Blaming the victim

I was going to post a rant about the police response to a dramatic increase of pedestrian-vehicle fatalities (and we all know which side of that equation suffered the fatalities), but the Star's Christopher Hume beat me to it, articulating what is most galling about the cop's propensity to blame the victim. When we have a traffic system that never ensures the safety of pedestrians (and cyclists, for that matter), whether they obey the rules or not, any incentive to obey the rules is removed.

People wonder why there's been such a rash of accidents. My theory: drivers are more cautious when there is a certain threshold of pedestrians around. Drivers have to see a decent number of human beings to register, "Hey, there are people around I have to watch out for." (As a cyclist, I've learned that the most dangerous time to bike is spring, just as biking weather hits. Drivers have to re-learn how to navigate us.)

Un-vehicled people are scarce on many streets and neighbourhoods in the winter so drivers become more cavalier. Our warm snap brought pedestrians to places where motorists weren't expecting them, but not enough to make them more careful.

Regardless, any response that treats pedestrians and people zooming around in 5,000 pound worth of fast-moving, gas-guzzling armour as equally responsible is a response that's out of touch with reality.

Coasting through

The Toronto Star's continuing grudge match against cyclists raises some interesting questions.

Firstly, while their reporter was watching 138 cyclists fail to come to full stop at a Stop sign, how many accidents did they cause? Judging by the story, it seems they caused none. Secondly, while the experiment was being conducted, how many cyclists elsewhere in the city--say, along nearby College or Dundas--received an injury because a careless driver opened their car door into their path? That number is harder to guess at--the Star's experiment certainly required less effort--but I figure there were a few. A few weeks ago, I nearly missed being car-doored three times in the two-minute ride along Dundas between Dovercourt and Brock.

This obsession with the letter of the law rather than general traffic safety made me think of harm-reduction strategies when it comes to drug use. Sure, you could arrest every junkie in Vancouver's downtown Eastside for possession, but who does that help? The junkie's illegal behaviour creates a situation where she's the primary victim. As a society, we've parsed out a drug-use strategy that, while it could bear improvements, at least acknowledges that treating everybody by the same standard to the exact letter of the law does nothing to achieve the goals that the standards and laws were created to achieve.

Good traffic policy and good policing should be about results, not making jealous Star-reading motorists feel vindicated in their contempt for cyclists.

If I thought that encouraging all cyclists to come to a full stop at all Stop signs would reduce accidents and create a situation where drivers were not so careless about opening their doors without looking, I'd be on that bandwagon in a second. But it is not cause and effect. The most lawful cyclist in a city full of lawful cyclists still takes her life into her hands every time she passes a parked car.

Cities need to stop treating cyclists like thin, slow cars and come up with policies and infrastructure that reduce harm. By that I mean, saves lives and prevents accidents and more broadly, reduces gridlock, toxic emissions and the urban-heat-island effect. Because I think you could stand at the corner of Beverly and Baldwin for weeks, counting rolling-stop cyclists and never see an accident. So what's the point?

We're here, we ride, get used to it

Though I'm a fan of considerate and safe cycling, there's something about this list of suggestions that reminds me of the old-school approach to gay and lesbian defusing hatred against them: pretend you're just like them, no, pretend you're better than them. That way, they can't possibly hate you.

Women were told to wear skirts and makeup; men were supposed to be masculine. It was all about keeping your head down and praying for toleration. The goal was to fit in and to deny whatever part of yourself made that difficult. That didn't work, of course--it took radicals and subversives of all kinds to effect social change. So I'm not sure why cyclists would expect the same.

Sure, don't be an asshole. But a bike isn't a car and each of us is responsible for our own publicity. Just because one driver cuts me off or opens their door into my path doesn't mean every motorist is a danger to cyclists (though some times it feels like it). By the same token, cyclists should avoid falling into the trap of expecting each other to "represent." We shouldn't have to be popular to expect not to be killed when we go out.

Plus, the whole "drive your bike, don't ride it" doesn't really jibe with common usage. Bikes, I'm afraid, are ridden and motorists are going to have to live with it.

The Star invents a transport war

When did the Toronto Star decide to wage war on cyclists?

First it was the invented issue of whether cyclists should pay to register their bicycles. The implication was that cyclists aren't paying their way, which is ridiculous. I pay federal and provincial sales and income taxes, as well as municipal property taxes. These sums are much larger than car registration fees. But, since I do not own a car, I can't enjoy the free use of the province's motorized-vehicle-only highways. Neither do I get a rebate for all the saved maintenance costs of my biking, rather than driving, on the city's battered streets, nor do I get any credits for reducing air pollution and traffic congestion. It's drivers who are getting the free ride--only by polluting the environment do they get "full" use of the roads and highways built by our collective tax dollars. As a society, we have come to accept subsidizing mass transit for the greater good, but when it comes to the much cheaper option of making Toronto a more bike-friendly city, suddenly it's a case of us-versus-them. Yes, there are bad cyclists out there. But there are far more dangerous car drivers. Cars can kill cyclists. I've yet to hear of an incident where the opposite occurred.

Now the Star's come to the defense of the existing five-line version of Jarvis. Jarvis is a scar running through the heart of downtown, a fake expressway from moneyed Rosedale to the Gardiner. The fifth lane contributes little to the flow of traffic. Measuring the increased emissions from the presumed increase in idling when the lane is gone is to measure only a small portion of the impact of the lane reduction. In the long run, fewer people will chose to drive down Jarvis, more will choose to walk or cycle. And that means fewer emissions overall.

Reducing pollution and congestion is going to take a carrot and stick approach. Driving will be made more inexpensive and inconvenient. That cycling is to be, at the same time, made more convenient and safer is not a slap against drivers. It's a carrot for them, show them that there are other options.