Since Tuesday, it's been a struggle to fully and succinctly articulate the full breadth of emotions and thoughts I've been having.
Many smarter people have done a better job. But like any white man, I feel compelled to throw two cents into the mix all the same.
Remembrance Day is coming up, and I can't help but wonder: what's the point, any more? I have always, and will continue to observe this sombre day but I can't help but question its genuine meaning at this point.
A couple weeks back, I came across this letter published on November 3, 1933 titled "Poppies" (link). It's stuck with me a considerable amount, since. 91 years ago someone named Fraser Macdonald questioned Armistice Day and its relevance. In particular: "...And anyhow, what good does it do to think of the dead? I would be more to the point if we thought of the living: those broken bodies that came out of the war, alive without life. Those broken souls that emerged, crushed and useless, for the peace they had prayed for; hopeless, embittered and decadent. And again, what of the living? What of today's young warriors? They they not to be thought of? The dead are gone, their children have grown up. What is the world that bows its head at eleven on the eleventh, doing to insure that these will not be murdered to? Think of the dead, but think of those who are yet to die."
Initially I thought of this in the context of the conflict in Gaza, though it could be applied to just about any war since, or even the proliferation of world-ending "defence" machines among our most powerful nations. But 91 years ago Mr. Macdonald was bang on the money, because a decade after this was published saw our second world war. Fraser wrote this letter during the insidious rise of Fascism among many countries. Now we honour the men and women who lost their lives in the many battles to repress that regime, among the other wars in the decades since. Yet, an autocratic fascist was just elected to the highest office in one of the most powerful and influential countries of our modern age. His acolytes attend rallies with nazi flags. He has openly admired Hitler.
What comes next?
Allegedly, our war-dead fought to maintain freedom from oppression. They fought to end all wars. That's a more macro way to look at it, but if you zoom in a little more they also fought to end a genocide. Just shy of a century later, we're watching one take place in front of a live audience. Racism, sexism, and countless other isms are no longer quiet, they are out loud and even proudly displayed. So, where's that freedom we "promise" to maintain in their honour all these years later?
Again, from Mr. Macdonald in 1933: "...I can't hate anyone. Why should I hate a German, or a Russian, or a Jap, or whomever the finger may point at? Why should Hans Schmidt and I seek one another's throats just because our bosses can't agree? "Our quarrel is not with the German people" -- I have no quarrel with any people. So what are you going to do? Bow your head and think for two solid minutes on a lot of the dead and people you never knew? Why not be honest about it? They are rather to be envied than sentimentalized. Those who lost relatives in the war have their personal grief that is not confined to a statutory two minutes a year. To the rest of us it is fast becoming a meaningless ritual. So what are we to do? The dead are past our help: are not the living of the last and the dead of the next war much more important?"
I feel as if we've abandoned the true meaning of Remembrance Day for nothing beyond pomp and circumstance. Remembrance does not lie within those two minutes, and the democracy our fallen have died for isn't restricted to the ballot box. The oppression they fought to abolish lies in every day actions, along with remembrance and democracy. It lies in how we conduct ourselves as well as how we allow others to conduct. Voting in leaders who actively pursue revoking the human rights, freedoms and indeed healthcare of certain peoples does not feel in line with the act of Remembrance.
To be honest, I feel discouraged. I have a sense of how we ended up in this world of hate, but I don't understand it. There is no point to it. Hate takes too much effort and brain space. But then again, I guess apathy is easier than love. Performative gestures are low-maintenance. Ceremony is easier than action.
Again: "...Why should Hans Schmidt and I seek one another's throats just because our bosses can't agree? "Our quarrel is not with the German people" -- I have no quarrel with any people."
Please note: Throughout this post I talk about a few online retail stores but chose not to link them. I believe in buying within one's means, but also shopping local. These stores are easy enough to google but whenever possible I do encourage everyone to seek out a local retailer.
Last month I was perturbed to see a Merino shirt from the brand Veilance. It was a targeted ad from a discount site, and they had it on sale for $139.99. It is originally a $200 T-Shirt. This price might seem astonishing until you compare it to the rest of Veilance's line, and their price points. Take, for example, this waterproof Anorak for the low low price of $850 dollars.
Veilance used to be the urban apparel offshoot of Arc'Teryx, which specialises in rugged technical gear. Arc'Teryx stuff is also quite expensive, but it's accessible mountaineering apparel you'd take to Everest if you felt so inclined. Arguably Arc'Teryx itself has become a status symbol of sorts but the quality is high and I would never argue with the value for pricing when you consider the cost-savings of buying one good product instead of four or five inferior products over the years.
But I have to question $200 for a t-shirt, even if it's merino sheep's wool, Or, $850 for the Anorak. What is the purpose? Arguably, an Anorak is more stylish than functional. The research and development couldn't possibly have been that much more than Arc'Teryx spends to put together their $350 - $500 shells or $100 shirts. So, aside from the sleek aesthetics, there is no value. These are hyper-design based products intended to cater to the super-rich.
During all of my years working in the outdoor industry, I often faced a tough question: "Why is it so expensive?"
There's never any one answer. When I was selling bikes, I often had to talk about the value of a good quality bicycle built up by a professional mechanic in a dedicated shop versus a Wal-Mart product built by the same person who does their display BBQs. I point out manufacturing processes, brand-warranty and reliability. I would also talk frankly about the importance of supporting local, keeping money in the regional economy to fuel trail building, events and advocacy. Shop loyalty is also important, and a bicycle is never a once-and-done purchase. Often, one will build a relationship with their local store as they revisit for new gear and maintenance. This is true about skis, snowshoes, and even skateboards. Yes, sometimes one has to purchase the Wal-Mart bike because that's what they can afford, but the bicycle industry really works hard to make good quality product in competitive price ranges.
When it comes to soft-goods, the lines are a little less defined. From a manufacturer point of view, pricing is determined by the research and development that goes into creating a product. Brands are rushing to make the lightest most breathable gear, lately, for the comfort of consumers in myriad weather conditions. Meanwhile, purchases are more singular (you're not bringing your shirt back in for a tune-up) with people always hungry for the best deals because the mechanical value of a sweater isn't the same as that of a bicycle.
Many companies also have solid ethical guides to what they produce, and how they produce it, as well as the cost of things like buttons or zippers and the general supply chain of garments -- it's fine for Patagonia to say their assembly line workers are paid well and treated well, but what about the workers who made the zipper? Some companies I really like for this are indeed Patagonia, as well as Icebreaker and Arc'Teryx. There has also a paradigm shift in the outdoor industry to use recycled materials or full-on recycling past products (Patagonia has a dedicated site for their refurbished gear). Arc'Teryx offers a reasonable lifetime warranty, which means they guarantee its value over a longer period and you won't be wasting money on a new coat in two or three years' time. I've seen this honoured on multiple occasions, and only turned down once on a haggard jacket over ten years old (Because, reasonable lifetime -- you've got to take care of the products too).
The margins are then determined to try and create fair and competitive market between everyone who sells a particular brand. Sometimes when things are purchased in larger numbers, retailers get a discount on their order which could mean either wider profit for them or a lower price on the product as soon as it hits the shelf.
My issue with all of this concerns accessibility, a T-Shirt, and what it means for the outdoor industry. I believe the wilderness should be available to everyone, and they should be able to access good quality gear in order to enjoy it comfortably. Whether it needs to be warm in -20c conditions or breathable in +25c, good gear does cost money. Ideally, in order to avoid waste, everything is produced with an intended purpose.
The only reason you pay $200 for a Merino T-Shirt is because you can, making its existence quite the waste of money and resources. Unless the Merino Sheep providing the wool are treated like actual royalty with personal butlers, I really can't think of any reason this T-Shirt should be any more expensive than one from Icebreaker: At an average of $90, the Men's Cool-Lite™ Sphere shirt is pretty reasonable value for money. Icebreaker have been lauded through the years for their ethical care of the animals supplying their wool and also treatment of workers along their supply chain, and their product is also very comfortable. In glancing at their web page, I see nothing that sets this Veilance product apart from anything Icebreaker offers. The features are the same: "Moisture wicking", "breathable", "lightweight", all typical characteristics of Merino products and the reason this fabric is so popular now. Basically, you're paying for the name. This is alarming.
To me, the existence of this shirt signals a departure for the outdoor industry from being environmentally sustainable and a problem for locally owned and operated retailers who are trying to stay afloat.
Many years ago while working at a local business I had someone challenge me on the cost of an Icebreaker shirt. Why, he asked, was this tee so expensive when he could go to Costco and buy a 3-pack for $40? I deferred to the value of ethical animal treatment. Museling, for example, is a cruel but common practice of removing strips of wool-bearing skin from around the breech butt of a sheep to prevent parasitic infection (yes I googled that to make sure I got it right). It can be quite painful and the end goal is achieved through other means from good farmers. Icebreaker only works with farmers who agree to a strict set of rules around how they treat their animals, and not using the museling technique is one of those rules. If I had to guess, the brand selling 3 for $40 Merino shirts at Costco might not adhere to the same ethics in their resource purchasing, which is reflected in pricing. In my experience though, a lot of people don't care about the back end of their product. "It's all the same", he told me at the time. It's something a lot of people would tell me. Even if that were true, though, Costco isn't out building local trails. Even if we set aside the ethical means of manufacturing products -- we shouldn't -- $200 for a t-shirt is yet another step along a scary trend for an industry built on the environment. The $200 shirt has no discernible difference from the $90 shirt, while the 3-for-$40 are ethically questionable. The 3-for-$40 shirts will probably fall apart faster meaning the purchase of more 3-for-$40 while the $90 shirt will last longer and waste less, but people will wonder why it's any different from the $200 and assume it has lower quality. This makes the pricing hard to justify for small business owners and employees who depend on the wider margins in soft-goods. People will probably lean towards the lower quality gear because, hey, "It's all the same". Right now, these same small businesses are already working hard to stay relevant in the age of online retail. If items continue to trend upwards in expense for no good reason, the local retailers will suffer well before the brands do.
Small business retailers are looking at their local market and try to anticipate buying trends a year out. When they make their orders, there is little to no risk for the manufacturers who know how much they'll sell because it has been ordered by the retailers, and then they manufacture it with some room for re-stocking popular items. Once the stock arrives on local shelves, it belongs to the store until it's sold. If something isn't popular, it sits in a small retailer. Larger chains like Sportchek can eat this cost more effectively than small businesses. They also have the option of moving it between different locations or selling it it for a steep discount which is subsidised by numerous other products being sold at full retail. Some brands also move unsold stock between stores or sell it in bulk. Consider, Winners. Or, online, look at the online retailer Altitude sports: When their stock from various brands doesn't move, they transfer it all to The Last Hunt with 35% - 45% off to start, followed by flash sales with further reductions or the usual Black Friday / Boxing Day / whatever-they-want-excuse deep reductions. It's a season old, but to a lot of shoppers that doesn't matter as much as the price for something they want. For many this is their first-stop shopping, whether they need the massive reductions or not. Small businesses really can't compete, and I've heard of instances where they've been asked to.
So, what we have is a competitive model leaning towards high-end gear that larger retailers can stock, initially selling off regular-price goods to those who can afford it for full price, in-turn subsidising heavily discounted product. Over time this erodes any competitive edge a local shop may have. In addition to people asking for The Last Hunt price-matches, with further discounts, I've also heard of people trying on Blundstones for size then pulling out their phones and ordering the shoe they want online while they're still in the store. There's a sales practice called "give them the pickle", which essentially suggests a happy customer is better than no customer regardless of what it is they are asking. Nowadays customers have more leverage than ever to ask for some pretty unsustainable pickles.
To tackle this, manufacturers are starting to edge their way more and more online. This is a poor response. locally owned and operated businesses are backbones of this industry. Many brands do sponsor events and trail building all the time. They donate to advocacy expeditions and documentary films about saving the environment. But, all of this only goes so far and at the end of the day is often driven by local people who are actually attending the builds or spending weeks and months putting the events together. It's people who live in communities that make the most impact rather than helicopter philanthropy, even though those funds can be important (Casual shameless plug for my buddy's film, below, which was made through the RaceFace creator series).
Pricing counts for a lot in keeping those businesses alive and thriving. "Buy and sell less expensive product" is a dismissive solution putting the onus on retailers and customers, again because good quality things do cost money. Everyone should be able to enjoy the outdoors with the same level of comfort as anybody else, and sometimes this comes down to the quality of gear. So, what's wrong with saying something is good enough, pricing it accordingly, and leaving it well enough alone? Enjoying a winter snowshoe with solid gear should not be restricted to the super rich, and even if it looks nice there really is no necessity for a $850 Anorak. If someone can afford that, imagine what a world we'd have if they bought one for even $450 and directed the rest of their buying power to a charity.
Super-expensive gear also leads to waste. Why was the $200 Veliance shirt made? What was the environmental footprint of its production? Was it really necessary to make so that someone feels fancy? In the pursuit of the next new technological breakthrough in the outdoor industry, I wonder how often manufacturers and brands stop to think whether they should before finding out whether they can. Much like the tech industry, this creates an atmosphere where the newest is coolest and old stuff is considered obsolete and disposable, meaning people are potentially buying something they already have within years of the last *~thing~*. This in turn creates an unnecessary clutter. The stuff is often thrown away, but lately there have been lots of consignment shops taking used brand name apparel, and gear swaps are highly useful for moving unused knick-knacks to new homes.
Nice things cost money and if you buy it right, you buy it once. This may mean paying a little more, but we've finally hit the limit of reasonable price versus practicality. Some people in the industry might tell me that new and exciting product releases are how they keep afloat and nobody wants what was around five years ago, but I'd really only accept this from a technological or mechanical perspective regarding bike materials or parts. Retro '80s and '90s aesthetics in clothing (like the Anorak) have been making a comeback for a decade now, so why are we rushing to define new style trends if our children are just going to bring back 00's emo grunge by the 2030s?
It's important to note this doesn't always happen, and many brands do better than others. But as a whole, the outdoor industry really should take a look at the consumerism it fosters, who it serves outside of the bottom line, and how sustainable it actually is for the long term on this planet we call home.
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.
"Newfoundland and Labrador retains the right to proofread and approve all social media, general media and fiction output from visitors. Thank you for bringing your money, but please leave your opinions at the door and double check your pronunciation of Newfoundland (Think: Understand)."
Is this the disclaimer we need at the bottom of Marine Atlantic's booking sites, or incoming Air Canada flights?
Last fall, Robin Short was crucified on the altar of salt meat and potatoes when the poor man said he was tired of our image outside the province. It's a wonder he wasn't deported for attacking our proud heritage of singing and dancing in the middle of Toronto Pearson Airport. Fast-forward to last week, when Anthony Bourdain's documentary was announced to be airing. "Great" we said, "but don't call us Newfie". Oh, and then media coverage focused on Bourdain's pronunciation of Newfoundland (I know it was more cheeky than anything, but... really?). Clearly he didn't see Mindy Kaling's tweet.
So, we @ him. We tweet CNN. We're the friendliest people in Canada, but my son don't look at us sideways. Follow our rules while you visit, please. This lucky American got to meet his girlfriend on Corner Brook on Monday, and lord help him if he tweets something off-colour afterwards. It's a wonder we don't have volunteer tourism advisers following his every move. Holy moly. Are we really so serious?
I don't think Anthony Bourdain will be revisiting any time soon. If he ever did think to recommend us, I'd say that goodwill is gone b'y. This week, he had to defend the Quebecois chefs who suggested he come to the island. The same province outraged about being called 'Newfies' were ticked off with the 'frenchies' and 'frogs' who were so prominently featured. And who the hell is St. Pierre, anyways!?
Um, okay.
We're dying for cash right now. Tourism might very well be the answer, honestly. People coming in from outside the province and spending their money with us. But we're not exactly screaming "come visit!" when offside of the tourism ads, we're berating personalities for not toeing our line. Sure, Anthony has probably had negative feedback before and it won't be the last time. He visits myriad cultures and can't get it all right. But c'mon, he ate some fish and had a good time. Is this how we want to be remembered?
In the conversation about immigration, it's well documented that when people enter Canada through Newfoundland and Labrador, they move on. If they stay, they struggle to feel welcome and settle. Meanwhile, we need them. With a quickly aging population from generations who would have an average of four to five or more children -- "and THEN they came out with the pill" my Nan used to say -- we're looking at a lot of some awfully wise people leaving the workforce without anyone to replace them. But, don't take away our jobs you CFAs.
Thank you so much for the free advertisement, Come From Away on Broadway; an award-winning musical about the charitable spirits of Newfoundland and Labradorians, who invited stranded people from around the world into their homes. Never mind that Claude Elliott is allegedly unsupportive of LGBTQ people, please come visit us CFA fans! Heck, film the movie here as well -- we could use the dollars. Before you arrive, consult this informative pamphlet about the exact words you should use while you're here. Please don't stay more than two months. And finally, please visit George Street. Don't mind what happened to that guy from Aquaman.
Nothing like some good old fashioned victim blaming to drive the narrative.
I was hit in July while riding my bicycle. While no bones were broken, I sustained some big hits to my legs and lower back. Miraculously, my neck and head were saved from immediate damage. Wear your helmet, kids.
The issue was soft tissue damage, and I suffer to this day. I have been regularly attending physiotherapy since the fall -- the delay brought on by a confusing-to-navigate compensation system, with mounds of paperwork and emails circulated before I got my first appointment. Alongside these sessions, I have had to buy tools for at-home therapy, also at the expense of their insurance company. So, yup. I'm one of the people apparently raising the premiums. Most of this is paid for by my own insurance through work, and the rest is covered by their insurance -- that's how the system works. When my insurance runs out, theirs will take over. I don't see stopping any time soon, because I notice the difference when I take a "break". It hurts.
Naturally, the victims are being blamed. People are trying to cap the benefits I take advantage of to keep moving like I did before the accident.
If I could take it back, you bet I would. I wish I didn't have to check in with a physiotherapist every other week, making sure my body is healing properly over half a year after the collision.
It would be naive to think people aren't taking advantage of the system through any variation of insurance fraud. Auto repair fraud is well documented in Canada , and likely happening in NL. Every cent affects the system like a pebble in a pond. People are also likely fraudulently claiming soft-tissue damage, as well. So, yes -- this is likely driving up premiums.
Right now, taxi drivers are also having a hard time. There is seemingly no mercy for them. "Drive safer", people are telling them. But, nobody seems to be accounting for their own driving habits.
A few weekends ago, St. John's saw ten collisions in one weekend. One was fatal. There were a few drunk drivers on the roads, of course. It was an anomalous weekend, but tallies of at least three and up are not uncommon. This is excluding the multiple vehicular accidents across the province.
We blame government for not fixing the roads, or demand better signage. We say bike riders shouldn't be on the black top, or pedestrians need to wear brighter clothing. We say there needs to be more police on our highways enforcing speed limits. These are all valid observations, but missing from the conversation each and every time is personal accountability. St. John's dealerships are selling more jeeps and trucks than ever before. More people are driving in more powerful vehicles than ever before, with more potential distractions. Getting a license is laughably easy, with no check-ins after the fact until you are a senior -- and that's assuming people are licensed while they drive.
You know what would keep our rates down? Fewer cars on the road. Better driving. Slower driving. Common sense in bad weather. Paying attention to the signage currently in place. Yielding right-of-ways. Watching out for pedestrians -- not slowing down to let them jaywalk, but to follow the rules of the road and not run them down.
Basically, before we cap pain and suffering insurance for people who need it, let's collectively agree to stop hitting other road users with our massive transportation machines.
