Edgewater Hotel Sign Comes Down
The Art of Not Knowing
If You Tweet It, He Will Come
Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
The Daily Photoist: November 20, 2009
Photos by Nick Kozak/Torontoist.
Late on Tuesday afternoon, cyclists took to the stretch of Bloor Street West between Avenue Road and Bay Street (above), an impromptu mourning of Darcy Allan Sheppard, the bike courier killed along the stretch the night before. A much larger pack is expected to descend on the area on Wednesday at 5 p.m. to do it again. For a community whose more enthusiastic members took over the Gardiner on a whim last year, that stretch of Bloor should be an easy temporary conquest; activists have long wanted bike lanes there, going so far as to create the lanes there themselves.
It's tempting to see Sheppard's death as a tragic end to another fight in the larger war between cyclists and drivers, one battle of the many that take place daily on city streets, though not frequently with this result. But doing so, or taking any side in that war, obscures the larger systemic problem responsible for creating an environment in which such fights are commonplace. Nothing inherent in cars or bikes, after all, save for the adrenaline each can produce, explain by themselves the behaviour of the people who use either mode. There are good and bad drivers just as there are good and bad cyclists and good and bad people, and no-one undergoes a transfiguration by hopping onto a bike or a descent into wickedness through their convertible.
The problem is instead the way that the city's environment is built, and the way its people think about it is as a result. On a road there is a clear power dynamic: cars, because of size and weight and speed and maneuverability and protection for their occupants, win. Always. But most roads are not built with an acknowledgment of that: a road with lanes built for the use of cars forces cyclists to constantly compete with an opponent who is far from equal, all while forcing a level playing field that can't actually exist.
That's why Toronto's infrastructure must accommodate bikes, and do so with the full acknowledgment that they are different, different from cars and different from pedestrians, and necessarily separate from both. Cyclists do not belong on sidewalks, but they also don't belong on roads designed for cars and not them, like Bloor between Avenue and Bay as it exists now. There is no one possible solution; fully protected bike lanes would be amazing, but sharrows or regular old bike lines can all make a difference if widespread enough. (We'd need a lot more than are currently planned.) There just has to be something real and omnipresent that makes it clear to cyclists and drivers, over and over and over again, that roads can and must be shared by unevenly matched travellers. It's been done before. The sidewalk is for the most part not some magical place where only pedestrians are physically capable of setting foot: it's just differently-coloured cement, at a slightly different height, with an occasional plant or pole. Drivers all know that it's not for them, and stay off of it.
Such changes, if implemented, wouldn't constitute a "war on cars": different types of transportation simply warrant different treatment on the roads, and when cars and cyclists are shoved together on packed roads built for cars only, real effects on both the mindset and actions of Torontonians inevitably follow. Short of true and justified fear for his or his passenger's own lives, there is no excuse whatsoever for a driver doing to a cyclist what Bryant is alleged to have done to Sheppard—but that doesn't mean such incidents are totally unavoidable in the future. And besides, if there really was a war on cars, how come all of the casualties are coming from the other side?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
First of all, when I heard about what happened, my heart just sank. There are enough accidents involving bikes, deadly accidents - if this was indeed an accident and not a killing - are especially horrible.
I personally don't cycle in Toronto anymore - and I am somebody who lived in London, UK, and was an avid cyclist over there, a city with far more traffic, narrower streets and a higher population density. Over there, I never felt in any way threatened, cars drivers routinely check their mirrors for cyclists and pedestrians actually look before stepping into your path.
In Toronto I had too many near misses in too short a time, so I stopped.
Having said this, I also think that Toronto has some of the very worst cyclists I've ever encountered. I frequently see cyclists wearing headphones, I see cyclists at night dressed in black without lights, I see cyclists ignoring stop signs, cycling on the sidewalk, against one way streets, the list never ends. I've never encountered this amount of rule breaking, rudeness and frequently just blatant idiocy anywhere I've cycled in Europe.
Sure, part of the fault lies with the city. The fact that our main thoroughfares have no bike lanes is appalling and makes all claims about us being a 21st century city sound hollow. That needs to be changed, and changed fast.
But cyclists who break the rules and look at this as an opportunity to indulge into their private version of class warfare are doing all of us a disservice.
David I think you raise some very valuable points in this article, none of which I would contend. Having said that (and only to further discussion on the topic), I am immediately aware of the city's overwhelming instinctual response (based on articles that I've read and conversations that I've had with people) to condemn Mr. Bryant and treat Mr. Sheppard as a tragic victim.
While I have absolutely no intention of disregarding the tragedy of the event, and I do feel great sorrow for Mr. Sheppard's family, I find it highly unfair to place the onus for this incident entirely on the shoulders of Mr. Bryant. Based on the eye-witness and police accounts that I've read, the most obvious point that strikes me is that I am filled with uncertainty about where to place the blame. Although Mr. Bryant is the only one that can be legally implicated here, I don't think its fair to completely dismiss Mr. Sheppard's responsibility in his own demise.
Whatever the nature of their original confrontation, Mr. Sheppard's decision to damage Mr. Bryant's vehicle should have been apparently obvious to him as a significant misstep. Had Mr. Bryant accidently hit Sheppard in some capacity, its clear that he wasn't in any way incapacitated by his injuries, as he demonstrated more than enough verve to provoke further incident with Bryant. Furthermore, I would hazard that Sheppard's decision to grab onto Bryant's vehicle would have immediately constituted a threatening situation, and Bryant intended nothing more than to get away from it as quickly as possible when he decided to speed off. That Sheppard held on to the vehicle (and I truthfully cannot fathom a reason for this) is indicative of purely irrational rage; rage which ended up resulting in his death.
I am not attempting to dismiss Bryant of responsibility here, not in the slightest. His decision to continue speeding up with Sheppard attached to the vehicle, and further attempting to shake him off it with erratic and dangerous driving, is irresponsible, deplorable, and it turned out to be deadly. For that, Bryant deserves his just punishment. But Sheppard's unwillingness to release the vehicle, and thus further what already appears to be a very vicious altercation, creates an environment of duress for Bryant that likely resulted in his irrational need to flee the situation by any means necessary. Clearly Bryant had reason to believe that Sheppard was intending to harm him in some manner, and calling Bryant a killer simply because he was in a car is totally unfair. As you said David, "no-one undergoes a transfiguration by hopping onto a bike or a descent into wickedness through their convertible." Just by virtue of being in a vehicle does not mean that Bryant should have felt "safe" from the potential assault of a cyclist, and it would seem as though he had every reason to be afraid, which to me explains his behaviour (though it does not excuse it). In this day and age, it seems more and more that the people we encounter in confrontational scenarios are entirely incomprehensible and capable of extreme and unwarranted acts of violence. Knowing this, and knowing that most people have a similar notion in their heads, I refuse to hold Bryant accountable for fearing such violence at Sheppards hand.
This is undoubtedly a tragic scenario, one that stems from the enraged and irrational behaviour of both participants, but I think that we as a city need to be extremely careful of shining the blame-light to brightly on any single party. Doing so will only further exacerbate the "driver-cyclist" battle in which we find ourselves immersed.
This is a typically well-written editorial, but it doesn't sit well with me.
Christine Blatchford has a piece in the Globe and Mail that acknowledges the same power dynamic but ends on a much different note:
Besides the awkward formulation ("Rule #X: behind the wheel you are driving a potential weapon!"), I prefer this moral.I won't claim that drivers are getting more aggressive because—like scaremongering about violent crime rates—that's probably false. However, they remain too aggressive for the safety of cyclists, and the 'bubbles' Blatchford refers to probably don't tend to improve this. To wit, side-impact airbags don't make you a more cautious driver.
To give poor city planning the bulk of the blame is to absolve drivers of the responsibilities attendant on their license, one of which is to share the road. For a clumsy analogy, I could say the Ontario ban on cellphone use while driving acknowledges a behavioural, not technological, problem. Asking for separated bike lanes on every busy Toronto route is like asking for a hands-free device in every new car—quixotic and indirect.
Faulting infrastructure only looks good next to finger pointing ("You! Driver! You're nothing but a murderer looking for a victim! Shame!"). People can be made more responsible through effective public education: for example, no one was conscious of the four food groups before the Canada Food Guide. Where are the cheesy TV spots showing smiling drivers and cyclists sharing the roads? The only cycling safety messaging I've seen is aimed at children cyclists.
Applying a higher standard to drivers is fair but cyclists in this town can't be absolved completely lest they increase their reckless disregard for their own safety. If we accept that cars will always dominate these confrontations, perhaps there is significant onus on cyclists to not provoke or extend confrontations with motorists, either.
Blatchford's comment about motorists being the 'only party licensed by society to drive' is important - I think it's high time we trained and licensed cyclists in this city, particularly those who commute by bike or work on a bike. But really everyone, by the time they are 16, who wants to ride a bike, should be licensed carry a visible plate on their bikes. Make it cheap to do, of course, and easy to renew - but it's time. It would add a level of accountability to cycling that doesn't exist now AND it would be a good step toward demonstrating that cycling is serious business. Both to the public and governments.
I'm not a cyclist but I would much rather any bike licencing be voluntary, perhaps with particular benefits to the licensee in the event of an altercation/collision/other in which the law enforcement (and/or OHIP) becomes involved in some capacity. Bikes aren't cars and never will be, so I don't think it's fair to treat cyclists the same as motorists in this regard. There will never be a bike-car interaction in which the motorist is at greater risk of injury/death than the cyclist; requiring a licence will not make you bicycle weigh a tonne or equip it with equivalent safety equipment, or make you more visible to motorists, or alter your responsibilities under the law. Mandatory bureaucracy for cyclists would only discourage people from becoming cyclists (which would be a major setback in the War On Cars).
I think requiring new motorists/renewers pass a course that includes driving with mixed traffic and the rules cyclists are supposed to follow would have an astronomically greater positive impact.
Why don't schools teach bike safety and rules of the road in PE class? There are more than enough Kenkcycles available to form a touring/rotating squad of bikes for local schools to take turns with.
"Why don't schools teach bike safety and rules of the road in PE class? There are more than enough Kenkcycles available to form a touring/rotating squad of bikes for local schools to take turns with."
One sad, party-pooping word: liability.
We don't even have mandatory PE class in high school.
"reckless disregard" is a generalization. Count me out of it.
If you mean "onus" in the sense of a legal obligation, then I disagree. There are very few cases where we are actually required to look out for our own safety. If you want to jump off a trampoline onto a brick patio in your backyard, you can. We usually hope people choose not to do things like this. If, on the other hand, you jump onto someone, persuade someone else to jump, etc., then the law becomes relevant.
The safe motorist and cyclist endanger no-one. The reckless cyclist endangers himself most of all, perhaps pedestrians next, and can hardly do any harm to motorists. The reckless driver endangers himself least of all; pedestrians (who are not on the road) next and other motorists and cyclists (who are) most.
Licensing might not be bad, if it were for life and started at an earlier age than licensed driving. If you're licensing cyclists (as opposed to registering bicycles), then it would take the form of a card in one's wallet, not a plate on the vehicle.
I'm thinking of licensing as a means toward encouraging cyclists to use the road more responsibly, and to discourage vigilantism - if they are to share the road with cars, then they should be just as accountable and identifiable.
It's not clear to me that licensed drivers of motor vehicles are any more "responsible" in their use of the road than unlicensed cyclists simply by virtue of being licensed and having briefly demonstrated good driving skills to an examiner. Sure, it might "encourage" this, but the real value of licensing is the ability to revoke the license once something goes wrong.Even then, this doesn't stop someone from driving... especially an inherently irresponsible person.
I would allow that vehicle licensing (i.e. clear visual display of a registration number) does help accountability insofar as it might help track down parties to a collision or other incident after the fact.
I would like to suggest an approach to dealing with cycling in the city that goes beyond bike lanes. Just last week a friend of mine was also hit by a car.
Bike traffic and car traffic, with significantly different speeds and vehicles of significantly different masses, need to be separated by more than a painted line. I believe Bike lanes should be physically separated from arterial road traffic.
Licensing cyclists will provide some of the funds for bike lanes.
Am I the only one that thinks thats a win/win?
License fees would barely cover the cost of the bureaucracy needed to set it up. It would discourage new riders as well at a time we want to encourage it.
The problem isn't a shortage of money, it's the lack of political will to give cyclists a safer infrastructure.
I'm not aware of any city in the world that successful integrates cycling into its transportation network and requires licensing.
Bike licensing would kill cycling in this city, especially if licensing fees were high enough to fund infrastructure. The proposed licensing program would be more likely to be a cost for the city than a revenue source. It would be an expensive program with arguable benefits (it's been tried before and scrapped).
A licensing program would have to account for unlicensed out of town riders and for minors. It would also provide a financial disincentive to ride in a time when it makes more sense to be giving people financial incentives to do so. Remember that some cyclists are cyclists because they can't afford to ride the TTC.
We're currently in a slightly awkward transition phase between being a city where hardly anyone bikes and being a cycling city. We can either kill off cycling with programs like licensing, or do the right thing.
The real cure to Toronto's cycling issues would be solved by more cycling: more cyclists, more cycling infrastructure, more cycling education and enforcement and more time to allow these things to happen. Toronto's cycling advocates have been working on these issues for years.
This is a horrible story and as a bike rider it's also scary to me personally.
But to blame the government is a typical Canadian response.
I love riding my bike but I've been uncomfortable to see that love become politicized in Toronto over the years, by both politicians and riders alike.
On the road you are a small fish surrounded by whales. You have to ride like that. Just because you're Canadian doesn't give you the right to demand a car not to smash you to a million pieces. This is just common sense.
And who among us that ride has never seen an aggressive cyclist yell at or punch a car? This 'war' has escalated over the years, and now look at us, a guy died in the safest country in the world, over nothing, over a stupid 'war.'
The government isn't going to save you in this war. It's not going to save me, either. You need to save yourself. Can anyone argue differenly?
I didn't say licensing would FUND the infrastructure. I said it would provide SOME of the funds for infrastructure.
Look, bottom line is this: I'm not a motorist, nor an apologist for motorists. But the overwhelming majority of cyclists I see in this city are terrible; cutting through traffic, ignoring signage and traffic laws, failing to signal, riding on the sidewalk, and all with a sense of entitlement. I really WANT cycling to be much higher priority in Toronto, but what good is it if all the new cyclists are assholes?
Just wondering if anyone from MADD protested drunk cycling?
Or will they block the street to protest the biker's assault on a homeless man?
Its a knee-jerk reaction to blame the driver. but, like an onion, you peel back the layers and reveal more stink. I initially thought Bryant was to blame, but this story just looks like a sad, sad snowball of events caused by an angry person who happened to be a biker.
two people demonstrating severely impaired judgement: one cyclist, one driver. one dead.