
We designed Canada's cities for cars, not people – and the people are dying - anonymfus
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/14/canada-toronto-cycling-pedestrian-deaths-cars
======
scosman
Worth noting the author, Jennifer Keesmaat, has announced she's running for
mayor since this was published.

~~~
DoreenMichele
She would also like to commit to building 100k affordable homes.

I've been following her on Twitter for a while because she tweets interesting
things about city design, but I find this implausible. I did ask for specific
how to info to make that happen. She seems to be out campaigning or something.
I'm still semi hoping that she will actually reply to me at some point because
I would like useful info to apply to my small American town. But I'm not
holding my breath here. I will be quite surprised if I get any reply at all
from anyone at all. I think most people don't really know how to foster more
affordable housing.

~~~
scosman
I don't think her plan for Toronto would apply to a small town. A detached
home anywhere near the core starts at about $1.3M, so "affordable" housing is
relative. Adding 100k units will make the entire market more affordable, the
challenge is where to put them. As the former chief planner, she's highly
qualified to tackle this; she has been pushing plans for adding density in
smart ways for years.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I hope you are right that she's highly qualified. I've certainly enjoyed some
of her tweets on city design type stuff.

I sometimes talk to professional planners. One recently said to me that
affordable housing was _a tough nut to crack._ This part of where I get the
idea that most people have no idea how to solve it.

As I have the time and energy, I'm trying to do my own research. I still hope
to find viable answers.

~~~
Agustus
Affordable housing is easy, increase the amount of available housing to allow
for an increase in supply to drive down demand. If you do not increase
available housing because of NIMBYISM, landlords wanting to keep supply
limited, ridiculous rules for supply creation (San Francisco's rules and
regulations for permit application are a great example), historic districts
(forcing creators to adhere to maintain old and outdated buildings that
require significant investment to meet codes), and politicians who would like
to avoid having to figure out a new voter base, then you will never see houses
that make financial sense to maintain.

As a thought experiment, how many more people could live in San Francisco city
limits if you added three stories to the current limit (which is three I
believe). You double the available supply, reduce / address demand and
increase the opportunity for transit usage. However, if you proposed this
idea, you do not have to worry about re election.

The politicians will say it is difficult, then use public funds to add 1,000
affordable homes, which is a drop in the bucket to addressing the supply
issue. Do note, that when the affordable housing allotted to the skyscraper in
New York City, the affordable housing facilities were given out by the city
and conveniently, if I recall, a city counselor's relative got one of the
homes.

------
theonemind
The article asserts that lowering the speed limit dramatically reduces deaths,
and provides a link, and also suggests lowering speed limits as a safety
measure. However, the link shows that lower collision speed dramatically
reduces death, not _lower speed limits_. Mostly, I have seen that drivers
don't tend to obey artificially low speed limits, for example,
[https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a14463672/how-
lower...](https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a14463672/how-lowering-the-
speed-limit-can-actually-hurt-pedestrians/)

~~~
scosman
The source might not have used the best link, but there are studies to support
that claim. Vision Zero in NYC has been studied extensively and has had a huge
proven impact.

I wouldn't say a opinion piece from Road and Track would be a better source,
especially considering it's just quoting untested theories on the cause of a
single city's issue.

~~~
scosman
Oh, the people who implemented Vision Zero replied to the cited article here
[https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a14500765/new-
york-...](https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a14500765/new-york-city-
vision-zero/)

They call the cited article "dangerous if believed by your driving
readership". They provide several points of evidence (full studies available
to those interested).

------
slededit
I've had more near misses with cyclists than with cars in Toronto. While I'm a
huge fan of tolling the QEW to encourage more transit - Toronto roads are
already pretty hostile to vehicles. Driving downtown is a high stress
activity, and I don't see how increasing that even more will lead to fewer
road deaths.

Increases in GO service are having an impact, we need to double down there and
add congestion tolls to make it even more attractive.

~~~
scosman
This is the attitude discussed in the article. Driver's feel ownership of the
road and unfairly blame cyclists and pedestrians for conflicts. This needs to
change. Several studies have shown that drivers are at fault in the majority
of car/bike collisions.

It's concerning that you've had more near misses with cyclists than cars;
those easily turn into deaths. Getting cars to slow down and and share the
road on dense urban streets isn't being hostile to cars, it's trying to stop
avoidable deaths though good design.

~~~
jm__87
As someone who lives in Toronto, there are some very aggressive cyclists here
who do not follow the rules. They run through red lights and stop signs
without stopping, weave in and out of traffic, try to bike by cars on the
shoulder and freak out on drivers if they happen to have not left enough room
for a cyclist to zip past. Not all cyclists in Toronto are like this of
course, but I've seen a lot of cyclists who just do whatever they want on the
road and get upset when the cars can't anticipate their actions.

With all that said I think it would be a good idea to lower speed limits and
install some speeding cameras. I feel there has been an uptick in the number
of cyclists on the streets in the past few years and we should keep them safe.
Police should also be ticketing the unsafe cyclists as it is clear that they
really have no interest in sharing the road with cars. Perhaps police are
already ticketing these people at a good rate, but if they are, I've never
heard about it. I feel these aggressive cyclists are probably the main
contributers to the anti-cyclist sentiment you see among many drivers in
Toronto. Showing cyclists and drivers that we aren't going to tolerate that
level of irresponsibility would probably help shift public opinion on cyclists
in Toronto.

~~~
scosman
As someone who lives in Toronto, there are some very aggressive drivers here
who do not follow the rules. 4 days ago I was clipped by a driver that ran a
red light and drove straight into the bike lane without stopping or looking.
He then gave me the finger and took off. Not all drivers are like this of
course, but I've almost been killed by quite a few.

That being said, I think we should keep anecdotal evidence and personal biases
out of the discussion about how to save lives, and stick to the stats, which
are abundant and clear.

~~~
jm__87
And this sort of response is why we can never have a real conversation about
this topic in Toronto. Not once did I ever say that there aren't terrible
drivers in Toronto putting cyclists in danger. I thought this was a pretty
clear conclusion just from reading the article. I agree we should change
things to make things safer for cyclists. I just wanted to offer my own
perspective on where the anti-cyclist sentiment may be coming from in the
first place, given how many people I know have complained about aggressive
cyclists. The reason these people all hate aggressive cyclists is because they
don't want to hurt or kill someone with their car, not because they hate
bikes.

~~~
scosman
I literally gave you the other point of view in the exact format you presented
your ideas. If you find that an unreasonable format (and you should), that's
on you.

And related: the reason these people all hate aggressive drivers is because
they are literally killing scores of people.

~~~
jm__87
I don't really see why the format is unreasonable (when either you or I used
it) and I don't disagree with your points on aggressive drivers killing
people. That is obviously part of what is happening. I feel we should be
implementing rules that make everyone safer. I was only offering another side
to the story that the article omitted as it seemed to be slanted against
drivers.

~~~
scosman
You criticized me for using it. It seems you think something about my response
is unreasonable.

If you need it spelled out, the disturbing thing about your response if you
used anecdotal examples to perpetuate and justify a negative sentiment towards
a marginalized group that's being killed. It was in response to an article
discussing how anti-cyclist sentiment is dangerous, and how it is killing
people. Further, you generalized an entire population based on the actions of
a few.

It's a common tactic to pivot every conversation about cyclist and pedestrian
deaths into a conversation about how they are aggressive and don't follow
rules. This tactic is one of the things preventing a real reduction in deaths
in our streets. It's especially frustrating when that's been disproved
repeated by studies.

~~~
jm__87
I didn't criticize the format. I was criticizing the fact you're taking a side
on the issue, when clearly the issue is more complicated and we need to
address both sides if the city is going to come to a solution that is viable.
I don't see how anecdotes are off the table for a discussion forum. Maybe if
we were using this discussion to draft legislation, sure, let's do some
controlled studies. But we are not drafting legislation here. We're talking
about peoples opinions: the anti-cyclist sentiment in the city of Toronto.
This sentiment is entirely based on the collective personal anecdotes of
people who drive in Toronto. I shared a small subset of those anecdotes.

Cyclists are hardly marginalized in Toronto. To be marginalized is to be
treated as insignificant. I'm pretty sure no one in Toronto, both drivers and
non-drivers, could agree with that statement given the amount of attention
cyclists have got over the years in Toronto press and city council.

I also made a point of not generalizing the entire population on the actions
of a few. I specifically said, "not all cyclists in Toronto are like this".

There is no tactic being deployed here. I'm on the side of making things safer
for everyone, including cyclists, and I feel that means lowering speed limits
for drivers and coming down on unsafe cyclists. You want to turn this in to a
victim-oppressor type situation when it is clearly not. And this is the
problem I have with this whole conversation about cyclists in Toronto.

------
caiob
Toronto was designed for cars, not Canada's cities. Toronto just happens to be
one of them.

~~~
John_KZ
Actually Toronto is one of the most transit-friendly cities in North America.
Or so I've been told by a friend that lived there.

That doesn't mean it's bike-friendly though. Or that it should be. Biking in
Toronto will probably be miserable half the year, probably a lot more than
Netherlands too. It should be safe though.

~~~
jhbadger
Well, it has a subway, which by definition puts it on the list of transit-
friendly cities, as only a handful of North American cities do. One issue
though is the 1998 amalgamation. Toronto used to be just the actual dense city
part, well covered by transit, and now it includes many former suburbs which
are far less dense and are almost entirely car-based.

