Walk, ride, walk, ride. Repeat

This is a brief rant.

I like to ride my bike.

That’s not the rant, it’s something I like.

I live in the Niagara Region.  Again, not the rant.

The Niagara Region positions itself as a great place for cycling vacations (in the summer they managed to get GO Transit trains, equipped with bike lockup areas, to come right to Niagara Falls, so people could bring their bikes and ride around).  Environmentally friendly, let’s all get the kids together and ride.

Right.

For years, now, the Regional government has had a policy on adding bike lanes to new roads.  This is a policy they have consistently ignored.  Even when pressured, and when they’ve said “oh, yes, we’ll honour that policy” by the end of the construction, no new bike lanes are there.  Who audits these things?

That’s pretty shitty, let’s not fool ourselves.  But what’s worse is the haphazard way that bike lanes have been introduced.  You’ll be riding down a road, dodging cars that seem to have an uneven understanding of the need to share the road.   Then, suddenly, with little fanfare, there is a nicely paved section, with bike lanes.  Then, suddenly, with no warning, the lanes end.

What the hell?

Which genius in planning thinks that this is in any way useful?  What, are we supposed to walk until we get to a bike-laned area, then ride, then walk?

The worst part about all of this is the message it sends to drivers.  I don’t mind riding on the road without lanes.  No worries; I think that the more cyclists who do that, the more drivers will realize that we need to share the road.  Or at least they’ll get used to us.  But with bike lanes unstrategically placed along parts of roads, the suggestion is that this area is where bikes are permitted to be, but other areas are not for cyclists.  You then get very un-bike-friendly behaviour from drivers, like driving too close, or moving over right after passing a bike, so that, when the car slows down, the bike is edged into that lovely part of the edge of the road full of grit and broken glass.  Nice.

Of course, it’s not just random drivers.  Every time a cyclist rides on the sidewalk (coward) they are reinforcing the idea that the roads are for cars.  They are also endangering pedestrians.

The ironic other problem is that planners seem to like to make planning changes appear to be about pitting cyclists against pedestrians.  They argue that you either have good sized sidewalks, for people including those in those little electric scooters, or you have bike lanes.  To have anything else, the implication is, would be to limit the size of car lanes, and that, of course, would be the first step towards anarchy.

It’s a car-centred approach to planning.  This is the heart of the problem.  As long as planning is car-centred, the safest and easiest option will be the car.  As long as the safest and easiest option will be the car, development will continue to spread, because getting a mile away is not a big deal when you have a car.  Hospitals, arenas, other facilities that should be accessible to everyone, will be accessible only to the people who have cars.  John Stuart Mill referred to this sort of thinking as the “tyranny of the majority.”  Those without such access, are left out completely.  Usually, these people are of lower income, who normally would need to access the publicly-funded facilities (because they can’t afford private ones).

Rant over.

Dear Garden City Alliance for Sustainable Transportation

I toast your victory.  Last night the St. Catharines’ City Council voted unanimously in favour of what seems to be a radical redirection of city planning regarding cycling on city roads.  The policy regarding cycling lanes that was passed last night actually has teeth.  Unlike the last action paper (or inaction paper, or policy paper, or paper weight) that was passed back in the late 1990s (so I’m told) which basically sat on the mayor’s desk for years, this one has provisions for immediate action.  Within days, we are told, bike lanes will be added to some roads that currently can hold them. And what’s more, these roads are in more residential-focused areas, in which places often citizens coalitions get together to resist any change that might affect their immediate way of life.

And there was opposition: people making the time worn argument that bike lanes would get in the way of their cars. Parking on the streets would be affected.

Well boo hoo.  That is the classic car-centred argument we hear repeatedly, one that basically says cars should have priority on city roads.  They don’t remember what they learned in kindergarten: that it’s good to share.

Often policy change is the result of a fundamental shift in the way the general public are thinking.  This may be the case–GCAST came along when more people were thinking about riding their bikes, and finding how difficult and downright scary it can be.  It may be a matter of the right place at the right time, and the right leadership both in GCAST and in the city.  It is worth considering, because the next steps should be, along with keeping the pressure up, and moving towards region-wide initiatives of this sort, a thoughtful consideration of the reasons for your success.  And then right it down, to provide an example for future generations of Active Transportation activists.

I think I have recently noticed elements of the more general change in mindset on my daily rides to work.  I have seen many more bikes on the streets (and on the sidewalks, sadly).  But I have also seen much more courteous behaviour from drivers.  Really.  Much more often than in past years, drivers don’t barrel past me, trying to edge me into the curb.  In fact, in the past two months I have been amazed at the number of drivers who slow down to wait behind me until they see an opportunity to pass safely.  I cannot explain to you how much of a difference this is from my past experiences.  Yes, there are still many jerks on the road, and more often than I can count I’ve felt myself a split second from major injury or death.  But there are also an increasing number of people whose behaviour suggests that they recognize the right of cyclists to be on the road, too.

Of course you know all of this; you are out there.  You lead by example and have shown city politicians the realities and practicalities of cycling in our fair city.

Thank you, and congratulations.

Your friend,

Dan

Dear President Elect Obama (!!!!)

Please don’t screw this up.

Your friend,

Dan

The doldrums

This is the first time in my three week NaBloPoMo extravaganza that I actually have nothing to say.  It’s a slow news day, so let’s think.  What do I think about today….?

Ah, thinking!  That’s it!  What is it about a leader that, if he is considered an intellectual, he’s not a good leader?  I am using the male pronoun intentionally, because I have not yet seen this same issue apply to women.  Usually when women are running, the salient issue is, first of all, their sex.   Sex is a category of analysis that eclipses many other factors, and colours different attributes quite differently.

I think about this because of the way Stéphane Dion has been analyzed in the press lately.  He’s a bookish intellectual.  He was a professor, carries around a knapsack, pencil neck and glasses.  He’s a geek.  (and I really mean that in the most affectionate way possible).  The connection with this and his inability to lead is often implied, sometimes made explicit.  Maybe it’s true.  But maybe, in the current hyperscrutinized short-sound-bite world, there is no room for the well-considered response, the nuanced analysis of a complex issue, the thinker.

But then again, I’m not sure.  Barack Obama is considered an intellectual.  Well, maybe I’m wrong there.  He’s considered by detractors to be a Harvard-educated elitist.  I don’t know if intellectual is the negative label attached to him, but he certainly bears all the hallmarks of intellectual leader.  Thinks things through; comes up with complex solutions to complex problems.  Not so great in the off the cuff debate (look at his comment in the second debate about McCain portraying him as “green behind the ears” when he meant wet behind the ears–a flub that is, to me, the mark of someone not so comfortable with the quick thought forum, something from which many academics shy away).  Is he a geek?

Then again, I wonder if it is a racial thing.  If Obama were a skinny white guy, with some very inspiring things to say but the tendency to be thoughtful and ponder his responses, and occasionally stumble over his words, would he have been as successful as he is?  Then, in this case, could it be that race is an issue, a major issue, but it serves to obscure something (his intellect, his willingness to consider thoughtfully complex issues) that would otherwise be a political liability? Suddenly, along with sex, class and race, we have geek as a category of analysis. (The research possibilities are endless!)

Like I said, it’s a slow news day… and I’ve been busy with other stuff.  But there you go, something to ponder.

The debate dilemma debate.

So on October 2 there are two election debates that are relevant to me.

The first is the leaders debate for the Canadian election.  Egads!  Something worth setting the PVR to facilitate sleeping?  Maybe, but also relevant to national politics.  Sometimes the important stuff isn’t edge-of-your-seat exciting, okay?!  And let’s face it, this one could be good.  Five parties, one fascist and four lefties.  Environment on the agenda.  A closeted totalitarian PM on the brink of a majority who doesn’t want to admit it lest the electorate balk at voting for him.  Very odd stuff here!

The other, of course, is the VP debate for the US election.  Now this should be fun.  Sarah Palin has already proven, in the few media interviews she’s held, that she is pretty much devoid of substance.  She can stick to a script relatively well, but ask her something that requires content or processing, and she seizes up.  But gawrsh, she’s purty! Joe Biden, on the other hand, is an experienced senator, but one who has himself shown, at times, that he didn’t quite read the briefing papers closely enough.  It has the potential of being the media event of the decade!

God, this is a tough decision.  Do I chose (personal) political relevance or pure, unadulterated train-wreck potential?  One will be a media snooze fest, but important to my decision, the other a truly transcendent experience for political junkies (like me), the pleasure equivalent of high-grade heroin (I imagine) or a well-aged 120 Minute IPA from Dogfish Head.

I’m really torn.  Whaddya think?