Parts of anti-cycling rant are misleading
Re Another politician with his head
in the sand, Jim Kenzie, March 19 Jim Kenzie is the Star’s chief automotive reviewer, and as such he is a poor choice of author for an article on the place of cycling on Toronto’s streets.
The bias against cycling in Mr. Kenzie’s writing comes through loud and clear in his selection of evidence and language.
His article is full of misleading statements that heap scorn on those who choose to cycle in Toronto and anyone who thinks public funds should be dedicated to cycling infrastructure.
For instance, Mr. Kenzie argues that the prevalence of cycling in Toronto is overstated. He provides as evidence the fact that one sees “approximately zero bicycles” on the Gardiner Expressway and the 401.
What Mr. Kenzie fails to acknowledge is that cyclists are, in fact, prohibited by law from riding on these highways.
He then asks rhetorically, “How many cyclists did you see pedalling up the Avenue Rd. hill toward St. Clair the day after Valentine’s Day, when the temperature was about -30 on the wind-chill scale?”
Of course, very few cyclists would choose to use the high-speed Avenue Rd. when there is a perfectly good bike lane on Poplar Plains Rd., just 200 metres to the west. I myself cycled to my workplace at St. Clair and Yonge via Poplar Plains on the day in question.
But that fact is beside the point, as casual observation is not a good way to determine transportation needs in a city and it is irresponsible to suggest that decisions should be made on this basis.
That said, there is evidence that winter cycling in Toronto is growing steadily (there are estimates that 30 to 40 per cent of cyclists in Canada bike year-round), and it would be foolhardy of the city to ignore the needs of these commuters.
Mr. Kenzie then writes, “We still kill more pedestrians and motorists on Toronto roads than we do cyclists. But any interaction between a cyclist and, well, anything else (car, telephone pole, curb) is much more likely to end in tears than, say, a vehicleto-vehicle interaction.”
With this deft phrase, “ending in tears,” Mr. Kenzie manages to avoid assigning responsibility for the traffic violence he is describing, somehow managing to blame cyclists for their own vulnerability in the same way that women who dress “provocatively” or walk alone late at night are often blamed for any sexual harassment and violence they encounter from men. Just being on a bicycle, in Mr. Kenzie’s world view, is “asking for it.”
Finally, Mr. Kenzie has the gall to speak of “probably a gross misappropriation of scarce taxpayer dollars” spent to appease “a very vocal minority” when, in fact, the city of Toronto spends only $3.08 per capita on cycling infrastructure, less than half the city of Ottawa, for comparison. (Toronto’s cycling infrastructure budget is set to increase from $9 million to $14 million in 2016.)
In a recent study, the Pembina Institute found Toronto had the lowest level of cycling infrastructure in all five Canadian cities studied. The scarce cycling infrastructure in this city cannot keep up with demand, as the number of people biking on Toronto’s streets has risen rapidly in recent years (a 2006 count of almost 20,000 cycling commuters is woefully out of date).
Meanwhile, Toronto’s spending on cycling infrastructure would constitute a rounding in error in the $1,052,000,000 now earmarked to update the Gardiner Expressway east of Jarvis, a highway segment that serves approximately 5,200 drivers.
I am a regular Toronto Star reader and, in my view, your newspaper normally provides a more objective view in its coverage of cycling issues in Toronto.
I strongly suggest that if your editors wish to retain this reputation for balance and responsible journalism, they should think twice before offering future assignments on the subject to a champion of the car. Liz Sutherland, Toronto
Re My wife’s the cop, I’m the judge,
Norris McDonald, March 19 Your column brought back memories.
From 1974 through 1977, I was a student at Windsor Law. My wife stayed in Toronto while I drove to Windsor every Monday morning and came back at Friday midday.
I recollect that the speed limit was 70 mph, which would be equal to nearly 120 km/h today. West of Lon- don, most cars were driving 80 mph (and some even higher) and would not get pulled over.
As I recall, the speed limit was reduced to 60 mph as a result of the gas shortage in the ’70s and was never changed back up even though automakers made their cars safer and able to go faster.
My driving today on 400 series highways notes that everyone seems to be going at least 120 km/h with no harm.
The real problem is the go-slow men and women who drive 100 to 105 km/h in the passing lane and talk to their friends in the car (or on the phone) while causing a backup behind them.
This creates a danger for drivers who have no choice but to pass on the inside in order to get past Slow Jim and Slow Betty. Crawford Spratt, Toronto