People are dying.
It needs to be said. When choosing to ride a bike either for fitness or transportation, people are making a life and death decision.
 |
| Borrowed from the Chronicle Herald |
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.
However, incidents are still occurring. Just last week, Sickboy Podcast member Taylor was hit in Nova Scotia. You can listen to the podcast episode here. Also in Nova Scotia last year a woman was clipped and charges were thrown out on a technicality. In P.E.I. the supreme court is hearing a case of dangerous driving causing death which involved a vehicle and bicycle rider in August of 2018. In 2016, before NL's One-Metre Law passed, this unfortunate collision happened.
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...
An Australian study found that more than half of car drivers think of people on bikes as less-than-human. Riding a bike on the road in a car-centric environment is seen as an inconvenience to motorised travel and, if you read the comments on CBC articles (don't ever do this), worthy of being hit and / or killed.
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!— Kirsten Morry (@kirstenmorry) June 1, 2019
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.
When it comes to licensing bike riders, this has been constantly proven to be a bad idea. In Calgary: “Licensing as well as registration would be punitive, unlikley to be enforced or unenforceable, expensive to administer, unnecessary, and above all an additional barrier to cycling.”
In Toronto: “...The law was scrapped for a delightfully Canadian reason—the fear that licensing “results in an unconscious contravention of the law at a very tender age,” which can lead to “poor public relations between police officers and children.”
And also, “...The city also said that licensing could discourage people from riding their bikes, which could ultimately mean more people driving instead. That could make congestion worse.”
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.
Bike Master Plan is here, and this process is still open to further input.
Also, check out Dave Lane's Bike Master Plan crib sheet below.
Good article, well done.
ReplyDelete