I am, naturally, sad. Sad for Parisians. Sad for the officials who looked after the building. Sad for the history lost.This beautiful structure survived through countless wars and changes in regimes. It is an extraordinary feat of architecture to have survived for as long as it has and thus a testament to the people who built it so many generations ago. It is also woven into the cultural fabric of French identity.
The flames had barely gone out and millionaires were already pledging hundreds of thousands for its restoration. It was the financial equivalent of thoughts and prayers or facebook profile picture filters.
Never mind how the church who owns (runs?) Notre Dame is one of the richest institutions on earth.
Where are the pledges of millionaires to end world hunger? If they had this expendable cash to throw at a building (which, again, did not need it), then they definitely have enough to help feed thousands of people or house countless more.
One might say the financial priorities of our world are wickedly askew.
Now, let's localise the scale a bit more to Newfoundland and Labrador, and everybody's favourite scandal du jour for this week. The Fence.
It went up, and then it came down. Taxpayer dollars were spent on a cedar fence -- which actually might have looked quite nice under any other circumstances -- and people didn't like it. The messaging was mixed depending on who spoke for Parks Canada on the issue, but the theme seemed to be trying to formalise a barrier between the road and performances in the valley.
Is the fence overkill? Sure. Signage and staff might have achieved the exact same goal. It apparently cost 65k. You could almost build a house for that much. But, if you ask me, the response was also heavy-handed and really speaks to what priorities we hold dear to our hearts.
After Rick Mercer's tweet (because, of course) on the 16th, the retribution was swift. By 6 a.m. on the 18th, a whole lot of cedar was being shipped off of signal hill.
An aside for this is that the blocked "view" is accessible almost literally anywhere else on this national historic site. Apparently people seeing The Tattoo historical recreation as well as Shakespeare By The Sea productions for free was a real issue. But to feel so collectively offended about something which was, at its worst, a minor inconvenience, is privileged.
This is a position I'll stand by.
Imagine if the people of St. John's just took half of their collective outrage and influence and applied it to issues like homelessness. Or climate change, as some people joked. Newfoundland and Labrador would be a helluva place to live.
Relating this back to the millionaires of Notre Dame, I certainly concede that the solutions to our social issues are harder to tackle than simply taking down some wood shortly after putting it up. It takes a lot of time and money that people don't necessarily have an abundance of.
Let me tell you a story in closing, though.
A couple weeks ago I was downtown walking my dog. A woman and her two daughters stopped and asked to pet him. We were on Water St and they were carrying bags of Subway soup. We made some small talk, and the woman told me she takes her daughters down whenever she can and they buy food for the homeless of the street. She's a single mother, she said, who can't afford $5 for every person she passes every day. But she does what she can, when she can.
Imagine for a moment if we shifted our priories from monuments and views, and turned them instead to social issues. What if companies invested less in hostile architecture and instead put the money into community shelters. The world would be a better place. And the most important word here is collective. No one person should be shouldered with solving everyone's problems. We're not all millionaires with oodles of time cash and time, but if there are enough of us pooling our resources then suddenly $10 between 10 people becomes $100. Twenty people providing an hour of volunteer time becomes 20 hours. The fence issue proves we're more than capable of coming together and solving problems, so let's send that in the right direction.
When people make a counter-argument to protected bike lanes or designated trails which are separated from roads, who are they thinking about? I don't know what image is in their head, but rhetoric seems to suggest dangerous riders zipping around corners with little to no regard for who may be out of sight. Perhaps downhill races come to mind, or a Tour De France peloton. Are those dangerous riders... predominantly male?
Let's take a moment and think about this logically, though: Who the St. John's bike lanes (and all truly-effective bike infrastructure) is actually for.
My sister and her son riding on the well-used bike trail in Corner Brook
The vulnerable road user. Yes, arguably all bike riders are vulnerable users. So are runners. Walkers. Babies in their strollers on the sidewalks. With cars being stuffed with more internal safety features and computerised gizmos subject to the same flaws of laptop mixed with high rates of "efficient" speed. Motorised vehicles are heavy, and fast. Basic physics make them deadly under the wrong circumstances. Everyone close to a road without a barrier is at risk, but we don't think about it very often.
Close proximity also means a prevalence of verbal abuse.
Designated lanes are good. Separated lanes are better. Physical safety is important, but there's something else at play. Socio-economic dynamics must also be kept in mind. As I've said previously, poor riding etiquette is a symptom of bad infrastructure. So-too are bad attitudes from car drivers personified in the form of harassment -- in particular, sexual harassment for women who ride.
I always think of this blog post from my dear friend Daniel Fuller. Following MUN Gazette and CBC Radio interviews about Bikemaps.org, Daniel received a message. He shared it with her permission. You can read it here.
In it, this person recounts commuter-riding as a woman. She talks about having an ashtray emptied in her face -- horrifying on its own, but made worse in the context of even more abhorrent behaviour. An important excerpt:
"...What has really affected me cycling has been the cat calling and comments about my body. The young men hanging out their window to take a picture of my spandex clad behind. The yelling about what they would do if I agreed to “ride” them. I have never experienced the harassment in all my years of running and cycling as i did this past summer. These experiences make me choose a different route, change my cycling gear and make me not want to ride. I know your research is in making cycling safe and I love the idea of separate bike lanes, and I use the bike lanes all the time and I hope to see more. But safety is both physical and emotional."
Distance and recreational riders will stick to the roads anyways because these routes provide the optimum conditions for endurance and speed training. These are athletes and triathletes who hope to compete, either locally, inter-provincially or on global stages. They deserve the right to do so. Safely.
Meanwhile if you look at the Bike Master Plan in its whole, the veins connect schools, government buildings, post-secondary institutions, malls and downtown shopping centres. These are places of education and employment and people can get to them with minimal proximity to motorised vehicles. MAMILs (Middle Aged Men in Lycra) or other athletes and enthusiasts aren't racing one another to these hubs. What they may do is ride on evenings in autumn when it's too dark to road ride and fat-bike season is just around the corner. During this time casual walkers are less likely to be out in droves and only the most hardcore runners will be out.
So, I'd posit the following: We're not building trails for fast riders. These will be transportation networks for those who need it, and want to do it safely.
A good indicator of proper bike conditions is how many women are riding. Here's a good article to read on the subject -- Basically, women don't ride because it is dangerous to do so. In fact, when you improve or build anything with women in mind, everyone benefits. The concept is called "Gender Mainstreaming" (more on the idea, here). A quote, below:
"Women used public transit more often and made more trips on foot than men. They were also more likely to split their time between work and family commitments like taking care of children and elderly parents. Recognizing this, city planners drafted a plan to improve pedestrian mobility and access to public transit.
Let's set aside for a quick moment the idea of women as primary caretakers, homemakers, and other outdated and sexist notions. That's a conversation for another blog post. Essentially, Gender Mainstreaming recognises that women see problems men simply don't (not an unusual notion / I can't wait to read this book). This includes transportation.
Imagine: Implementing a gender-based lens to responsible development of transportation infrastructure keeping health and environmental outcomes in mind. More families bicycle-commuting to school, workplaces, and back again at the end of the day. Ditching a van in favour of a healthy alternative. Cars don't burn many calories. To make it safe for people who choose to bike either alone or as a family is to encourage an active lifestyle in one of the country's most chronically unhealthy provinces. Bicycles are also ideal forms of transportation for middle-to-low income earners like part time working students or new Canadians. For these folks, a bus pass might not be in the books -- unless subsidised by their school -- let alone a car. For those who might have cars, parking fees add up. With the one-time cost of a single bicycle + bike lock they can achieve the same transportation goals. Maintenance costs much less by hundreds and parking is free.
Now, some men might read this and think "What about me!?", and it's exactly what I'm going for.
It's quite simple. If radical and effective change to bike-safe infrastructure (or any transportation at all) benefits women, then men, families, and low-income peoples will benefit.
If we consider protecting the women on roadways by increasing advocacy and awareness, hopefully discouraging any form of harassment, then everyone who continues to ride on the road will benefit.
"Dangerous" riding could still happen. I won't pretend otherwise. But, these trails are being made to create safe infrastructure and encourage new riders. If all they know starting out is an equitable environment, then they'll travel accordingly.
The benefits for everyone far outweigh the potential concerns, here. Let's get to work on progress.
Sound extreme? Ok. Sure. However, the new One-Metre (or Ellen's Law) rules currently in effect across the Atlantic Canadian provinces throughout the last three years was inspired by the tragic death of athlete Ellen Watters while she was on a training ride. In New Brunswick it was implemented quickly and efficiently, but too late for Ellen. This rule should have been in place long before she pedalled out of her driveway. Years beforehand.
Other provinces have followed-suit. Now a passing width of 1 to 1.5 metres is law in PEI, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland And Labrador. Great.
These are the cases making it to media. I myself was struck by an SUV in July 2017. Any person who rides a bike can tell you of near-daily, weekly, monthly, yearly incidents. It's an unacceptable part of riding in a car-culture. You'd think if people were in constant mortal danger, something would be done about it. And yet...
Let's not forget: Bike Riders have had a right to safe passage on the road for a very long time. Before cars, even. I'll never forget this thread from Kirsten Morry, which is worth reading (and a good resource for the actual laws governing road access)
Very short story: I was paused on my bicycle at a red light on Freshwater Road when a driver pulled up next to me, rolled down his window, and said “If you can’t keep up with the speed of traffic, you’re not allowed to be on the road.” Utterly untrue!
Meanwhile, bike riders aren't asking for much in order to save their lives. Slower speeds, more room, patience and respect, as well as maybe some protected lanes and trails in order to take out the guesswork. Considering car drivers are regularly killing other car drivers or pedestrians, this seems like a good move in general -- I'm not going to link to a news story here 'cause, frankly, a quick google can reveal myriad sad examples.
I won't say we're necessarily always getting half-measures, but bike riders are used to asking for a ruler while getting an inch. In some Newfoundland and Labrador communities, they're still being asked to prove their numbers in order to justify safe infrastructure or trails. This ignores a very old adage: "If you build it, they will come". Many people don't ride because they feel unsafe, and shouldn't have to go out of their way to prove their worth.
The counter-points are like broken records. "Cyclists should be licensed if they're on the roads" (a possibility they entertained in Charlottetown), "Cyclists are always breaking rules of the road", "Cyclists don't pay taxes for the roads". So-too are the facts: There isn't a direct line between car-related fees and road maintenance. It is largely paid for by municipal and provincial budgets collected through property taxes and general taxes. Most bicycle riders are home owners, and many of them own cars anyways. In fact, if you look at the prevalent MAMILs (Middle Aged Men In Lycra) who presumably piss off car drivers the most, they are high-earning parents of families who are constantly contributing to the local economy through income-tax, sales tax and more.
Ignoring the MAMIL's, these sorts of policies also affect low-income people who can't afford a car or constant bus fare. Making a bike-safe city will improve transportation for these folks when it comes to gainful employment and overall quality of life. It is also proven that good bicycle infrastructure helps the economy.
The notion of registration ignores the real issue: Unsafe infrastructure. Law breaking bike riders are symptoms of poor conditions where they're left with no choice. The solution is an integrated network of bike lanes (not just “share the road” signs), painted or separated, along a designated and efficient route allowing people to commute, or get out of town for recreational rides, safely. Some avenues can share the road, while others can take people along connecting paths. Good paths are the ones where kids can ride without fear.
Let's also not forget how car drivers quite regularly break all the rules to which they must abide in order to operate their multi-tonne death machines. The difference is when a person illegally operates a motorised vehicle, they are putting other lives at risk. When a bike rider breaks the rules, they are only risking their own lives. It's the difference between a dent on the hood of an SUV versus broken bones, or mortal wounds.
Which brings me to the St. John's Bike Master Plan, and where I fuckin' snapped. A couple of weeks ago, St. John's City Council released a comprehensive and detailed map (pun intended) for their intentions to make one of North America's oldest cities more bike-friendly. Naturally the pundits are out in full-force. Most recently, this Telegram letter to the editor lambastes council for poor public engagement to develop the plan. The author says the plan is too pro-cycling. Then there's this editorial, also from The Telegram, which generally goes down the same road (pun also intended). For those without the time to read either, folks are unhappy with the idea of taking public trails which already exist and making them bike friendly. They cite a loss of natural beauty and also claim many close-calls with bike riders who already use these trails, albeit illegally. The latter point is a fair criticism, but let's again remember: If we banned all road users because of a few foolish operators, there would be no cars in our roadways. And, natural beauty? If this was a real barrier, then the paths wouldn't exist already.
So, car drivers don't want bicycle riders on their roadways because slowing down and waiting to safely pass takes too long. Trail users reject bicycle riders because they are afraid of losing the status quo and, as with car drivers, refer to poor manners. For every little bit of progress towards safe, equitable transpiration, bike riders need to justify themselves to... everyone. The concerns of other trail users are indeed valid and should be taken into consideration. It means bike riders who do use the trails will hold themselves, and each other, accountable to good trail etiquette. But, to opine that these trails will become a bicycle highway is simply fearmongering. Those who ride on roads will continue to do so protected by the One-Metre rule. Shared pathways will open up an opportunity for new bicycle users to safely traverse the city, and they'll likely be polite to a fault. If not? Fine them.
Frankly, the "lack of public engagement" argument doesn't hold water any more. Counter-points to safe bike riding are well documented with each close call, life-altering collision, or death. A time for discussion is, honestly, over. People are defending their convenience against the lives of others -- because, indeed, they think of bicycle riders as "others". However, the benefits of bicycles to health, congestion, the environment and the economy are all so well documented. There is no more time to half-ass solutions for minority commuters and recreational bike riders because, frankly, they're going to do it anyways. The difference is whether they are going to do it safely, with the help of policy-makers and politicians, or not.
There's no longer any room for the CBC comments section on this issue. No more time to put up with anonymous threats. People are entitled to their opinions and editorials can print as many decisive sober-second-thoughts as they like, but change must take place, unequivocally, now.
Bike riders do not deserve to die for their choice to ride a bicycle. These are not "others" rolling around on two wheels. They are someone's child, no matter how old. They're parents, sisters, brothers, and friends. Safe pathways and trails need to be built for their sake. Not just in St. John's -- who are making great strides -- but everywhere. End of discussion.
