ADRM
Senior Member
I am concerned about safety. The statistics clearly show that biking is far more dangerous than other methods of transportation. I wouldn't exactly call driving a car safe but it is nowhere near as dangerous as riding a bike. I think that most people in Toronto realize this (that's why the percentage of people who ride bikes to work is about 2% and hasn't changed very much). Bicycles are a rare sight in most areas of Toronto outside downtown and anytime in the winter or when it is raining. There are obvious signs that bicycling is not very popular: the bike share system in Toronto has flopped like bike share systems have everywhere because hardly anyone uses it, and the bike racks that TTC and various other transit systems have installed on buses are rarely used. However, city council is incompetent and the bike lobby has far too much political power in Toronto. I wish city council would spend money on real methods of transportation like more subway lines but that costs far more money than installing some white paint and some "bike lane" signs. Taking the subway is by far the safest method of transportation and bicycling is among the most dangerous.
This is one of the more poorly constructed arguments I've seen in some time. There's not one shred of convincing logic employed and the assumptions that (attempt to) form the foundation are just bizarre. To my eye, it doesn't seem maliciously composed, so I don't think there's much use in being mean about it (and I've actually been mostly impressed with the restraint displayed in responses thereto), but it does genuinely make me worry about the future of the city (these are the positions upon which people form their resolve to vote for our councillors?).
Any sentient being could take a little time and easily deconstruct literally every sentence of the paragraph above, but just taking the easiest ones for now (because blood pressure).
> "There are obvious signs that bicycling is not very popular." A baseless assertion that also happens to be incorrect; both total trips by bike and bike as a share of total transportation when compared against cars have consistently increased in Toronto.
> "The bike share system in Toronto has flopped like bike share systems have everywhere because hardly anyone uses it." The Toronto bike share just announced it is doubling its capacity as a result of demand, which follows trends in many other cities where ridership has also pushed past previously existing capacity, forcing cities to expand the programs.
> "The bike lobby has far too much political power in Toronto." Of similarly composed cities, Toronto has one of the smallest networks of bicycle infrastructure; the bike lobby is rendered largely impotent by a Byzantine Council committee structure (and by the composition of Council itself). The bike lobby is struggling mightily to get a 2-km pilot project passed, a project that should be a shoe-in by any reasonable calculus.
And I was going to continue, but re-reading that paragraph again to assess the next chosen object of deconstruction got me too mad.
Very simply, if a well used and growing mode of transportation—one that also happens to carry with it numerous and sizeable ancillary benefits related to personal and public health, the environment, congestion, tourism, et al—is unsafe, FIX IT. And, in this case, fixing it would mean a massive expansion of protected cycle infrastructure. There are mountains of data from cities all over the world that prove that protected cycle infrastructure greatly reduces the danger, which should be about the most obvious assertions anyone ever makes.
This is a monumentally silly debate.