate as it stands now is ridiculous.  Arguments against ceding driving road space to public transit range from simplistic statements like “I need by car” to concerns that businesses will suffer if people can’t park immediately in front of their destination.  The most common argument against reducing driving lanes is that it will add to congestion.  But drivers rarely see themselves as complicit in this congestion, only victims of circumstance and poor city planning.

What Torontonians need is a shift in thinking. If there is a problem with congestion caused by cars, then drivers should consider what they can do to avoid this problem in the first place.  Torontonians need only consider what other cities are doing to see that progress is possible.

London, England has instituted a “congestion charge” for driving in the busiest parts of the city.  An £8 (roughly $15 CAD) fee is charged for a daily commute in the designated zone.  The consequence for ignoring the charge?  A whopping £120 (about $210 CAD) fine.

Copenhagen’s bicycle program manager, Andreas Rohl, has a simple strategy to increase the number of cyclists on the road: make driving more difficult.  By timing traffic lights to accommodate a cyclist’s average speed instead of a car’s, narrowing roads to increase the number of bike lanes, and building bridges exclusively for cyclists and pedestrians, driving a car in Copenhagen is far less efficient than biking.  These actions have created a cycling haven in which 55% of people commute by bike.

Just like in those cities, cars just don’t make sense anymore as the only “reasonable” mode of transportation in Toronto.  Challenging the city to create alternatives to car travel is not an attack on cars, nor is it special treatment for cyclists and pedestrians.  The fact is cycling is good for everyone.  It helps the environment; it is good for our health in a time when North Americans clearly need it. But most of all, cyclists are citizens of Toronto too. For that reason alone, cyclists deserve to the right to exist, be safe, and use the roads that their tax dollars pay for.

Toronto needs politicians with the tenacity to get stuff done.  Mayor Miller’s decision not to run for re-election has created an opportunity for the next mayor to show real leadership on this problem.  Toronto’s mayor and council need to make a firm commitment to doing the right thing for all Torontonians, and stick with.

Until then, no more apologizing, no more appeasing statements suggesting that there is no war on cars.  This isn’t a war; it isn’t even a fight on the playground.

You’ll be the death of me….

Posted on


Those of you who know me know that I’ve never met a rule I didn’t like. I think rules are awesome, structure makes the world go ’round, and laws are there for a reason. And I hate people who like to pretend they’re such anarchists by purposefully disobeying rules because The Man is infringeing on their rights to do whatever the hell they want. Why? Because you f**kers are going to kill me!

I’ve been riding a bike for 2 weeks and I’ve already developed some pretty serious cyclist road-rage. But not at drivers.

Yes, the guy who parked in the bike lane today (and every other day for that matter) infuriates me (I really don’t care if you’re just going to be a minute, drive your lazy butt around the corner because that lane is mine!), and yes, the guy who drove into oncoming traffic to get around me because I had to use the road (because the aforementioned asshole was in the bike lane) needs a good kick in the head, but I’m not going to write an angry blog about how much Toronto driver’s suck (they do) or that there aren’t enough bike lanes and the ones that are there are full of pot holes (there aren’t, and they are), because it’s been done. And everyone knows that and there is little I can do about it anyway besides write my city councillor a letter (which I am considering as soon as I find out who it is). I’m angry with all the bad cyclists out there.

A few things:

1) Use your bell. It is not just there to look pretty. Bikes are quiet. If you’re passing someone and don’t let them know then you’re a) just going to freak newbie-people like me out or b) potentially crash when they move within the bike lane (or possibly out without signalling – which is wrong but is still going to hurt when you collide)

2) Stop at red lights and stop signs. When you don’t, you’re just fueling the fire of those anti- bike-lane assholes and making the situation worse. Not to mention, you’re going to either hit someone, or get hit. And if that someone is me then I’m going to be really pissed off.

3) Wear a helmet. Please. I’m not angry at you for this one, I’m concerned. I know a helmet won’t always help save you when terrible accidents happen, but if there is even a chance it could save your life, won’t you try? A more skeptical person would point out that you’ll be a burden on the healthcare system once you’re a vegetable (and therefore your need to assert your rights infringes on my rights), but I really just don’t want to see any more people die this summer. Please?

The Bicycle Blog

Posted on

Today I bought a bicycle. And then I cried.

About 8 years ago I was riding with some friends in the Yukon for the first time in several years. I was going down a lightly gravelled hill when I overreacted and hit the front breaks. Hard. As you’d expect, I flew over the handle bars, landed on some rocks, broke a tooth, and cut my hands, knees and face. Needless to say, I haven’t been on a bike since. But this summer was going to be my comeback.

I recently moved much closer to work (not to mention moved in with an avid cyclist) and while I can walk to work in 25 minutes, riding to work will take about 10. I had been thinking about trying biking for most of the summer, but never actually took a bike out on the road. Because I am terrified!

Finally yesterday we went to look at bikes. My plan to get an inexpensive used bike faded quickly when I realized that a rusty, faded, elderly bike cost $150. My plan to get a retro comfort bike also disappeared when I discovered that they don’t actually make them tall enough for me (at least in the lower price range). So I picked out a “traditional frame” (read: ugly boy bike) and attempted to feminize it with a pretty bell and snazzy helmet.

As the sales girl helped me collect the accessories I’d need, I realized I was feeling more and more anxious. I had already test ridden several bikes without any problem, but actually making the purchase was a whole new ballgame.

By the time I started filling in the warranty form my hand was shaking. The amazing sales girl kept telling me “this is so exciting” and “this will change your life”. I gave her my credit card. All of a sudden this plan (I have a lot of plans) turned into reality. Buying a bike and riding it on the bike-un-friendly streets of Toronto was no longer an ambitious thought, but rather a commitment I was making once she swiped my card. I finished paying quickly, walked out the door with my new bike, and burst into tears. And not just tears. Panic. I was pretty sure I was going to throw up.

I had no idea I was going to have that reaction to something so normal.

A few hours later (after I hid the bike in the other room to pretend it didn’t exist) I put my helmet on and told Ryan I was ready to try. And I did it! I f**king did it!

So that’s that. I’m still completely terrified, and will need an escort to get me to work for the first time tomorrow, but I survived. And despite it being an everyday task for millions of people, I am so proud of myself.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers