Last week Toronto Mayoral candidate, Giorgio Mammoliti, announced that, if elected, he would introduce bicycle licensing as a way to help pay the cost of proposed new cycling lanes. This is an idea that has been raised before, and as the City of Toronto’s own website clearly states, ‘studies have concluded that licensing is not worth it.’

Besides this recent bicycle licensing idea, Mammoliti also proposed in 2007 that the army should be called in to the Jane and Finch community to curb gang violence. He also suggested a red light district on Toronto Island and a casino on the waterfront.

So the concept of licensing could simply be passed off as another outdated, off-the-wall idea, but Giorgio Mammoliti has been involved in provincial and municipal politics for two decades, and we should look at just how calculated this is.

Marcus Gee of the Globe and Mail summed it up quite nicely last week. He asked, why were the candidates, like Mammoliti, spending so much time on the issues surrounding cycling?

Sad to say, the reasons are purely political. Our ranting candidates are trying to ride what they see as a wave of suburban anger over Mayor David Miller’s administration. For those who love to loathe Mr. Miller, bike lanes represent all the sins of an administration that favours pedal-happy downtowners over the ordinary guy fighting his way to work through traffic. They are nothing short of a conspiracy – the infamous “war on the car” – to rob motorists of their fundamental rights.

So if bicycle lanes are the sin, certainly bicycle licensing is redemption for the car driving citizens and a ticket into the Mayor’s office for Mammoliti?

I think Mr. Mammoliti knows that in practice bicycle licensing might be overly bureaucratic and may fail, but politically it reaches out to all those drivers that believe cyclists don’t contribute to the maintenance of the roadways, and that cycling infrastructure is detrimental to the majority automobile traffic. Dave Meslin puts some of these concerns to rest in his article last week at spacingtoronto.

If the average driver believes that cyclists have less right to be on the roads, then proposing bicycle licensing is appealing to every commuter who drives into the core of the city each day – and there are still many more of them than cyclists.

Certainly the idea of bicycle licensing may not by enough to get Giorgio Mammoliti elected, and licensing is likely not going to be put into effect even if he were elected. This idea, though, is enough to further the division between drivers and cyclists in the news instead of creating divisions – physical divisions in the form of cycling lanes – on the streets.

bicycle license photo by woody1778a

Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) is a store known by pretty much every Canadian who has ever camped, traveled, rock climbed, kayaked, or participated in any number of other outdoor pursuits. Since 1971, it has built up a reputation as the destination store for anything you might need for the outdoors, at a very resonable price, run by environmentally-friendly, forward-thinking people.

An article last week in the Globe and Mail discussed a hotly debated issue surrounding MEC and their choice to begin selling bicycles at several of their locations. They have sold cycling parts and accessories for years, but had added bicycle maintenance last year, and have now fully entered the market by offering their own line of MEC-branded, Taiwanese made bicycles.

The bike shops, for the most part, are irrate. They see this as a direct infringement on their territory by a company with an unfair advantage.

As a co-operative, MEC falls under a different set of rules than most of their competitors. They are technically a not-for-profit busniess; meaning they make profits, but those profits are exempt from taxation.

The Globe article made a fairly significant error. They referred to MEC as a non-profit, instead of a not-for-profit. These may seem like interchangeable terms, but there is a very important difference (take a look at some of those distinction on Yahoo Answers).

Essentially, a not-for-profit, makes profit! Whereas a non-profit rely primarily on donations, not sales, to continue to operate and serve the community. In MEC’s case, the profit is paid out to the members (customers) after all overhead, investment in the business, and other expenses are paid.

I would be curious to know if some of these FAQ answers on MEC’s Co-op explanation page were added since this whole controversacy arose. MEC don’t exactly advertise their status, but they do make it very clear in the FAQs, and discuss some of the contreversy surrounding it. Just as the Globe wrongly referred to them as a non-profit, I would suspect alot of us, the general public, have also made that mistake when we think of what MEC really is and where the money goes.

I personally am torn on the issue. I have lived on both sides of this issue as a bike shop manager for years and now as a fairly loyal MEC customer.

One of my biggest complaints of the bike shops is what I see as their somewhat overbarring ‘old boys club’ mentality (at least here in Toronto).

In the Globe article it mentioned how some other recent actions highlight how protective the shops are of their perceived territory. The Globe discussed how a distributor recently cut their ties with a bicycle component manufacturer who decided to go into busienss with MEC.

Reading this reminded me of similar events that occured when Norco had decided to start selling their product to another retailer who wasn’t primarily selling bikes and accessories. This was seen as disloyalty and expansion beyond the traditional bike shop arena. As a result, several Toronto area shops (including the one I worked at) immediately dropped the brand, cancelled orders, and slashed prices of the Norco bikes already in stock.

Some may see this as simply the way shops stand up for each other, and protect their industry, but is it not also improper control of the market. It demostrates how the shops are using an unfair advantage to get their way. And it was this ‘unfair advantage’ that the shops are saying MEC is using to start selling bikes.

It’s a complicated matter, and will certainly mean that some bikes shops may not survive much longer in an already saturated Toronto bicycle marketplace.

Maybe MEC is the new mean green Walmart. Maybe they are the ‘corporate’ bad guys, undercutting the mom and pop shops. In the end, this is somewhat of a non-issue as there appears to be little that the bike shops can do to stop MEC, and MEC maintains that they intend to sell bikes for the foreseeable future. Public opinion on the issue (judging from comments on the Globe article) seems split. It doesn’t appear that there will be any saviour riding in on a shiny new Cervelo to save the day for the bike shops.

photo by Kamshots

Since all cyclists are such forward-thinking, progressive, equal rights types, it’s time to develop a good list of ways to make the streets more car-friendly. This may make many cyclists gasp, but consider it for a moment.

Until Toronto becomes as advanced as Copenhagen and their bicycle superhighways cyclists will inevitably on their daily commute have to share the road with motorists. So how can you make the streets more pleasant for the motorists?

1. Alternate Route – You probably have a set route that you use to commute to work that could be done with your eyes closed (if it weren’t littered with potholes and fast moving traffic). But do you know another way? Possibly one that is longer, maybe less interesting, but noticeably safer and equipped with better cycling lanes? By getting up earlier and taking the alternate route a few times a week, you could reduce the congestion on your regular route and get a change of scenery on your way to work.
2. Wave and smile – By law motorists in Toronto are supposed to pass cyclists allowing at least a one meter buffer between them. When making a right hand turn near a cyclist, a motorist must yield to the cyclist who is continuing straight. It is often a gamble whether these laws will be respected, so when they are, give the car a “thanks for not killing me” wave and smile.
3. Bad cyclist! Bad! – There are bad cyclists just as there are bad drivers. If you see a cyclist doing something obviously dangerous or illegal – point it out to them. Having informed and skilled cyclists on the road is only going to make life easier for drivers and cyclists alike.

These are a few initial ideas, but there are certainly more. Leave your comments and share how you could make the streets more car-friendly.

*As a final note, it is always vitally important that in all automobile, bicycle interactions – the onus should always remain on the driver to practice extra caution at all times. Any collision between a car and a bike will result in more serious injury to the cyclist. A car has more power and weight, and therefore, more responsibility to be aware and alert around all other traffic and pedestrians on the streets.

So today I got out for a 70 km ride with some friends. I haven’t been cycling much lately, aside from my daily 10 km commute. I have noticed a sharp rise in angry drivers now that the school season is back in and there is simply more volume, and less space on the roads. Since the death of courier Darcy Sheppard a few weeks back, I have been more cautious and more understanding of the challenges that we all face commuting to work (cars and bikes alike). Similar advice is being given over at CommuteByBike.com.

Everytime we ride, we accept that on occasion we can have a anxious driver speed past us, someone sneer at us, or the odd honking horn directed our way. But today was a little more special. We were greeted not once, but twice by two different individuals who shouted out their window “FAGGOT!”

I really don’t understand this, I mean, of course, I get it – it’s the spandex, and the bright colours that have somehow equated someones sexual prefernces with their sport of choice. So until hockey players start wearing croptops, and pink helmets, us Faggot cyclists will continue to be in the firing line.

I guess it’s not that I don’t understand it; I think it’s just frustrating to be shouted at, regardless of what the comment is, but especially because the comment doesnt actually make any sense whatsoever. BUT, cooler heads did prevail, and we didn’t react to the drivers, just laughed about it afterwards, because really, what else can you do. As Tim Grahl at CommuteByBike said, it is sort of the bullying mentality.

So I want to open this one up for comment (by the way, the first comment on my blog gets a free lifetime subscription to my blog – value: $0.00 but priceless!).

• Has this happened to you?
• Have you ever heard this while cycling?
• Or maybe as a driver, you have shouted this comment yourself.
• What do you think the deep meaning and social commentary behind this statement might be?
• What are other common words that so eloquently flow off the lips of irrate drivers?

I look forward to your input!

The title… compassion is a word I referred to in my last post. A word I heard a distraught and angry courier say repeatedly on CP24 (Toronto TV channel) a few hours after the death of his friend and fellow cyclist Darcy Allan Sheppard.

Compassion is definitely not what I am sensing from Toronto drivers and some newspaper columnists. This article in Friday’s Globe and Mail by columnist Marcus Gee is one example in a string of articles since the much publisized death of Darcy Sheppard that highlights my point.  They are using his death as a way of shaking the public finger at all cyclists and laying blanket accusations that all cyclists run red lights, and ride unpredictably.

There are a number of new (and frankly uninspired) buzz words floating around – the supposed “War on Cars” perpetrated by “militant” cyclists.  I am all for the police enforcing road rules that apply to cyclists, and insisting that we all live by the same rules (I am guilty of breaking the odd traffic rules, I’ll admit), but what I dont understand is why the extremely tragic events that have dominated the headlines in Toronto and across Canada have become not an opportunity for change, but an excuse to lay blame.

I read the Globe and Mail every Friday and Saturday, and will continue to do so, but with this article from Friday and others with a similar tone earlier in the week, I wonder whats their inspiration – maybe they have been prompted by Michael Bryant’s PR machine, or maybe the pent up frustration of driving next to “militant” cyclists is now overflowing onto the normally neat and clean pages of the Globe and Mail.

Compassion is an important word to remember; both for drivers and for cyclists. Since I posted my last entry, detailing my close call the day after Sheppard’s death, I have had another friend hit and taken to hospital in an ambulance with a neck brace on. He sustained no serious injuries but remains in alot of pain.

The risks involved in cycling in Toronto remain quite high, and the result of a car/bike collision almost always results in much more serious damage to the cyclist (reports also suggests that vehicles ARE in fact to blame for a majority of the accidents) … so no matter our frustrations and motivations, lets try to use some compassion and understanding fo the real risks of cycling in this city, and be mindful of the serious damage a car can do to a cyclist.

UPDATE: Over at Bike Lane Diaries you can read their September 5, 2009 entry about a place that recently showed some compassion for cyclists…

Today while cycling to work my thoughts were focused on the death two nights ago of a Toronto bicycle courier Darcy Allan Sheppard. I imagined the final moments of his life as cars sped passed me along Dundas Street West, and thought how frightening it really is and how exposed we cyclists really are to dangers.

After having been a cyclist in Toronto and elsewhere for most of my life, the dangers are not something I dwell on, and (speaking only of myself here) I often dwell more on the anger and frustration of cycling on unfriendly streets.

But today, as I thought of the courier, and the dangers on the road – literally at that same moment -  I watched a car pull a panicked and abrupt u-turn directly in front of me. If I hadn’t slowed to a stop, he would have t-boned me and catapulted me onto the sidewalk… I was immediately angry.

I shouted to him and he sped away.

Maybe I feel angry at what appeared to be such an obvious and blatant mistake on the part of the driver. And maybe it was his general lack of compassion.

With my heart now racing, I continued on my way to work. Half a block later a right turning car had slowed in front of me, so I abruptly swung around his left side and straight through a pedestrian crossing area – coming close to clipping the crossing pedestrian. Stupid.

The title of this post is a message to myself… I feel its time to focus more on my safety and less on the inital moments of anger and rage.