Today	Tuesday	Wednesday
Thunderstorm 88°/68°	Thunderstorm 84°/63°	Chance of a Thunderstorm 77°/57°

City Hall
Rob Ford Stays Mayor
Appeals court overturns decision ordering him out of office.
Background: The Conflict of Interest Case • Today's Decision • Seeking Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court

26 Comments October 12, 2010 at 9:30 am

news

Rob Ford Gaffe-O-Meter: Roe Is Me

It’s happened: Rob Ford has said or done something embarrassing. But just how serious was it? Torontoist’s handy-dandy Gaffe-O-Meter breaks it down.

GAFFE: The mayoral candidate told biking mag Dandyhorse that “the problem with bicycles is that they have become a political issue—saying I’ll put in bike lanes gets the support of cyclists, but the rest of the voters will hate me. The debate has become equivalent to abortion—whatever I say, someone will be angry.”
GAFFE LEVEL: 3/5
INSIGHT INTO CHARACTER: Prone to gross exaggeration. Doesn’t believe in a political or moral middle ground. Possible persecution complex.
ANALYSIS: What to make of a problem that’s partially the result of your own rhetoric? Ramp up the rhetoric.
For Ford, disdain for cyclists is a well-trodden road. By now, you’ve heard his 2007 comment that “what I compare bike lanes to is swimming with the sharks…roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks, not for people on bikes. And my heart bleeds for ‘em when I hear someone gets killed [shrugs], but it’s their own fault at the end of the day.” Only last month, when Ford unveiled his transportation plan, he jawed that “it’s time to stop the war on cars,” a war that has always been a fantasy.
But here he comes again, this time to put the debate about bike lanes on par with the one about abortion, all while framing himself as a victim of an unwanted war rather than its longtime commander. To which there is only one proper response: huh? Forget abortion clinics: when’s the last time the Bike Clinic got firebombed? Who’s murdering lane-painting City workers? How’s this “hate” being manifested, outside of comments on Toronto Sun articles? In what way is a bike lane like an abortion? (Wait: don’t answer that.) Ford’s right that people get angry at him no matter what his positions are, but that’s not because bike lanes are divisive—it’s because he is.
Gaffe-O-Meter illustration by Clayton Hanmer/Torontoist. Rob Ford photo by Christopher Drost/Torontoist. Thanks to Ryan Bigge for the discovery.
Get more municipal election coverage from Torontoist here.

Comments

http://flickr.com/aged_accozzaglia accozzaglia

This man is not terribly bright. Further, when presented with a bona fide or complex matter to consider, he doesn’t think. He makes gut reactions garnished with hyperbole and alarmist rhetoric.
But saying this is to beat a dead dandyhorse (of which having one dead dandyhorse is one too many).
thelemur

This morning at an intersection (without bike lanes), I saw a laughing driver deliberately bump a cyclist, one who had previously asked him to let him get in front (no bike boxes there) before the light changed. War on the car, my eye.
http://flickr.com/aged_accozzaglia accozzaglia

Of all the demonstrations bicyclists could orchestrate to underscore their clout, it’s not the act of Critical Mass or demanding sharrows on Bloor.
It’s to think in a completely different way: through the deliberate, co-ordinated effort between bicyclists and a donation by one of the car-sharing companies around town (Zipcar, Autoshare, etc.) to have reserved every car in their fleet for one morning and another day’s afternoon during rush hour. All bicyclist commuters would then hop in their “own car” and occupy space on the road. For bicyclists who’ve never driven, they get to be passengers. These cars don’t really need to have a destination (although a “critical mass” of bicyclists all using cars to end up at a designated parking site or sites would be kind of amusing, keeping parking lot regulars from finding many decent spaces, if any at all).
The point of this demonstration is to freeze city traffic wholesale by increasing the amount of car traffic proportionate to the percentage of commuters who use the bike. That number tends to float at high as about 7 percent of commuters right now. But that 7 percent additional placed instead in cars, in the amount of space consumed by those cars, would lock down the streets and expressways on a level not seen very often. I expect it would make the news beyond the GTA. It would be a sight!
In the long run, for anyone willing to sell their car but still need one for occasional errands, this stunt would also be a boon for the car sharing companies whose exposure drew new awareness to the notion of saying that the road problem is the bicyclists’ fault, not the overabundance of car commuters using their wheels to jot around.
Chew on that, Flounder.
http://undefined David Belle

While I support physical activity and alternative methods of transportation, it is apparent there is not enough room on the roads for motor vehicles and bicycles (especially during rush hours). What Mr. Ford is trying (unsuccessfully) to communicate is: Our city lacks the road infrastructure for the number of vehicles resulting in terrible gridlock. Unfortunately there is not enough room for the creation of dedicated bike lanes. Anyone who thinks people will cease driving to work is living in a dream world.
Given these considerations, it is clear that safety for bikers cannot be maintained on roads during peak times. I cannot think of another solution other than to ban bicycles on certain main roads during peak times. I know this is not optimal but fortunately we do have a public transportation system that offers commuters an alternative to driving.
http://undefined John

But David, what you’re suggesting is that since we have too many cars on the road, we should make it harder for people to not drive (and our public transportation system is basically at capacity).
That’s not going to help alleviate gridlock. If you think it will, it’s you who is living in a dream world.
There’s no chance that everyone who drives is going to hop on a bicycle or public transit instead, but experience in places with far less pleasant climate shows that if we provide well-maintained road space for them, a sizeable proportion of people will. And since each cyclist or transit user takes an order of magnitude less road space than a driver, it’s the only way we have to fight gridlock. The status quo is simply not an option.
http://flickr.com/aged_accozzaglia accozzaglia

A ban on bicyclists on selected arterials during peak times would be wholesale unenforceable, politically unpopular, and counterproductive to meeting soft targets in other metrics (e.g., general air quality). A congestion zone charge for motorists would be wholesale enforceable — and successful — given forethought to planning its execution, even if politically unpopular. It would also generate the operating revenue needed to re-invest in the capital upkeep of those arterials.
As to your relief mode of transit, we are saddled with an overburdened, deeply (and long) underfunded public transportation system — yet one which receives proportionately more of its operating revenue from the fare box than any other system in the world. Even so, little of that gets to go toward capital improvements. Your argument, whether you intended or not, argues that all capital monies being given to road construction and maintenance should instead go to bringing public transportation to par in order to provide a public transit system that would be a genuine, enticing, and even permanent alternative to driving one’s own car around.
Your thought process is presently half-arsed. Go full-arsed and you might get somewhere interesting.
http://undefined torontothegreat

Equivalent to the debate on abortion? What the f is this guy sniffing?
Dry Brain

David,
You’re actually advocating to ban an entire vehicle type?
Let me suggest this, using similar logic: Large vehicles such as trucks and SUVs take up more road space than small vehicles such as sedans, motorcycles, smart cars, etc. To decrease congestion, let’s ban large vehicles from major arterial roads during rush hour. Or maybe we could even mandate that all vehicles, regardless of size, carry at least two people. (No single occupancy commutes.)
How would you feel about measures like that, which infringe on your chosen means of commuting?
http://flickr.com/aged_accozzaglia accozzaglia

A bag of vinegar water.
http://www.torontoist.com David Topping

I can’t tell if it’s better or worse, but what Ford actually said—what his words actually say, not what he meant to say—is that the debate about biking is equivalent not to the debate about abortion, but abortion itself. I didn’t get into that above, but there’s an analogy for ya, eh?
http://undefined torontothegreat

Now imagine the kind of crap that would come out of his mouth if he was actually elected? I mean right now he’s had to be on his “best behaviour” as a candidate.
http://undefined David Belle

Thank you for your comments, nothing beats civilized intellectual debate and constructive ideas.
Dry Brain: You may be onto something. A ban on trucks or any vehicle larger than a minivan on arterial routes during rush hour is not a bad idea. Haven’t thought through the details nor do I have any stats on this type of traffic but it would help if feasible.
John Duncan: All very good points. I am not sure of the solution to gridlock but don’t believe the status quo can guarantee the safety of bikers. It appears current gridlock is a result of multiple construction projects throughout the city. I wonder if there is a way to shorten or reduce the disruption of these projects? That may be a topic for another forum.
accozzaglia: Please refrain from insults, it does not benefit debate and discredits your apparent strong intellectual abilities. I don’t believe Torontonians should be subject to any additional taxation at this point. What specifically is wrong with the TTC as it is now? Should another source of funds be available for TTC capital investment, I have some questions: What is the minimum amount of capital improvements would increase system capacity to an acceptable level? What improvements are you contemplating? More transit vehicles? More subway lines? Please educate me here.
http://undefined thelemur

There may not be room for bike lanes everywhere, but then cyclists do not want or require them everywhere either.
Congestion occurs whether bikes are part of the mix or not, on roads with and without bike lanes. Taking the smallest, least obstructive and most mobile vehicles off the road does nothing to address the congestion caused primarily by larger vehicles. Bikes are probably safer in slow-moving congested traffic than in free-flowing fast traffic.
I know this is not optimal but fortunately we do have a public transportation system that offers commuters an alternative to driving
You meant to say we do NOT have a transit system, etc., right? Most commuters who have a choice between driving and transit will choose driving, but if the choice is driving/transit/biking, the popularity of driving goes down and biking becomes more popular, within limits, at the expense of transit.
http://undefined thelemur

I am not sure of the solution to gridlock but don’t believe the status quo can guarantee the safety of bikers
Is it really the job of the status quo to guarantee their safety? The status quo in urban traffic doesn’t presently guarantee the safety of drivers either, nor of pedestrians (who get their own infrastructure too).
It appears current gridlock is a result of multiple construction projects throughout the city
That can be a factor, although it’s not always the main cause of gridlock. Traffic signals, poor driving habits, route selection, driving times – all of these are recurrent factors.
I wonder if there is a way to shorten or reduce the disruption of these projects?
I believe that Smitherman was musing on the same subject recently. Once disruption management of some sort is in place, it is still unlikely to eliminate congestion entirely.
http://flickr.com/aged_accozzaglia accozzaglia

If you were insulted, that is not my concern. I didn’t knowingly insult you.
You ask, “What specifically is wrong with the TTC as it is now?” You’re kidding, right? I suppose the front page of today’s Star wasn’t artefact #9,812 in the top 10,000 list of “What’s wrong with the TTC?”
In short, the quantitative data you seek is pretty easy to find online. If you’re arsed to understand, a few short Google searches will turn up a lot of interesting stuff. Go to the basics: have you even looked through the Transit City plan in depth? Even Torontoist archives of the last few months will turn up a lot of references relevant to this curiosity you have. Try Spacing.ca’s wealth of content.
I won’t be your research gopher.
http://undefined David Belle

Ouch, no reason for such anger. While I appreciate your references to source data I was specifically looking for your conclusions/opinions on these matters. If this is not something you are able or willing to share, that is fine, I will move on.
http://flickr.com/aged_accozzaglia accozzaglia

I am not warm to obtuse comments being made to provoke a discussion. There will still be a discussion, but if you’re making arguments à propos the first remark in this discussion, then you can expect to hear annoyance from the sense that commenting before researching — as you did — just looks lazy on your behalf, and it sets back useful discourse even further.
tl;dr: think it out before you write it out.
http://www.michaeljeremybrown.ca/ Michael Brown

Then there is also the health side of things and the savings that cyclists, with increased physical activity, provide to our health care system. What is the savings annually in health care from people who commute to work on bike/on foot? Is there a drop in sick days? Is there a decrease in rates of depression through increased physical activity? Does increased physical activity boost immune system? Isn’t public health care one of the biggest gravy trains around? So installing a bike lane is really like cleaning fat from clogged arteries….saving taxpayers big $$$…and that is all part of stopping the gravy train…
http://undefined thelemur

The idea of ‘not enough room’ on the roads for all modes of transport is a fairly woolly one. Taking out bikes means that it will just be cars fighting over the available space – it doesn’t translate to better traffic flow.
Given the existing inner-city road infrastructure, any efforts to reduce/prevent congestion will have to focus on prioritizing road use by the modes that make the most sense with regard to the scale of the road and possibly discouraging use by larger vehicles at certain times and in certain locations.
http://undefined Craig C

Not enough got done under Miller and absolutely nothing will get done under Ford since he’ll alienate everyone on city council that he doesn’t make part of his inner circle.
Everyone get ready for four years of heads banging against walls.
http://undefined torontothegreat

Plz define “not enough” thx.
http://undefined torontothegreat

At the end of the day, the choice should be there (to cycle) and that requires the city’s infrastructure to make it as safe as possible for that mode of transport. At the very least, we could finally have metrics to see if adding/supporting bike lanes actually cuts down on gridlock the way it has been successful in other cities.
Adding bike lanes, charging a toll to enter downtown Toronto and more HOV lanes will help to end gridlock. With the additional money from the toll, the TTC could finally be a contender to also help end gridlock.
http://flickr.com/aged_accozzaglia accozzaglia

And bullying sideshows galore. Maybe even a coronary followed by a quadruple-bypass revelation that things must change for the survival of tomorrow.
Things, as tedious as they were, did get done for the better over these last several years, despite the heated rhetoric. You forget that the Miller era was given the Common Sense Revolution “gift” of downloading provincial services to the Harris-amalgamated municipality (which was “gift” enough in itself in terms of how much the newly commingled municipality had on its hands) — such having to assume operating costs for transit, social services, health services, and on and on. The province shot its economic growth foot on that one.
Meanwhile, provincial downloading has been the gift that just keeps on giving — namely, a quarter of property tax rates.
http://undefined mark.

I wonder if the similarity between the abortion debate and the bike lane debate is that neither are really about what they purport to be. The debate surrounding abortion isn’t so much about ending a pregnancy as it is about womens’ rights, personal freedom, upsetting ‘traditional’ (likely Biblical) morals, conceptions of family, etc. And, similarly, the debate surrounding bike lanes *in Toronto* isn’t really about bike lanes at all but rather a multitude of things in which bike lanes are merely the symptom, a stand-in. For example, the expressed frustration (ie. complaining) of people who insist on being able to drive in a dense city as though it were countryside, and insufficient public transit. On the other side, bike lanes are a stand-in for ‘doing the right thing’ (environmentalism, healthy life-style, etc.), annoyance/disagreement with the way the city has been planned and built in the last 50 or so years insofar as it’s been done in the interest of cars and not people. And, I’d argue, it’s for these reasons that populated areas that aren’t really cites (Burlington, Oshawa, Ajax, etc.) are so willing to embrace bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure. “See! We’re a big city!”
Because the debate about bike lanes isn’t really about bike lanes, we in Toronto end up with these ridiculous tangential discussions about how a bike lane “takes away room from cars,” as though a bike lane were the same width as a car lane and as though on-street parking isn’t an impediment to traffic circulation (which assumes that streets are for circulation only). Or that various other types of vehicles (trucks, SUVs) should be “banned” from “arterial roads.” Or some pissing-contest between cyclists and drivers as to who’s more law-abiding. Or the embarrassing moral indignation that cyclists hold to drivers.
In any case, I theorize that much of Toronto’s psyche is determined by the rural hinterlands so that, unlike an astounding number of American cities that are adopting reasonable urban planning guidelines (such as Complete Streets), we will never be urban planning leaders. It’s places like New York that have and will continue to lead the way and we will only catch up, not because we *want* to, but when we *have* to.
http://undefined rich1299

I can see how the bike lanes debate is like abortion, those of you who can’t must be fascist commies or something. Comrade Miller and his cronies have made everything like abortion in this city, I know some of you think Mr Ford sucks but I say he sucks like a vacuum cleaner of justice cleaning up the filth left behind at city hall by you idiot bike riding abortions. Chew on that you fascist commie scumbags!
/sarcasm off
Sadly except for the bit on abortion and Ford sucking like a vacuum cleaner of justice (inspired by the Tick, don’t know who that is? try youtube) the above is almost word for word like some comments I’ve seen from Ford supporters in the comments sections of online newspapers.
http://undefined nyugirl

Who cares what ford says? who cares what any politician says? Have they ever done anything they said they would?

Torontoist

news

Rob Ford Gaffe-O-Meter: Roe Is Me

Comments

Advertisement

Advertisement

Social Media

Special Notices