ghet-to[get-oh]
–noun, plural -tos, -toes.
1.a section...inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships...
sanc-tu-ar-y[sangk-choo-er-ee]
–noun, plural -ar•ies.
...7.any place of refuge; asylum.
(Courtesy of dictionary.com)
Typically the popular imagination assigns these places opposite ends of the spectrum. Simply put, sanctuary is for the worthy few; a ghetto, the base underclass. You're expected to want into sanctuary, and expected to want the hell out of the ghetto. But things are rarely that simple.
There can be comfort and security among your own kind --no matter how low they may be -- and in 'knowing your place' though it be at the cost of greater possibilities and inclusiveness. The arrangement can also be expedient to the wider world: marginalizing problems is easier than confronting and resolving the dilemmas at their heart. Ask any politician. Just don't expect an honest answer.
Stripped of connotations ghettos and sanctuaries can appear as one and the same. And what would that look like? How about something like this?
Ironic that bike lanes, the most conspicuous mark (of success?) in Toronto cyclists' campaign for more inclusive streets, are by definition exclusive.
By some cyclists they're considered a policy of inferiority, segregating pedallers to the sidelines instead of urging them to the center where they can assume their rightful place among equals; by cagers, a capitulation to special interests, mollifying autophobes and reserving precious road space for a privileged few; and by wonks a program in social engineering, coercing the reluctant into favourable habits. Not even Da Vinci could accomplish so much with paint.
Vehicular cyclists contend that segregating bicycles only absolves drivers of the responsibility of truly sharing the road: it keeps pedallers out of the way so they can continue happily driving amok without extending due regard to other road users. Translation: drivers are spared the obligation of safe decelerations by braking and can continue stopping by the preferred method, collision.
Bike lane advocates counter that lanes boost cycling rates, that they declare emphatically that bikes belong on the road. Er, make that on the side of the road. It's a case of if you can't the beat the cars, then join 'em, that is, by not joining them. Everybody in their own place, two solitudes coming together to their mutual exclusion. Something like marriage perhaps.
So we have our sanctuary alongside the sewer grates and gutters. And though cagers don't seem to want bike lanes anywhere, they certainly want cyclists there, that is to say, nowhere. That's OK: half the cyclists don't think we should be there either if only we would all share the road which is ostensibly why the bike lanes were installed in the first place. It's all starting to make sense.
But no one said that after we fought to get them, we'd have to fight to defend them. Add a few light bulbs worth of inorganically derived wattage and the works short circuits. Lane Wars!
The eRumble-- batteries definitely included -- glides along at a blazing 32 k/h, a muddle of functional and simulated pedals, wonky knees and dayglow spandex; it's all fun and games until we have a serious casualty. Namely, the battery dies. Then the eHeretics must call CAA for a boost and the Orthodox pedal pushers who wouldn't tolerate them riding in bike lanes must tolerate them stalled there. And everybody goes nowhere just as fast in an environmentally friendly circle jerk of acrimony.
What's next? Who knows? But depend on it, there will be something next.
[img_assist|nid=3150|title=Apres eCycles?|desc=|link=node|align=right|width=123|height=150]
I suppose it's to be expected: a corollary of separate but not really equal facilities for cyclists is the same consideration for every other type of road user. So hate eBikes if you will, but love eBikers and give 'em the lane. Any lane but yours that is. It's only fair, right? Any pedaller that's skidded through the emissions of Toronto's Finest Mounted Units, steaming squarely in middle of the bike lane, can attest to the merits of vehicular apartheid.
Or is an egalitarian wheelocracy the way to go? Ever moseyed down a bike lane on a side street and wondered what's the point of the paint? Then again, ever white knuckled it over a 401 overpass grasping all too well the exact point of a personally reserved, officially sanctioned two meters of roadside ghetto (if there only was one)? Therein lies the ambivalence; not in the concept but in the (mis)application.
There really must be a more nuanced, discriminating approach to the applicability of segregated lanes: their installation shouldn't automatically be considered a boon for cyclists. Non bicycle specific measures such as traffic calming obstacles, lower speed limits, and parking strategies, by taming the motorized beast, can be just as effective at improving bikeability without limiting the benefits and supporters -- and ill will directed! -- to cyclists exclusively.
Happily, there's a symbiosis between bikeability and more hospitable neighbourhoods and urban spaces -- and that's the real name of the game, improved bikeability and liveability, not bike lanes per se, they're just one among many tools available to planners.
That may or may not mean more spilt paint; it definitely means a more critical assessment of motorists' prerogatives. Consequently, expect to be labelled a War Criminal and pelted with copies of the Geneva Convention by all that collateral damage in bombed out Beemers and Hummers. War is hell after all.
Too bad cycling Toronto's streets can be as well. As long as it is (e)cyclists will continue to find themselves seeking the comfort of, or grudgingly relegated to, that narrow strip behind the white line. Whatever that space may be to you.
Comments
electric
All is fair in love and war.
Mon, 06/15/2009 - 22:47So here we are in our little ghettos and we're being forced to share our remaining reserves with a new group of residents, not really like us with their prosthetic limbs, fairings and generally alien presence. They arrive and demand our rations and that we split our bunks - despite being the minority in our slum. The issue at stake is survival in a way, nobody wants to be caught hanging outside the ghetto when the cars come around - but there isn't enough room in it...
Apres ebikes can the bicycle ever come out on top? I submit never in a million tries under our current scheme. The nature of transportation is that things are always changing but, the bicycle has maintained its concept and form for many years. Why haven't we designed and created a space for it yet? We have had many opportunities... When you look at eScooters and the like they are simply another nail in the coffin of true "cycling" city another red herring thrown in cyclists path. An "escooter/ebike" is different than a bicycle - they're the next generation of mopeds and scooters. Simply the analog of the electric car in two and three wheel format. As time moves on the eScooter will have longer ranges and greater battery capacity. It will become something even more distant from the bicycle. For some reason people in Canada fight so hard to make the bicycle disappear from our culture by sufficiently diluting it's meaning as to make it meaningless. I realize some people try very hard to correct this, but for some reason the bicycle can't just seem to win any wars.
So, why they bother painting those pictures of the little bikes in the lane(see above bronx blacktop)... who knows. To me it is obvious our overlords have not taken seriously the idea that it would be for bicycles only, they should just paint a white line 2 meters over and be done with it. That way mopeds, scooters, bikes, baby strollers, disabled on wheelchairs and dog walkers could all travel in it, like some extended sidewalk and cyclists can just return to normalcy - screwed over and forgotten for another century!
At least we can dust off our bicycles in another 100 years and ask the same questions.
The Pedaller (not verified)
Dependant
Mon, 06/15/2009 - 23:59E-Bikes are great until your battery dies or there is a power failure.
To suggest that cycling is destined to be obsolete is dumb.
To breach yet another forum and attempt to make it an e-bike issue is rather pathetic.
Annoy and advocacy don't go well together, go pedal your creed elsewhere lonely e-biker.
electric
please, read the comment again...
Tue, 06/16/2009 - 00:54Maybe my sarcasm is too subtle? Re-read the article, Luke brought up the topics I commented on(hopefully).
Luke Siragusa
Re: All is fair in love and war.
Tue, 06/16/2009 - 23:56High voltage post electric ;-).
The bike has been around for over a century and you wonder why we haven't yet created a place for it, at least around here that is. The short answer is that for much of that time we could afford not to. That is, we could afford to be profligate in our consumption of energy, resources and space. That era is now ending.
Churchill's sentiments apply: we can always be counted on to do the right thing...after we've have exhausted all other possibilities. When we acknowledge that we no longer have the luxury of misallocating resources and squandering our natural endowments (not those!), then the efficiency, i.e., the true cost of our chosen mode of transport will supplant many former considerations. We are starting to see that now. The recent boom in bikes -- e and conventional -- as does the emphasis on alternatively fueled and less thirsty vehicles attests to this.
Pity the lowly bicycle: after a century, still not going anywhere and yet still not going away. Funny though, it is STILL the most efficient vehicle on wheels. And among the cheapest. And among the most durable. And absolutely among the cleanest. Still fun too. Talk about an idea ahead of its time.
Funny too that the resilience of the premise should detract from it: you'd think it would affirm its relevance. And though the bicycle doesn't sport the modernity of a brushless motor and lithium ion batteries nor the transience of possibly becoming the next big thing, before considering its static design an anachronism perhaps one should really come up with a superior alternative. Still waiting...
Man's on the moon, sub atomic particles cannot hide from our prying eyes, and the internet has crowded us into a global village. Still waiting for a better solution on wheels though...
But you have a point. Perhaps in a 100 years from now some solitary soul will wonder at the folly of mankind as he's dusting off his bicycle. Or maybe he will be in the company of multitudes, embracing an idea whose time has finally come.
Perhaps too, by then the eBike will be just another novelty in the pages of a history book. Make that an eBook.
The Pedaller (not verified)
Oh, I See
Tue, 06/16/2009 - 09:39Now that I have read the entire article I see your point. My Bad
But, my point about the future of the bicycle still stands, unless that was sarcasm?
The space for bikes that has been created is any path, trail, road or relatively flat space - enhancing the infrastructure in our cities is not the same as creating a space for bikes.
Bicycles will be with us for a long, long time.
Seymore Bikes
Trail Blazer
Tue, 06/16/2009 - 12:05I wonder if we wont see something like a multi use trail system for certain corridors in the near future?
Electric bikes & trikes, bikes, roller blades, skate boards,running, walking, seagway, etc..
Great article Luke!
PedalPowerPat
I wonder if we wont see
Tue, 06/16/2009 - 12:42Segway? Really?
Might as well let those suv strollers come on down to this lane as well and make it a real live clusterfuck.
Nice article though, enjoyed the part:
Reminded me of a few times when I questioned my sanity for cycling in full on car territory. No cyclists in sight and all the cars and suv's(deathdealers) are whizzing by me with less than 15 centimeters to spare.
Brought back goosebumps.