Toronto councillor Ford: dead cyclists have themselves to blame!

[ghettocruiser]

Sorry for my typo in the thread title.



It's great to know that this sort of attitude is part of the decision-making process at Toronto city hall.


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/189595


"I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day."

–Rob Ford

[closetbiker]

Maybe if the city is short on funds, the city can help everyone out and start fining all those drivers that break the law, and not only make money, but save lives as well.

At the end of the day, people die on the streets because drivers get away with breaking traffic law.

[ghettocruiser]

I guess the reason this got to me was the duality of us spending hours on here debating the safety impacts of bicycle lanes, road positioning, helmet laws, lime green vests, lights, whatever (none of this is a bad thing) and then some elected official simply says "Roads are for cars, you get killed it's your fault!".

How in god's name can we even begin to address this kind of argument?

The good news is that Rob Ford, along with Case Ooates, have long been largely regarded as background noise at city hall for a long time with these kinds of views. The mayor and most everybody else are at least outwardly strongly in favour of more bicycle use.

And hey, at least he mentioned buses as legit road users.

The mayor of Mississauga, in a similar tirade, just said "cars and trucks".

Man I need a mod to change that header.

[Ganesha]

Easier to just find out where they live, then run over their kid when he/she is out on the road.

[cmdr]

From BOINGBOING.net

Joey "AccordionGuy" deVilla reports on the single dumbest thing I've ever heard of an elected city official saying. Toronto councillor Rob Ford told the Toronto Star: "I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day."

Read more here:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/09/toronto_councillor_d.html

[GreenGrasshoppr]

What a tool.

Edit: I think we should email him and suggest that, while he's at it, he should recommend the removal of all sidewalks (who the hell uses those anyway) to make room for another car lane.

And for shoppers in a hurry, he could have the city fund a multilevel "drive-thru" right in the middle of the Eaton Centre.

[ghettocruiser]

Some follow-up

http://www.thestar.com/article/189916
http://www.thestar.com/article/189909

[LittleBigMan]

Toronto councillor Rob Ford told the Toronto Star: "I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day."
Just like rape victims, they were "probably asking for it."

[flyingscotsman]

From BOINGBOING.net

Joey "AccordionGuy" deVilla reports on the single dumbest thing I've ever heard of an elected city official saying. Toronto councillor Rob Ford told the Toronto Star: "I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day."

Read more here:
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/09/toronto_councillor_d.html

If you ever catch this person crossing a road not a crossing, run him over......

[Keith99]

Someone on BoingBoing reports that Joey "AccordionGuy" deVilla says that councillor Rob Ford told the Toronto Star.....

Anyone see a problems here. Hearsay 3 times removed.

I want to see what he said in context. For all we know this was riders riding the wrong way and that city streets badly need repair (in which case his statement about not supporting bike lanes might have continued ... at least not while we have so many streets badly in need of repair.

Or he could be a total idiot.

But I want to judge him on what he said in context.

[Shiznaz]

Ford is crazy. For some context see his wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Ford). Its pretty funny. He represents a heavy car commuter community to the west of Toronto. Here is a choice quote from a major national newspaper:


Further controversy erupted in a Toronto City Council session when Ford argued against the city spending $1.5 million on AIDS prevention programs. Ford stated that "It [AIDS] is very preventable," and that "if you are not doing needles and you are not gay, you wouldn't get AIDS probably, that's bottom line."

When given the opportunity to retract his statement, Ford instead replied with respect to the increasing rates of women contracting the disease saying, "How are women getting it? Maybe they are sleeping with bisexual men."[4]


He has a serious reputation for being nasty and having foot-in-mouthitis.

[Offhoff]

Story where the quote originated, no more context though

http://www.thestar.com/article/189598

[rajman]

lol - I'd forgotten his Leafs game antics - I believe John Barber wrote an article about Ford in the Globe last year.

If you are interested in the city of Toronto's bike plan - their motto is "every street is a cycling street" - which is where most of the councillors are, as opposed to a couple luddites.

[ghettocruiser]

Thanks to whichever mod condensed these threads into something coherent after I made it so incoherent.

That wiki article was quite telling.

[Wulfheir]

Reminds me of King Ralph.

[SamHouston]

Someone on BoingBoing reports that Joey "AccordionGuy" deVilla says that councillor Rob Ford told the Toronto Star.....

Anyone see a problems here. Hearsay 3 times removed.

I want to see what he said in context. For all we know this was riders riding the wrong way and that city streets badly need repair (in which case his statement about not supporting bike lanes might have continued ... at least not while we have so many streets badly in need of repair.

Or he could be a total idiot.

But I want to judge him on what he said in context.

Rob Ford told that to the Toronto Star, where Joey "AccordianGuy" deVilla no doubt read it with the rest of us. The Toronto Star doesn't too often report what a blog said a council member said as a direct quote. Mr Ford's statement is complete in it's context, he states his position & gives his admittedly flawed reasoning behind that position. It isn't taken out of context in the least.

[Gurgus]

What did you expect from a dude named Ford?

[Wogsterca]

I guess the reason this got to me was the duality of us spending hours on here debating the safety impacts of bicycle lanes, road positioning, helmet laws, lime green vests, lights, whatever (none of this is a bad thing) and then some elected official simply says "Roads are for cars, you get killed it's your fault!".

How in god's name can we even begin to address this kind of argument?

The good news is that Rob Ford, along with Case Ooates, have long been largely regarded as background noise at city hall for a long time with these kinds of views. The mayor and most everybody else are at least outwardly strongly in favour of more bicycle use.

And hey, at least he mentioned buses as legit road users.

The mayor of Mississauga, in a similar tirade, just said "cars and trucks".

Man I need a mod to change that header.

Go to the city website, select councillors, select Rob Ford, have a look at the photo, it explains a lot here. Lets just say if Mr Ford were to visit BF, we would probably point him to the Clydesdales forum. :D

Of course to counteract the Fords and Oates on council we have De Baeremaeker and Giambrone. From a Feb 10, 2007 article in The Star by Peter Gorrie, I quote "Glenn De Baeremaeker cycles 46 kilometres between his east-end home and city hall daily and, a confirmed vegetarian, lives the life of an ecological believer." From a January 6, 2007 article in The Star by Francine Kopun, I quote "New TTC chairman and Ward 18 Councillor [Adam Giambrone], a transit poster boy, doesn't own a car."

It's hard to tell with some councillors, some of the photos are old.....

[oilfreeandhappy]

A few things come to mind:
1. Perhaps he should look at the main problem, and that's cars and trucks. They not only kill a lot of bicyclists, but they kill a lot of fellow drivers.
2. He should see the world. Travel to the Netherlands and Denmark, and see the cycling in those areas.
3. Maybe the city shouldn't build sidewalks either. Doesn't it also put pedestrians close to traffic?

Is this the same City Council that has been killing the recent Light Rail initiatives? Or maybe that was somewhere else?

[bac]

Toronto councillor Rob Ford told the Toronto Star: "I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day."

Here's a pic of the dangerous fool:

http://www.toronto.ca/councillors/photos/rford.jpg

[hotbike]

(The following is satire):

"I can't support cross walks. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day."


(I changed the words "bike lanes" to "cross walks".)

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Here's a pic of the dangerous fool:

http://www.toronto.ca/councillors/photos/rford.jpg

Phhht.

He's one of those guys you expect to hear a fart from every time they sit down.

[donnamb]

Perhaps he'll develop heart disease or diabetes and have to retire from politics.

[bragi]

By the looks of Mr. Ford, I don't imagine the biking communityy in Toronto has much to fear from him. He'll probably drop dead not too many pork chops from now...

[EnigManiac]

I know it was a complete waste of time, but it made me feel better to at least write the following letter that I sent to the moronic councillor just a few moments ago:

Councillor,

I tried to resist the need to write a response to the remarkably illogical, offensive and utterly foolish remarks you made regarding cyclists recently. I really tried. I know, from experience, that people who cling to such ignorance are generally profoundly bull-headed and small-minded and never consider that their idiocy borders on lunacy, so really, I am likely wasting my time.

But on the off-chance you have a brief moment of clarity, I hope to remind you that cyclists are legally recognized as legitimate users of the road, along with motorists in cars, trucks, buses and on motorcycles and scooters. There are almost 1 million cyclists in Toronto and almost a hundred thousand who ride year round. They do not cause or contribute to traffic congestion that costs the city and the businesses that operate in the city millions per day in lost productivity. They do not cause disastrous pile-ups and countless accidents per day. They are not responsible for the billion dollar costs to our health-care facilities, insurance industry or work-force. They do not cause or contribute to the decay and destruction of our environment nor cost the various levels of government millions per day in expended resources. In fact, there is not a single negative impact upon the city or residents of Toronto attributable to bicyclists. That’s right, your eyes are not deceiving you; not one negative impact.

Cycling is cited as one of the best things we can do for our local environment and for the health of our planet by every respected environmental agency and advocate. Cycling REDUCES motor traffic congestion allowing overweight Neanderthals from north Etobicoke or where-ever to lumber their toxic-spewing behemoths downtown because they’re too lazy and full of themselves to ride a bus or train or ride a bike themselves. You should be congratulating them for making your commute faster and safer.

Almost all adult cyclists are tax-paying citizens of this city. Considering it is property taxes that pay for the maintenance of PUBLIC roads, they are as entitled to use those same public roads as prescribed by law and as the regulations permit as any other tax-paying citizen. If, as you assert, roads are for cars, trucks and buses alone, then you must be in favour of exempting home-owners like me who choose not to own a car anymore from property tax or at least receiving a significant reduction. I don’t pay for what I’m not allowed to use, after all. I expect you to table a motion to council to that effect in the near future if you truly believe the foolishness that you utter.

You should know this, but clearly you require reminding: public roads are public spaces. By virtue of requiring a license to operate your motor vehicle upon public roads, you---as a motorist---are a GUEST upon a public space.

Hundreds of cyclists are killed upon roads in Canada every year and, if you check the police records, you will discover few of them were responsible for the accident that provoked their deaths. Aggressive, impatient, distracted, frustrated and reckless motorists are the overwhelming instigators of serious accidents. To suggest anything else is not only ludicrous, but suggests you are unfit to serve this city in any capacity.

I expect you to not only retract your statement, but issue a full public apology, especially to the friends and families of cyclists who were innocent victims of car accidents, whether they died or not. If
you have any integrity, any credibility, any self-accountability you will address the media today and beg the forgiveness of Torontonians. I expect you to be silent, however.


Sincerely,

JL

[ghettocruiser]

But wait, Rob Ford's friends are defending him.... I think.

http://www.thestar.com/article/190715


After reading it three times, I really have no idea what point this guy is trying to make, or why such an incoherent letter was published.

<Edit: spelling>

[ghettocruiser]

Yet more followup.

http://www.thestar.com/article/191416



Good to see Enigmaniac's views in the mix.

[EnigManiac]

Yet more followup.

http://www.thestar.com/article/191416



Good to see Enigmaniac's views in the mix.

Saw me in there, did ya? LOL. I can never let a fool and his foolishness go unchallenged. The other letters were quite good as well, each making some strong, well composed thoughts.

My only dissention with one of the authors relates to licensing of cyclists. I used to be a strong proponent of licensing for cyclists, arguing for many years that licensing would force cyclists to get the training they need and offer the means of identifying them if they were involved in an incident. And, of course, it would give cyclists the seeming legitimacy and validation motorists resent us not having, since they see us as being 'free' users of the road (Most motorists are under the mistaken impression that their licensing fees and car-related taxes pay for the roads, etc., ignorant of the fact that it is property-owners insurance that pays for roads and so every cyclist who pays rent or owns a home is paying equally for the roads as a motorist).

However, I have backed off from that stance when I consider that licensing does not ensure safe and reasonable behaviour when operating a vehicle. Just look at motorists: they are all trained and licensed and yet thousands of lives are taken each year and millions of dollars in damages are suffered as the result of trained and licensed drivers making stupid and reckless decisions while driving. It would be no different for licensed cyclists. Stupid, reckless and dangerous stunts would still be pulled by some whether they are licensed or not. Adding more bureaucracy is not the answer. Reducing the risks is and that means decreasing the number of motor vehicles on our roads, manufacturing safer and slower vehicles and aggressively pursuing motorists who endanger other users of the road---whomever they are---to the full extent of the law.

Since cyclists rarely cause any significant damage to people or property insurance is not needed as it is with cars which means we, as a society, from our law-makers to professionals to clerks and labourers recognize that motorists operating big, powerful weapons need to be trained and licensed and insured against the damage they will almost certainly inflict at one time or another whereas cyclists do not pose the same risk.

There has never been a valid or reasonable argument that I have heard that confirms the threat of cyclists against either the populace or the environment (and I'm not just talking about air poluution, but city infrastructure and facilities, noise, quality of life, etc.) being greater than a car. I have even asked avid motorists to just imagine what Toronto would look like if the roles were reversed, if motoring lanes were limited like bicycle lanes are, if there were no garages, rear laneways, repair shops, auto showrooms, parking lots and parking spaces on streets and every other resource available to motorists. To a person, every one agreed we'd live in a far better, far healthier and more attractive city.

[EnigManiac]

Surprise, surprise. Rob Ford actually e-mailed me back with this letter:

Dear Joe,



Thank you very much for your email. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and views with me. Your opinions are valued. I would like to speak with you personally regarding this issue. Please forward me your telephone number or leave me a voice mail at 416-233-6934 and I will be happy to speak with you as soon as possible.

Best Regards,
Rob Ford
Councillor Etobicoke North

[ghettocruiser]

He sent an actual apology to someone with a similar letter on dropmachine.com.

Damage control seems to have kicked in. Good stuff Joe.

[EnigManiac]

He sent an actual apology to someone with a similar letter on dropmachine.com.

Damage control seems to have kicked in. Good stuff Joe.

I replied with my phone number. We'll see if he calls back. I'm thinking of offering him a one hour education. He can borrow a (heavy duty) bike and I'll take him out on the streets, show him how to ride in traffic and obey all the rules of the road and still have his life threatened every few seconds by ignorant drivers who think they own the roads and anyone inconveniencing them or even sharing the road with them deserves what they get.

[rajman]

Lol - good luck getting Ford on the bike - maybe as part of bike to work week (as long as Miller is nowhere nearby). It looks like it might be a good idea for his physique.

[EnigManiac]

Well, Rob Ford, followed through and called me this afternoon. He thanked me for my email and apologized for his remarks, saying he didn't explain himself properly when he made the comment. He wasn't saying he didn't say it, merely that he didn't mean it (political double-speak?).

He remarked that he receives a lot of mail from both motorists and cyclists and observed that there is considerable animosity between the two. He mentioned he had even seen four accidents last summer. Surprisingly, he also stated he was a cyclist but always rode paths.

I gave him an earful after listening to his apology; explaining the two schools of thought about bike-lanes (pro and anti), as many of the complaints he receives are bike-lane related, and reminded him that cyclists are entitled to and should be granted the ENTIRE right lane of any street, not three inches from the curb. I also asked him who was at fault in the four accidents he said he witnessed. He said he couldn't make that determination, so I suggested it was very likely the motorist failing to recognize or extend the proper distance or courtesy. Most motorsits, after all, react with hostility and frustration if they feel a cyclists has 'taken the lane' from them.

I acknowledged that there are some reckless cyclists but countered that few collisions or personal injuries result from their stupidity whereas with the number of idiotic motorists on our roads, the calamity is through the roof. I acknowledged that some cyclists go through stop signs and stop lights but again countered that they only do so when it is reasonably safe to do so because cyclists tend to be more alert, aware and better judges of space and speed whereas motorists fail to accurately determine a cyclists space and speed. I mentioned that as we were talking and I was observing Dovercourt & Bloor at the time, I witnessed six cars go through red lights in the space of five minutes. Did motorists ever complain about that?

I suggested he ask the motorists that complain to cite the laws as they pertain to cyclists and suggested that few, if any, could.

We agreed there is considerable animosity and disrespect on both sides, but that the issue of bridging the gap was not helped when city officials gave license to moronic motorists to hit and kill cyclists, as he had done. Greater effort needed to be made on behalf of the city to educate motorists and have them exericise patience, control, restraint and respect, because when they get frustrated, people die.

He mentioned that the papers refused to run an apology on his behalf, stating 'you said it and that's all there is to it.'

As an added comment, I urged him to have police become more involved in targeting motorists who endanger cyclist, mentioning it was curious they had so many bicycle-cops, but seemingly little regard for cyclists. Only minutes before he called I was riding through the Lansdowne / College area where my son and I were alarmed to see as many as thirty bicycle-cops, a paddy wagon, six or seven cruisers and even eight mounted police converging on an area. We went to take a look, but could not see what the problem was. They all seemed to be relaxed, but there were more than fifty cops in the space of one block and that was definitely unusual. Something was going on, but all we were advised was 'watch the news tonight.'

I give him credit for having the guts to call me and take responsibility for what he said considering I am not even in his riding, but that doesn't mean I won't be watching what he says in the future and taking him to task on it. I even said he could make a real impact by supporting Councillor Giambrone in his efforts to advance the official bike plan.

[bigpedaler]

Well, Rob Ford, followed through and called me this afternoon. He thanked me for my email and apologized for his remarks, saying he didn't explain himself properly when he made the comment. He wasn't saying he didn't say it, merely that he didn't mean it (political double-speak?).

He remarked that he receives a lot of mail from both motorists and cyclists and observed that there is considerable animosity between the two. He mentioned he had even seen four accidents last summer. Surprisingly, he also stated he was a cyclist but always rode paths.

I gave him an earful after listening to his apology; explaining the two schools of thought about bike-lanes (pro and anti), as many of the complaints he receives are bike-lane related, and reminded him that cyclists are entitled to and should be granted the ENTIRE right lane of any street, not three inches from the curb. I also asked him who was at fault in the four accidents he said he witnessed. He said he couldn't make that determination, so I suggested it was very likely the motorist failing to recognize or extend the proper distance or courtesy. Most motorsits, after all, react with hostility and frustration if they feel a cyclists has 'taken the lane' from them.

I acknowledged that there are some reckless cyclists but countered that few collisions or personal injuries result from their stupidity whereas with the number of idiotic motorists on our roads, the calamity is through the roof. I acknowledged that some cyclists go through stop signs and stop lights but again countered that they only do so when it is reasonably safe to do so because cyclists tend to be more alert, aware and better judges of space and speed whereas motorists fail to accurately determine a cyclists space and speed. I mentioned that as we were talking and I was observing Dovercourt & Bloor at the time, I witnessed six cars go through red lights in the space of five minutes. Did motorists ever complain about that?

I suggested he ask the motorists that complain to cite the laws as they pertain to cyclists and suggested that few, if any, could.

We agreed there is considerable animosity and disrespect on both sides, but that the issue of bridging the gap was not helped when city officials gave license to moronic motorists to hit and kill cyclists, as he had done. Greater effort needed to be made on behalf of the city to educate motorists and have them exericise patience, control, restraint and respect, because when they get frustrated, people die.

He mentioned that the papers refused to run an apology on his behalf, stating 'you said it and that's all there is to it.'

As an added comment, I urged him to have police become more involved in targeting motorists who endanger cyclist, mentioning it was curious they had so many bicycle-cops, but seemingly little regard for cyclists. Only minutes before he called I was riding through the Lansdowne / College area where my son and I were alarmed to see as many as thirty bicycle-cops, a paddy wagon, six or seven cruisers and even eight mounted police converging on an area. We went to take a look, but could not see what the problem was. They all seemed to be relaxed, but there were more than fifty cops in the space of one block and that was definitely unusual. Something was going on, but all we were advised was 'watch the news tonight.'

I give him credit for having the guts to call me and take responsibility for what he said considering I am not even in his riding, but that doesn't mean I won't be watching what he says in the future and taking him to task on it. I even said he could make a real impact by supporting Councillor Giambrone in his efforts to advance the official bike plan.

Good job, man. Keep on him, and hold down the 'north' fort for us all. got'cha back!

[closetbiker]

I give him credit too, but he shouldn't have put himself in the position in the first place. He has a resposible position, he should be responsible.

[rajman]

Did he agree to go on a bike ride through the city with you?

That would be progress- at least then he would be able to make some inferences from personal experience.

[EnigManiac]

Did he agree to go on a bike ride through the city with you?

That would be progress- at least then he would be able to make some inferences from personal experience.

With a degree of chagrin, I admit I forgot to challenge him to that ride. Arrrgghhh.

However, as a result of your reminder, I sent him the following email today:

Councillor Ford,

I wanted to thank you for getting back to me yesterday and for
sincerely apologizing for the remarks published in the Star. I also
wanted to acknowledge that I appreciate you hearing some of my
concerns both in relation to the unfortunate comments that prompted me
to contact you, but also about commuter-cycling in general.

It occured to me afterward when you mentioned you generally ride your
bike as a rescreational vehicle in parks that you might find it
educational, informative and enlightening to join me and perhaps some
others for a ride through our streets, seeing our conditions from a
different perspective. Most adult cyclists are also licensed
motorists and already know what its like to deal with traffic in both
vehicles, but most motorists are not cyclists. You may find the
experience illuminating.

I'll be happy to arrange an hour or so as your schedule permits. Let
me know if you're up to it. It would certainly go a long way in
improving your image with the near-one million strong cycling
community in this city (one of the largest in North America) and
repairing any damage that might have resulted from your perceived
anti-cycling stance. Maybe the media would even take notice.

[RomSpaceKnight]

Good work calling him to task on his words. Kudos to ya, man.

[EnigManiac]

Good work calling him to task on his words. Kudos to ya, man.

Thank you. It was a rewarding experience in some respects.

[sgtsmile]

Applauds EnigManiac.

Good stuff:)

[rajman]

Lol - maybe you should get him to join you for 'critical ass' as part of bike to work week!

Unfortunately I will be out of town for that one.

[slagjumper]

When Toronto completes all the proposed bike lanes and signed routes, I'll get a visa and come on up!

http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/bikeplan/network.htm
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/bikeplan/pdf/chapter05.pdf <<Map on page 5.

I am surprised about the few Councillors who are against the bike plan. Toronto has a lot of bike fatalities for a city of that size. I guess that if they represent people who are dependant on roads to suburbia or development companies, that would explain it.

[rajman]

When Toronto completes all the proposed bike lanes and signed routes, I'll get a visa and come on up!

http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/bikeplan/network.htm
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/bikeplan/pdf/chapter05.pdf <<Map on page 5.

I am surprised about the few Councillors who are against the bike plan. Toronto has a lot of bike fatalities for a city of that size. I guess that if they represent people who are dependant on roads to suburbia or development companies, that would explain it.

Does Toronto have an unusually high number of cyclist fatalities?

Hmm according to this http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/coroner_index.htm there were 72 cycling related fatalities over a 12 year period. 6 per year.

According to this http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf NYC experienced 225 cyclist deaths over a 10-year period. 22.5 per year

It seems on the face of it that the number of fatalities is comparable (based on deaths per population) - obviously these are very crude stats, and they hide many important factors (number of cyclists, etc).

I tried to find stats for chicago (I thought that would be more comparable), but they were not immediatedly available (the sources I found mixed cyclist and pedestrian deaths at 200 a year in northeastern illinois).

[EnigManiac]

Does Toronto have an unusually high number of cyclist fatalities?

Hmm according to this http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/coroner_index.htm there were 72 cycling related fatalities over a 12 year period. 6 per year.

According to this http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf NYC experienced 225 cyclist deaths over a 10-year period. 22.5 per year

It seems on the face of it that the number of fatalities is comparable (based on deaths per population) - obviously these are very crude stats, and they hide many important factors (number of cyclists, etc).

I tried to find stats for chicago (I thought that would be more comparable), but they were not immediatedly available (the sources I found mixed cyclist and pedestrian deaths at 200 a year in northeastern illinois).

To answer the question: no; Toronto does not have an unusually high cyclist fatality rate. In fact, for the number of cyclists we boast here (approx 950,000 according to 2005 Now Magazine), the rate is probably comparitively low. However, that does not mean there are not the standard number of close-calls that are avoided. Things could be better and they should be. We have a pro-cycling Mayor and his council is, for the most part, pro-cycling. Yet, inconceivably, there has been less done for cycling during this Mayors tenure than previous non-cycling Mayors tenures. We remain hopeful though.

[EnigManiac]

Here's the latest update. I just this moment got off the phone with Councillor Ford after he called me back in response to my invitation to go out for a ride on downtown streets. While I give him credit once again for responding, his answer was an unequivocable 'no.' He said 'I'm scared to death of riding on the road.' I attempted to calmly reassure him that he has a false sense of security within a car and that riding a bike on the street is likely less dangerous than driving once two or three basic skills are observed. I suggested if we rode in a group, perhaps with some of his fellow councillors who are cyclists, he'd have better protection, but again he refused. I asked him why he thought it was so dangerous and he said he was afraid that every car would hit him. I then replied 'well, isn't that the problem then? If a car hits another car, the hitter is at fault in 90% of the cases---you wouldn't argue that---so wouldn't that same percentage apply to motorists that hit cyclists and, therefore, the problem is not with cyclists being at fault or asking for it, but poor driving skills on the part of drivers? Shouldn't city councillors then be advocating for better drivers rather than eliminating cyclists?' The message seemed to get through, but I guess we'll have to see if he has any future anti-cycling remarks. If he does, we know he's not speaking from experience nor confidence and his comments can be dismissed and ignored.

[closetbiker]

Here's that "cycling is dangerous" monster raising it's head again.

Why can't people get over scare tactics and look at a situation like rational adults?

Sad.

Here in Vancouver we have city councillors that commute to work by bike.

[ghettocruiser]

Again, I'm just impressed that you got him to... progress... as far as he did. Responses, even negative ones, are pretty significant here.

[donnamb]

The message seemed to get through, but I guess we'll have to see if he has any future anti-cycling remarks. If he does, we know he's not speaking from experience nor confidence and his comments can be dismissed and ignored.
If at best he keeps his mouth shut, you will have accomplished a great deal. :beer:

[rINGrING]

We have a pro-cycling Mayor and his council is, for the most part, pro-cycling. Yet, inconceivably, there has been less done for cycling during this Mayors tenure than previous non-cycling Mayors tenures. We remain hopeful though.

The Mayor was a pro-cyclist? I didn't know that. What team did he ride for?

[EnigManiac]

The Mayor was a pro-cyclist? I didn't know that. What team did he ride for?

It says 'pro-cycling,' not 'pro cyclist.'

:)