bikebuddha
09-12-06, 10:58 AM
I found this and thought it was interesting:
http://www.vtpi.org/pucher_canbike.pdf
http://www.vtpi.org/pucher_canbike.pdf
Advocacy & Safety - Why Canadians Cycle More Than Americans
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.View Full Version : Why Canadians Cycle More Than Americans
sbhikes
09-12-06, 12:58 PM
Here's the conclusion section for those who don't like PDFs.
There is no simple answer to the question posed in the
title of this article. Many factors help explain why
Canadians cycle more than Americans. The denser,
mixed-use development in Canadian cities leads to average
trip distances those are only half as long in Canada and thus
more bikeable than the longer trips Americans make. In
addition, the costs of owning and driving a car are
considerably higher in Canada than in the United States,
while average incomes in Canada are lower. Both factors
make cars less affordable in Canada and favor alternatives
such as transit, walking, and cycling. Canadian cities have
done more than American cities to facilitate cycling by
providing bike paths and lanes, traffic-calmed neighborhoods,
and ample bike parking. Moreover, safer cycling in
Canada probably encourages more cycling there. Canada’s
better safety record might be attributable to more extensive
training courses, more extensive cycling facilities, stricter
police enforcement of traffic regulations, or more considerate
driving behavior of motorists in Canada.
While Canada has done a better job than the United States
promoting cycling and making it safer, both countries lag far
behind Western Europe, where the bike share of travel
averages about 5-10% of urban trips, but reaches highs of
20% in Denmark and 32% in the Netherlands (Pucher and
Dijkstra, 2000). Cycling is an integral part of the urban
transport system in most Western European countries, a sharp
contrast to North America, where it is a distinctly marginal
mode.
The much higher levels of cycling in Europe are not simply
historical artifacts or culturally determined. Indeed, most
Western European countries dramatically shifted their urban
transport policies in the 1970s to curb car travel and promote
transit, walking, and cycling as the socially and environmentally
friendly means of travel (European Conference of the
Ministers of Transport, 2003 and 2004). Those European
policies are the same kinds of policies that explain the higher
level of cycling in Canada compared to the United States, but
European countries have pursued them to a greater extent
(Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000).
In terms of policy ‘sticks’, Europe has stricter land use
policies, leading to higher urban densities and more mixed-use
development than Canada, which in turn, has stricter land use
policies, higher urban densities, and more mixed-use development
than the United States. The result is average trip distances
that are shorter and more bikeable in Europe than in Canada,
which in turn has trips only half as long as in the United States.
Policies restricting car use and raising its costs follow the same
pattern. Thus, gasoline prices in Western Europe are about
three times as high as in the United States and about twice as
high as in Canada, with the price differential almost entirely
due to taxation. Motor vehicle taxes and registration fees are
also much higher in Europe than in either Canada or the United
States. Driver licensing is both more stringent and more
expensive in Europe. While Canadian cities have less parking
and more restrictions on car use than American cities,
European cities have far less car parking than Canadian cities.
Many European cities have comprehensively traffic-calmed
residential neighborhoods and have made large parts of their
city centers entirely car-free.
In terms of policy ‘carrots’, bicycling infrastructure in
Western Europe is more extensive and better integrated than in
Canada and far superior to cycling facilities in American cities.
Cycling facilities in Europe are also much better integrated
with public transport. Cycling education is also a factor. In
Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark all school children
benefit from mandatory training in safe cycling by the third or
fourth grade. Indeed, they must pass a police-administered test
to show that they can cycle safely, since most children cycle or
walk to school. A few Canadian provinces have supported
cycling and walking safety programs in their schools, but none
have made it mandatory, and the programs are not nearly as
intensive as in Europe.
The main conclusion we draw is that such land-use and
transport policy differences are crucial for explaining the very
different levels of cycling in the United States, Canada, and
Europe. Perhaps the biggest obstacle for increasing cycling in
North America is the political infeasibility of using any of the
really effective policy ‘sticks’ that deter car use in Europe. For
example, it is inconceivable that politicians anywhere in North
America would be willing to raise gasoline taxes to European
levels. Similarly, car-free city centers and comprehensive
traffic calming of residential neighborhoods are not feasible
options. Perhaps most ominous, low-density car-dependent
suburban sprawl continues to spread out around every
American city, and as shown by Miron (2003) and Filion
et al. (2004), increasingly around Canadian cities as well.
While central cities have been fairly successful at promoting
cycling, their suburban counterparts have done little, and the
longer trip distances on the suburban fringe make cycling less
practical anyway.
While the bike share of work trips is three times higher in
Canada than in USA, it is still only about one percent of trips, a
very small share indeed. Thus, cycling remains a marginal
mode of travel in both countries. A lot can and has been done in
terms of ‘carrot’ measures to encourage cycling: more bike
paths and lanes, better bike parking, cycling education and
promotional programs. After two decades of such ‘carrot’
policies, however, the bike share of travel remains low. Given
political constraints that prevent adoption of car-restrictive
policy ‘sticks’, it seems likely that cycling will remain a
marginal mode in North America, limited mostly to
recreational activities and not for practical transport.
There is no simple answer to the question posed in the
title of this article. Many factors help explain why
Canadians cycle more than Americans. The denser,
mixed-use development in Canadian cities leads to average
trip distances those are only half as long in Canada and thus
more bikeable than the longer trips Americans make. In
addition, the costs of owning and driving a car are
considerably higher in Canada than in the United States,
while average incomes in Canada are lower. Both factors
make cars less affordable in Canada and favor alternatives
such as transit, walking, and cycling. Canadian cities have
done more than American cities to facilitate cycling by
providing bike paths and lanes, traffic-calmed neighborhoods,
and ample bike parking. Moreover, safer cycling in
Canada probably encourages more cycling there. Canada’s
better safety record might be attributable to more extensive
training courses, more extensive cycling facilities, stricter
police enforcement of traffic regulations, or more considerate
driving behavior of motorists in Canada.
While Canada has done a better job than the United States
promoting cycling and making it safer, both countries lag far
behind Western Europe, where the bike share of travel
averages about 5-10% of urban trips, but reaches highs of
20% in Denmark and 32% in the Netherlands (Pucher and
Dijkstra, 2000). Cycling is an integral part of the urban
transport system in most Western European countries, a sharp
contrast to North America, where it is a distinctly marginal
mode.
The much higher levels of cycling in Europe are not simply
historical artifacts or culturally determined. Indeed, most
Western European countries dramatically shifted their urban
transport policies in the 1970s to curb car travel and promote
transit, walking, and cycling as the socially and environmentally
friendly means of travel (European Conference of the
Ministers of Transport, 2003 and 2004). Those European
policies are the same kinds of policies that explain the higher
level of cycling in Canada compared to the United States, but
European countries have pursued them to a greater extent
(Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000).
In terms of policy ‘sticks’, Europe has stricter land use
policies, leading to higher urban densities and more mixed-use
development than Canada, which in turn, has stricter land use
policies, higher urban densities, and more mixed-use development
than the United States. The result is average trip distances
that are shorter and more bikeable in Europe than in Canada,
which in turn has trips only half as long as in the United States.
Policies restricting car use and raising its costs follow the same
pattern. Thus, gasoline prices in Western Europe are about
three times as high as in the United States and about twice as
high as in Canada, with the price differential almost entirely
due to taxation. Motor vehicle taxes and registration fees are
also much higher in Europe than in either Canada or the United
States. Driver licensing is both more stringent and more
expensive in Europe. While Canadian cities have less parking
and more restrictions on car use than American cities,
European cities have far less car parking than Canadian cities.
Many European cities have comprehensively traffic-calmed
residential neighborhoods and have made large parts of their
city centers entirely car-free.
In terms of policy ‘carrots’, bicycling infrastructure in
Western Europe is more extensive and better integrated than in
Canada and far superior to cycling facilities in American cities.
Cycling facilities in Europe are also much better integrated
with public transport. Cycling education is also a factor. In
Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark all school children
benefit from mandatory training in safe cycling by the third or
fourth grade. Indeed, they must pass a police-administered test
to show that they can cycle safely, since most children cycle or
walk to school. A few Canadian provinces have supported
cycling and walking safety programs in their schools, but none
have made it mandatory, and the programs are not nearly as
intensive as in Europe.
The main conclusion we draw is that such land-use and
transport policy differences are crucial for explaining the very
different levels of cycling in the United States, Canada, and
Europe. Perhaps the biggest obstacle for increasing cycling in
North America is the political infeasibility of using any of the
really effective policy ‘sticks’ that deter car use in Europe. For
example, it is inconceivable that politicians anywhere in North
America would be willing to raise gasoline taxes to European
levels. Similarly, car-free city centers and comprehensive
traffic calming of residential neighborhoods are not feasible
options. Perhaps most ominous, low-density car-dependent
suburban sprawl continues to spread out around every
American city, and as shown by Miron (2003) and Filion
et al. (2004), increasingly around Canadian cities as well.
While central cities have been fairly successful at promoting
cycling, their suburban counterparts have done little, and the
longer trip distances on the suburban fringe make cycling less
practical anyway.
While the bike share of work trips is three times higher in
Canada than in USA, it is still only about one percent of trips, a
very small share indeed. Thus, cycling remains a marginal
mode of travel in both countries. A lot can and has been done in
terms of ‘carrot’ measures to encourage cycling: more bike
paths and lanes, better bike parking, cycling education and
promotional programs. After two decades of such ‘carrot’
policies, however, the bike share of travel remains low. Given
political constraints that prevent adoption of car-restrictive
policy ‘sticks’, it seems likely that cycling will remain a
marginal mode in North America, limited mostly to
recreational activities and not for practical transport.
closetbiker
09-12-06, 01:00 PM
I liked it, but I've heard it before.
It's how you use the land and the encourgement a goverment gives that helps develop things in certain ways.
Not only does BC have a large population that rides their bikes to work, 2% of traffic are cycle commuters (a small portion - about 5% of cyclists) and all bicyclists are only involved in 1% of traffic collisions. Proportionatly, a pretty safe record wouldn't you say?
It's how you use the land and the encourgement a goverment gives that helps develop things in certain ways.
Not only does BC have a large population that rides their bikes to work, 2% of traffic are cycle commuters (a small portion - about 5% of cyclists) and all bicyclists are only involved in 1% of traffic collisions. Proportionatly, a pretty safe record wouldn't you say?
ItsJustMe
09-12-06, 01:28 PM
A good presentation, though no surprises. The US has built a nation that almost requires that each person owns a car in order to exist. This pretty much drives the other behaviors; since a car is so necessary, anyone who doesn't use a car for everything obviously must be either poor or some kind of weirdo. It's acceptable to marginalize them and treat them like crud.
nelson249
09-12-06, 01:55 PM
Having a quick look through that article, I had to wonder whether the number of trips by bicycle as a percentage of total trips has a tight corelation as to how annoying it is to ride a bike in each jurisdiction. On several threads I have heard vociferous complaints about the difficulty and hazards of riding in states such as Alabama and Georgia compared to Oregon, New York or Washington. I lived in Newfoundland (which has a very low percentage of bike use as well) for five years and used my bike routinely to get to work and had repeated problems with clueless drivers passing too close and being general idiots. Indeed, even though I rode far fewer miles in Newfoundland than I ever have in Ontario I had more run ins and aggravation that I ever get here in Kitchener. It got so bad in the last summer I was in St John's that I gave up cycling altogether and took up hiking. Every time I got home from a ride I was more upset and angry than when I left mostly because of the inexcusably poor driving. (It got aggravating riding upwind on the nasty hills with a 42 tooth small chain ring too, I would rather have had a bike like my new Cross Check than the Bianchi).
Tom Stormcrowe
09-12-06, 01:55 PM
One simple answer:
Fuel Prices/ relative personal income.
USA has the lowest per capita fuel cost on the planet....even now! http://forums.clubrsx.com/images/smilies/driving.gif
Fuel Prices/ relative personal income.
USA has the lowest per capita fuel cost on the planet....even now! http://forums.clubrsx.com/images/smilies/driving.gif
rando
09-12-06, 02:17 PM
A good presentation, though no surprises. The US has built a nation that almost requires that each person owns a car in order to exist. This pretty much drives the other behaviors; since a car is so necessary, anyone who doesn't use a car for everything obviously must be either poor or some kind of weirdo. It's acceptable to marginalize them and treat them like crud.
+1
+1
nelson249
09-12-06, 02:50 PM
One simple answer:
Fuel Prices/ relative personal income.
USA has the lowest per capita fuel cost on the planet....even now! http://forums.clubrsx.com/images/smilies/driving.gif
On the other hand, some jurisdictions have far higher vehicle ownership costs and yet have a far lower bicycle usage rate. For instance, gasoline and insurance costs are much greater in Newfoundland than they are in Ontario. While gasoline may cost about $1.08/litre in St John's, prices in Toronto are about 85 cents/ litre (as of yesterday), insurance costs are almost double as I paid about $90 a month in Newfoundland but only $45 in Ontario for the exact same coverage, with the same vehicle and even the same insurance company. The climate in Newfoundland also tends to chew through cars quickly because of the humidity and the heavy use of road salt. There are very few older cars in service since most have long since rotted away. Also, levels of taxation are higher and average incomes are lower compared to Ontario and yet that jurisdiction has comparatively fewer people using bicycles even in metropolitan St John's. Differences in personal income and costs are only a part of the picture.
Fuel Prices/ relative personal income.
USA has the lowest per capita fuel cost on the planet....even now! http://forums.clubrsx.com/images/smilies/driving.gif
On the other hand, some jurisdictions have far higher vehicle ownership costs and yet have a far lower bicycle usage rate. For instance, gasoline and insurance costs are much greater in Newfoundland than they are in Ontario. While gasoline may cost about $1.08/litre in St John's, prices in Toronto are about 85 cents/ litre (as of yesterday), insurance costs are almost double as I paid about $90 a month in Newfoundland but only $45 in Ontario for the exact same coverage, with the same vehicle and even the same insurance company. The climate in Newfoundland also tends to chew through cars quickly because of the humidity and the heavy use of road salt. There are very few older cars in service since most have long since rotted away. Also, levels of taxation are higher and average incomes are lower compared to Ontario and yet that jurisdiction has comparatively fewer people using bicycles even in metropolitan St John's. Differences in personal income and costs are only a part of the picture.
McDave
09-12-06, 03:57 PM
Can someone tell me what techniques are used for "neighborhood traffic calming" as mentioned in the article?
SSP
09-12-06, 04:16 PM
Can someone tell me what techniques are used for "neighborhood traffic calming" as mentioned in the article?
Try Googling "traffic calming". For instance,
http://www.trafficcalming.org/
or,
http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.htm#tcsop
Try Googling "traffic calming". For instance,
http://www.trafficcalming.org/
or,
http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.htm#tcsop
mlts22
09-12-06, 04:42 PM
Traffic calming techniques are a joke and a bad one. On one road in Austin, the city spent half a million dollars to put semi-circle islands on the road sides in an effort to slow down things. This resulted in bicyclists having to swerve into traffic every so often... which caused a number of auto/bike collisions. Eventually the islands were removed.
Other roads got speed bumps. These really don't matter to the majority of the Texas populace, with large vehicles and high clearance, but mainly causes problems to cyclists and people with smaller cars which can bottom out.
Still other roads got these sort of square mound things in the road. It wasn't hard for drivers to figure out how to straddle the mounds, or run over two at the same time.
There are some traffic controls which do work... raised crosswalks and crosswalks that have embedded yellow LEDs that flash when someone presses the button, but others (like ones that narrow roads), only serve as traffic hazards for anyone not in a vehicle.
Of course there are the roundabouts. They calm traffic allright, but make it highly dangerous for everyone involved. I've heard rumors of people who deliberately want to cause collisions for insurance money either parking in a roundabout, or ready to zoom into it to collide with a car about to enter.
So, in conclusion, traffic calming benefits city planners due to smugness, construction contractors due to contracts putting them in, but makes commutes far more hazardous for the bikers and pedestrians they are supposed to protect.
There are three main reasons in the US that keeps cyclists few and far between.
First, cities are large. To go from a house to a job in some places like Dallas or Houston, you will be going 20-50 miles, and that is considered by some a tiny commute.
Second, most city public transportation systems are absolute jokes. You would be lucky to find a bus that goes within a mile or two of your area every hour or so in most American cities.
Third, bicycling in the US, especially in Texas, is viewed like soccer... children's activites that one outgrows. There is a perception that once the child is able to drive a car, the bicycle goes in the garage with the cast off soccer nets, and the half-deflated basketball. In most high schools in the US, students would mock someone who rode a bike there rather than drove... and likely the tires of the bicycle would be vandalized daily. I knew people who rode their bikes to high school, and they had to park their bikes behind a local store or on people's houses who lived near there, else their tires would be slashed on a daily basis just out of pure malice.
Thankfully with the wins of the Tour de France by Lance Armstrong, US perceptions of bicycling as a kiddy sport are changing, but there is a long way to go before it gets accepted as a mainstream activity.
Other roads got speed bumps. These really don't matter to the majority of the Texas populace, with large vehicles and high clearance, but mainly causes problems to cyclists and people with smaller cars which can bottom out.
Still other roads got these sort of square mound things in the road. It wasn't hard for drivers to figure out how to straddle the mounds, or run over two at the same time.
There are some traffic controls which do work... raised crosswalks and crosswalks that have embedded yellow LEDs that flash when someone presses the button, but others (like ones that narrow roads), only serve as traffic hazards for anyone not in a vehicle.
Of course there are the roundabouts. They calm traffic allright, but make it highly dangerous for everyone involved. I've heard rumors of people who deliberately want to cause collisions for insurance money either parking in a roundabout, or ready to zoom into it to collide with a car about to enter.
So, in conclusion, traffic calming benefits city planners due to smugness, construction contractors due to contracts putting them in, but makes commutes far more hazardous for the bikers and pedestrians they are supposed to protect.
There are three main reasons in the US that keeps cyclists few and far between.
First, cities are large. To go from a house to a job in some places like Dallas or Houston, you will be going 20-50 miles, and that is considered by some a tiny commute.
Second, most city public transportation systems are absolute jokes. You would be lucky to find a bus that goes within a mile or two of your area every hour or so in most American cities.
Third, bicycling in the US, especially in Texas, is viewed like soccer... children's activites that one outgrows. There is a perception that once the child is able to drive a car, the bicycle goes in the garage with the cast off soccer nets, and the half-deflated basketball. In most high schools in the US, students would mock someone who rode a bike there rather than drove... and likely the tires of the bicycle would be vandalized daily. I knew people who rode their bikes to high school, and they had to park their bikes behind a local store or on people's houses who lived near there, else their tires would be slashed on a daily basis just out of pure malice.
Thankfully with the wins of the Tour de France by Lance Armstrong, US perceptions of bicycling as a kiddy sport are changing, but there is a long way to go before it gets accepted as a mainstream activity.
SSP
09-12-06, 05:45 PM
So, in conclusion, traffic calming benefits city planners due to smugness, construction contractors due to contracts putting them in, but makes commutes far more hazardous for the bikers and pedestrians they are supposed to protect.
Not according to the studies cited on this page:
http://www.trafficcalming.org/effectiveness.html
FWIW, I commute through one neighborhood with traffic circles, and another with "chokers" and find them quite easy to negotiate. Using a mirror helps with the chokers, but nothing special is required for the circles.
There are three main reasons in the US that keeps cyclists few and far between.
First, cities are large. To go from a house to a job in some places like Dallas or Houston, you will be going 20-50 miles, and that is considered by some a tiny commute.
Sounds like a Texas problem...raising taxes so that gas costs $7/gallon might help fix that. People live far away from their jobs in McMansions and drive their fat-*ss SUV's and pickups to work because the state builds 6-lane freeways for them, and under-taxes gasoline.
Not according to the studies cited on this page:
http://www.trafficcalming.org/effectiveness.html
FWIW, I commute through one neighborhood with traffic circles, and another with "chokers" and find them quite easy to negotiate. Using a mirror helps with the chokers, but nothing special is required for the circles.
There are three main reasons in the US that keeps cyclists few and far between.
First, cities are large. To go from a house to a job in some places like Dallas or Houston, you will be going 20-50 miles, and that is considered by some a tiny commute.
Sounds like a Texas problem...raising taxes so that gas costs $7/gallon might help fix that. People live far away from their jobs in McMansions and drive their fat-*ss SUV's and pickups to work because the state builds 6-lane freeways for them, and under-taxes gasoline.
EnigManiac
09-13-06, 08:43 AM
Can someone tell me what techniques are used for "neighborhood traffic calming" as mentioned in the article?
Here in Toronto, the two most common techniques are the use of speed bumps on downtown one-way, residential streets that slow down potential speeders as well as changing the direction of one-way streets at each intersection---not allowing a sidestreet to become a by-pass of a major street between major streets, in other words. I find most of these techniques downtown and, quite frankly, these are the routes I use most often as a cyclist because vehicles are fewer and they travel slower and in spite of it being against the law (technically) to ride the wrong way on a one way street, I've never heard of anyone ever being ticketed and think it could be easily fought in court should it happen. I'm not about to alter my direction unnecessarily when traffic calming is not designed to impede me, but impede motor vehicles.
Here in Toronto, the two most common techniques are the use of speed bumps on downtown one-way, residential streets that slow down potential speeders as well as changing the direction of one-way streets at each intersection---not allowing a sidestreet to become a by-pass of a major street between major streets, in other words. I find most of these techniques downtown and, quite frankly, these are the routes I use most often as a cyclist because vehicles are fewer and they travel slower and in spite of it being against the law (technically) to ride the wrong way on a one way street, I've never heard of anyone ever being ticketed and think it could be easily fought in court should it happen. I'm not about to alter my direction unnecessarily when traffic calming is not designed to impede me, but impede motor vehicles.
McDave
09-13-06, 08:57 AM
Try Googling "traffic calming". That would be too easy. :)
For instance,
http://www.trafficcalming.org/
or,
http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.htm#tcsop
Thanks for that. Just what I was looking for. Slowing car traffic is always a good thing, but traffic calming techniques seem to present a hazard to cyclists or an annoyance at the least. Knowing what's out there and being able to recognize and react appropriately will go a long way towards playing it safe.
For instance,
http://www.trafficcalming.org/
or,
http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.htm#tcsop
Thanks for that. Just what I was looking for. Slowing car traffic is always a good thing, but traffic calming techniques seem to present a hazard to cyclists or an annoyance at the least. Knowing what's out there and being able to recognize and react appropriately will go a long way towards playing it safe.
Roughstuff
09-13-06, 09:19 AM
Don't forget you can be a traffic calmer while driving a car, as well. Not only by driving more slowly and easing your way between lanes (instead of abrupt cutoffs). But also, by showing courtesy to pecestrains at crossings, cyclists as you pass them, etc. I refuse to go over 35 MPH on a street that is residential, no matter what the posted speed limit is. If people honk I smile and wave back; doesn't calm them perhaps, but like the bumper sticker says...I may be slow but I'm in front of you.
roughstuff
roughstuff
ghettocruiser
09-13-06, 09:54 AM
Gotta say I've never had issues with speed bumps or other traffic issues on a bike, even at full speed on a road bike with 23c tires. Humps are wide enough to make no difference, and bumps usually have a gap near the curb. I do appreciate the slowing of cars that it creates.
I can see though how more poorly-implimented traffic calming elsewhere may create some of the problems you describe.
I can see though how more poorly-implimented traffic calming elsewhere may create some of the problems you describe.
genec
09-13-06, 12:04 PM
Don't forget you can be a traffic calmer while driving a car, as well. Not only by driving more slowly and easing your way between lanes (instead of abrupt cutoffs). But also, by showing courtesy to pecestrains at crossings, cyclists as you pass them, etc. I refuse to go over 35 MPH on a street that is residential, no matter what the posted speed limit is. If people honk I smile and wave back; doesn't calm them perhaps, but like the bumper sticker says...I may be slow but I'm in front of you.
roughstuff
I agree... which is why I tend to disagree with the "go with the flow" mentality.
As far as I am concerned, on a city street, I AM the flow.
roughstuff
I agree... which is why I tend to disagree with the "go with the flow" mentality.
As far as I am concerned, on a city street, I AM the flow.
cyclezealot
09-13-06, 12:07 PM
Cycling for poorer folks, was suggested as a possible cause.? At one time, Canada had a higher per capita income, I thought? Of course maybe, cost of living is not considered. I would have thought the Canadian government is a better advocate of cycling.
BroMax
09-13-06, 12:34 PM
One thing mentioned in that article that I'm much in favor of is more stringent licensing requirements for drivers. If some traffic offenses (or x points) included the requirement that the driver re-qualify for a license (at the driver's expense), it might cause even aggressive and stupid drivers to be more careful.
The article itself is comparing and contrasting Canada with Western Europe and the United States. It points out a couple of exceptional European examples but considers Canada and the US as monoliths. The rider from Newfoundland has pointed out regional differences in Canada. In my experience, Western Oregon compares favorably to the Greater Toronto Area, particularly the GTA exurbs.
The article itself is comparing and contrasting Canada with Western Europe and the United States. It points out a couple of exceptional European examples but considers Canada and the US as monoliths. The rider from Newfoundland has pointed out regional differences in Canada. In my experience, Western Oregon compares favorably to the Greater Toronto Area, particularly the GTA exurbs.