Think there’s a ‘war on the car’? Here’s the truth behind the rhetoric in Toronto
Nov. 23, 2024
By
Shawn Micallef Contributing Columnist
Shawn Micallef is a Toronto-based writer and a freelance contributing columnist for the Star.
For decades, some have bleated on and on about a “war on the car.”
Any tiny improvement in road safety for pedestrians, cyclists or even drivers themselves has been met with complaints. Even the act of asking (begging, really) for things that can save life or limb is greeted with alarm from some as if it were part of this “war.”
So what if we declare an actual “war,” then?
Clearly one side of this debate is itching to do so by using, even metaphorically, the word “war” to describe the excruciatingly slow and incremental addition of safe infrastructure in Toronto. The Ford government’s Bill 212 to remove some of those relatively modest improvements is — to lean into the ridiculous rhetoric — an act of war. So is the
surprise amendment banning lawsuits against the province if cyclists are killed or injured where lanes are removed. That’s a clear indication they know what they’re doing could grievously harm people.
Consider how the safe infrastructure fight is waged instead. Bike lanes on Bloor took decades of advocacy, but because a small group of business people with Progressive Conservative connections called “Balance on Bloor” have the premier’s ear,
as reported by The Trillium, they might be removed quickly. That such a move i
s politically popular with the majority of Ontarians, even if some live outside of or far from Toronto, gives Ford the cover he needs to make it.
The handful of high-profile lanes notwithstanding, most streets in Toronto have zero bike infrastructure. The ironic shamelessness of including “balance” in the name of the advocacy group demonstrates a swaggering disrespect to Ontarians and disregard of good faith.
Good faith is important here. Bike lane implementation required studies, engineering reports and often extensive public consultation. Meanwhile, opponents of safer streets have been treated with kid gloves. Toronto police admitted to giving up on traffic enforcement,
gaslighting residents by saying they were doing so. A city walk today is rife with red-light running, rolling stops and other aggressive behaviour.
Businesses leery or even against lanes were also treated the same, presented with studies showing businesses can thrive with lanes and cyclists are good customers. Business groups like Bloor Annex BIA
have even spoken up and made that case themselves.
The response to that good faith has been “Balance on Bloor” and Bill 212.
As reported by the Star,
the Ford government used outdated cycling ridership figures while new, higher, numbers have not been released publicly. Trillium reported that
the draft of a briefing document prepared for Ford’s cabinet contained research that demonstrated removing bike lanes could actually worsen congestion, but it hasn’t been discussed publicly either. Why not be transparent? Why the bad faith?
All this obfuscation and scapegoating hides the truth from drivers: the main enemy in any perceived war is other drivers. Only fewer cars on the road will solve the issue of congestion.
In this rhetorical war, cyclists are often characterized as soft, weak or even “woke,” but there is nothing tougher than a cyclist in Toronto. They ride through heat, cold, rain and, yes, even the handful of days Toronto gets snow. Adults and children ride on fraught streets bereft of safe infrastructure. Rarely can a route from A to B be completed entirely using safe infrastructure, though until Bill 212 we were heading in the right direction.
Toronto cyclists and pedestrians contend with some drivers who use their vehicles as weapons. Drivers who creep toward them when using a crosswalk, as if trying to get them out of the way faster. When almost nailed by a driver’s actions, pedestrians and cyclists frequently get a little happy wave of “sorry!” like it’s no big deal. That’s a microcosm of the problem in this debate: it’s life or death, but one side doesn’t see that.
But before heading into battle, it’s worth asking if anyone would actually win such a war. If the cyclists stop shopping at the businesses fighting safety measures such as protected bike lanes, would that satisfy anyone? If bike lanes disappear, and every cyclist takes up an entire lane of traffic instead (calling it the “Doug Ford Express”) who would come out ahead? It may be legally allowed under the Highway Traffic Act, and likely to happen when the separated lanes disappear, but it would also be extremely risky — to the person on two wheels and the one driving the car.
If declaring a “war on the car” seems extreme, it’s simply a reflection of the rules of engagement and rhetoric established by Ford and those opposed to safer streets. If they accuse cyclists and pedestrians of waging war, a war they should get.
en.wikipedia.org
