What Adam Giambrone needs to do next

Take a break from electoral politics, Adam. You've worn your heart on your sleeve about your political aspirations for a long time and it's not too late to still become prime minister (or perennial NDP leader as the case may be). At 32, you have plenty of time to pursue this goal, and maybe even become premier of Ontario along the way.

But now is the perfect time to catch your breath. Resign as TTC head and don't bother running for councillor in the next election. In your ward, you are not the most popular person right now (for pesky issues, I know, like the Queen Triangle debacle, the narrowing of Lansdowne, for parking on Dundas, but these are issues dear to the hearts of voters). Losing the next election would add insult to injury. Step away from the ballot box.

Your early fresh-faced entry into electoral politics proves the maxim about power corrupting.

(Disclaimer: I don't think a promiscuous person is a corrupted person. My qualm is cultivating the public image that you're single and available (how else was Now able to mistakenly presume you're gay?), then parading a quasi-wife figure when you announce your candidacy for mayor--as if that's even necessary in this day and age--then, when confronted with the facts of a sexual relationship with somebody other than your quasi-wife, lying about it. Toronto could have easily handled--perhaps even celebrated--a swinging single mayor. It's the role the women were cast in that's off-putting. If, with the support of your quasi-wife, you could have replied to The Toronto Star allegations with a confident "So what?" you wouldn't be hiding out in Italy this week.)

So here's what to do. Spend the next three to five years doing something else. Something that will make a difference but is somewhat under the radar. Run the United Way. Get involved in some green-energy company. Do an academic fellowship for some kind of centre for innovation. Show that you're not just a smarmy politico but someone who has the smarts to solve real problems and deliver real tangible results. We can debate forever whether the TTC would have been better off or worse without you; it was a major mess and remains a major mess. Grab hold of a project that will show success within five years, something manageable enough that the success will show your signature. Pick something close to your heart that shows you really care about the work, not the public attention it gets you. If you're out of the headlines for a few years, so much the better.

After people have all but forgotten your time as city councillor, run for provincial or federal politics with a campaign that demonstrates how much you've learned from your time in the private/not-for-profit sector. Tap into that newfound wisdom for political problem-solving strategies.

Hey, it worked for former Winnipeg mayor Glen Murray (who admittedly wasn't trying to leave behind any taint other than being non-Ontarian) who just became an MPP at Queen's Park. His time as president and CEO of the Canadian Urban Institute was not wasted. Yours won't be either.

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.

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.

Motorists versus Cyclists

Somebody has figured the cost who pays how much for our roadways, comparing a motorist to a cyclist. I have a feeling the difference is much greater than illustrated here.

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.

Big auto

As the pieces started falling out of our Lego-brick economy, my optimistic side took hope in the possibility that if a recession/depression reconstructed the automobile industry, it might all be worth it.

Western countries are trying to reduce green-house gas emissions and carbon footprints and--Look!--the industry that's the biggest culprit is reduced to tears. What a perfect time to shrink it and reshape it. Let it die and we'll start again fresh. The planet and neighbourhoods--the biggest victim of car culture--will rejoice.

Still, I am not immune to the trauma of lost jobs and a big whole in the continent's manufacturing sector. People need to work. I just don't think they should be working on fossil-fuel powered machines. So I was ambivalent about the U.S. and Canadian governments' plan for a bailout for the big three. How to save the jobs while retiring the product line?

My solution: Don't give the car companies a dime. But issue a request for proposals for green transportation and energy initiatives. The government can use the money for development grants to build non-fossil-fuel-powered vehicles, better wind mills, better solar panels--let's keep it as open-ended as possible. Anybody can make a bid.

There's no reason Ford, GM and Chrysler can't tender the best bids. It would certainly take new players a while to get things lined up to participate. The big three know vehicles. They know how to build things out of steel. But it's easiest for them to keep doing what they're doing.

The current government offers don't give them any incentive to make big changes. They'll improve fuel economy by a few percentage points, slap a battery on some models. But that's not good enough anymore. My idea forces them to totally rethink their business or there's no cash at all, not a cent.