[allabootmatt]

One thing that is true of European cities with deep cycling cultures is that the 'tring-a-ling' crowd of casual cyclists are very much the majority. In Copenhagen you don't see a lot of cyclists decked out in the latest Lycra on expensive bikes, festooned with fluorescent gear etc. Rather the overwhelming proportion of cyclists look...normal. Just regular people on their way to work or school or whatever. That's the mark of a truly successful cycling city -- that riding a bike ceases to be an extreme sport or even sport at all, but an unremarkable part of daily life.

Also: very few wear helmets.

 

[PinkLucy]

We'll never be like the Danes, Dutch, Swedes, or any of the friendly and seemingly sensible northern European peoples, it's not in our culture

The Dutch made a decision to promote a bike culture. We could grow up and become sensible too.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Dutch made a decision to promote a bike culture. We could grow up and become sensible too.

But that fantasy, of Torontonians suddenly making a cultural switch to a Dutch or Scandanavian model of life is what is holding us back. It's the old trick of setting an impossible goal and then feigning disappointment that we never accomplished it. Instead of trying to make us Dutch, why not try to make cycling work in the Torontonian culture? We are not capable or willing to share space or respect each others' space - just look at any non-barrier bike lane in Toronto, you almost always see someone parked in it, often times the police, whose very job is to enforce the lane usage.

 

[PinkLucy]

It wasn't a sudden cultural switch there either. The Dutch didn't make it work within their culture -- they shifted their culture. Saying we are not capable is defeatist -- humans are quite capable. Sometimes they just need a push. Improved infrastructure, change in vulnerable user road laws, much better enforcement and education can all go a long way towards making change.

 

[UserNameToronto]

Just look at Steve above, swaggering on about his abilities and low opinions of others who share his space - like it or not, that's the Torontonian we've all become, we're great, everyone else is an idiot or hinderance. In truth, we're all dicks.

We can't share space without raging at each other. Roads are for cars, bike paths for bikes, sidewalks for pedestrians. No one will be happy until they get their own space.

AB, I don't agree with everything you said...but for the bold bit above, I will say you're spot on. My New Years Wish is that Toronto culture can change for the better. Baby steps.

 

[WislaHD]

One thing that is true of European cities with deep cycling cultures is that the 'tring-a-ling' crowd of casual cyclists are very much the majority. In Copenhagen you don't see a lot of cyclists decked out in the latest Lycra on expensive bikes, festooned with fluorescent gear etc. Rather the overwhelming proportion of cyclists look...normal. Just regular people on their way to work or school or whatever. That's the mark of a truly successful cycling city -- that riding a bike ceases to be an extreme sport or even sport at all, but an unremarkable part of daily life.

Also: very few wear helmets.

I measure the success of cycling infrastructure on whether a 5-year old child can cycle with ease on the road alongside his/her 65-year old grandparents.

 

[WislaHD]

It wasn't a sudden cultural switch there either. The Dutch didn't make it work within their culture -- they shifted their culture. Saying we are not capable is defeatist -- humans are quite capable. Sometimes they just need a push. Improved infrastructure, change in vulnerable user road laws, much better enforcement and education can all go a long way towards making change.

If we got serious about pushing for a Vision Zero: Toronto Chapter maybe...

 

[rbt]

Also: very few wear helmets.

They also don't go faster than a brisk jogging speed either (plenty of fixed gear bikes) so shared/crossing sections with large numbers of pedestrians isn't a big deal; Queen's Quay pedestrian/cyclist separation would be considered severely over-designed in Netherlands.

 

[amnesiajune]

If we got serious about pushing for a Vision Zero: Toronto Chapter maybe...

It's not that simple. The culture in Europe is fundamentally different, especially in Belgium, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Over there they believe that people do better when they work together. Over here we believe that people do better by looking out for themselves. That's reflected in the way people here drive, bike, walk and take public transit. It's reflected in all three of our major political parties and our media. No lofty government policy is going to easily change that.

 

[ADRM]

It's not that simple. The culture in Europe is fundamentally different, especially in Belgium, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Over there they believe that people do better when they work together. Over here we believe that people do better by looking out for themselves. That's reflected in the way people here drive, bike, walk and take public transit. It's reflected in all three of our major political parties and our media. No lofty government policy is going to easily change that.

I don't agree with a single sentiment expressed in this statement.

I lived and worked in the US, Canada, and Europe for years, and the faux-rugged individualism that's so central to the American psyche just isn't present to nearly the same degree in Canada. We're collectivist in a way that's almost unconscionable to many Americans.

More directly to this thread, I also think it's way too reductionist to try to characterize a single city's cycling attitudes by relating it to broad assumptions about national culture.

 

[amnesiajune]

We're collectivist in a way that's almost unconscionable to many Americans.

And we're also individualist in a way that's unconscionable to most Europeans

More directly to this thread, I also think it's way too reductionist to try to characterize a single city's cycling attitudes by relating it to broad assumptions about national culture.

I'm characterizing it based on what I see all the time in this city. Cars, bikes and pedestrians blow through red lights. A certain Metro journalist even writes articles boasting that he ignores red lights to get places a minute sooner and doesn't care. People on the highway sit in whatever lane driving at whatever speed, and just travelling at the speed limit means constantly changing lanes. People riding their bikes on the Waterfront trail complain about having to share space with runners (who are allowed to use the trail), meaning that they can only bike at 25 km/h even though the legal speed limit on those trails is 20.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And we're also individualist in a way that's unconscionable to most Europeans

I'm characterizing it based on what I see all the time in this city. Cars, bikes and pedestrians blow through red lights. A certain Metro journalist even writes articles boasting that he ignores red lights to get places a minute sooner and doesn't care. People on the highway sit in whatever lane driving at whatever speed, and just travelling at the speed limit means constantly changing lanes. People riding their bikes on the Waterfront trail complain about having to share space with runners (who are allowed to use the trail), meaning that they can only bike at 25 km/h even though the legal speed limit on those trails is 20.

That's only because we don't have to guts to punish at a level appropriate to the violation - and do the very Canadian thing that is the shrug? Why would anyone believe in deterrence based on existing laws (nevermind new ones) that are a) not enforced by and large, b) not effectively punitive and c) can be contested in court to the nth degree, and then thrown out?

We might want to be collectivists in heart, but we just complain and then fall back onto the status quo because it is so effortless and doesn't offend anyone. The body count illustrates that. The driver killing someone with a car and get off with a $1K fine illustrates that.

AoD

 

[amnesiajune]

The driver killing someone with a car and get off with a $1K fine illustrates that.

That argument comes from a fundamental lack of understanding of how our justice system works. Read the Supreme Court's decisions in R v. Creighton and R v. Beatty. What they essentially say is that there's a much higher bar for engaging the penal law system: penal law requires acting maliciously with clear intent, not just being responsible for some damages. That case you're citing is one where it would be more appropriate to engage the civil law system. The woman can be sued for wrongful death and the family of the victim would be able to get fair compensation.

 

[ADRM]

That argument comes from a fundamental lack of understanding of how our justice system works. Read the Supreme Court's decisions in R v. Creighton and R v. Beatty. What they essentially say is that there's a much higher bar for engaging the penal law system: penal law requires acting maliciously with clear intent, not just being responsible for some damages. That case you're citing is one where it would be more appropriate to engage the civil law system. The woman can be sued for wrongful death and the family of the victim would be able to get fair compensation.

That doesn't mean it's right or shouldn't change.

 

[amnesiajune]

That doesn't mean it's right or shouldn't change.

Yes... That's the exact message in R v. Beatty. To quote the case:

Therefore, as noted by Cory J., the difficulty of requiring positive proof of a particular subjective state of mind lends further support to the notion that mens rea should be assessed by objectively measuring the driver’s conduct against the standard of a reasonably prudent driver. In addition, I would note that the automatic and reflexive nature of driving gives rise to the following consideration. Because driving, in large part, is automatic and reflexive, some departures from the standard expected of a reasonably prudent person will inevitably be the product, as Cory J. states, of “little conscious thought”. Even the most able and prudent driver will from time to time suffer from momentary lapses of attention. These lapses may well result in conduct that, when viewed objectively, falls below the standard expected of a reasonably prudent driver. Such automatic and reflexive conduct may even pose a danger to other users of the highway. Indeed, the facts in this case provide a graphic example. The fact that the danger may be the product of little conscious thought becomes of concern because, as McLachlin J. (as she then was) aptly put it in R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3, at p. 59: “The law does not lightly brand a person as a criminal.” In addition to the largely automatic and reflexive nature of driving, we must also consider the fact that driving, although inherently risky, is a legal activity that has social value. If every departure from the civil norm is to be criminalized, regardless of the degree, we risk casting the net too widely and branding as criminals persons who are in reality not morally blameworthy. Such an approach risks violating the principle of fundamental justice that the morally innocent not be deprived of liberty.

In a civil setting, it does not matter how far the driver fell short of the standard of reasonable care required by law. The extent of the driver’s liability depends not on the degree of negligence, but on the amount of damage done. Also, the mental state (or lack thereof) of the tortfeasor is immaterial, except in respect of punitive damages.

Or to put it simply, civil law analyzes the effect of someone's actions while penal law analyzes the intent of someone's actions. Penal law can't be used to punish someone for the effect of their actions without considering the intent.