The Sixth Annual Ride of Silence will commence May 21st 2008. The starting point will be the south east corner of Spadina and Bloor. The ride is to commemorate the deaths of cyclists around the world. The ride will leave at 7:00 pm and proceed at a yet to be determined route throughout the city in silence. For more information contact Derek Chadbourne at goomann@gmail.com
Ride Report:
About 20 cyclists braved a cold and soggy evening to ride in memory of those we loved and lost on the roads of Canada while they rode their bikes. After a slow procession through uptown and downtown we ended the ride at the peace garden at city hall for a minute of silence and words of comfort. Thank you to all those who rode with me.
Special thanks to Derek and Jun for organizing the event.
Comments
Svend
This is a good idea for
Thu, 05/15/2008 - 18:42This is a good idea for giving our respect in a dignified way.
I see there's a facebook group holding it tomorrow for some reason.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2351608161
I'd go with the May 21st date in the website you posted.
jnyyz
Facebook
Thu, 05/15/2008 - 22:45yes, there is another facebook event with the correct date
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=13217432231
only two rsvp's so far!
Also, it has been posted at the main site:
http://www.rideofsilence.org/locations-international.php?i=Canada#Canada
Wear black arm bands; red if you've been in a car/bike accident.
Derek (not verified)
Is emphasizing the danger of cycling a good idea?
Fri, 05/16/2008 - 09:13I'm not convinced that commemorative rides like this or ghost bikes are a good idea at all. I don't see them as helping to encourage cycling or increasing the safety of cyclists. One of the main reason that more people don't use bikes for transportation is fear of sharing the road with cars and trucks and these memorials perpetuate this unfounded fear. I agree that any death is a tragedy but when you look at the numbers of cyclists actually killed each year the numbers are tiny and far lower than number of people that die each year from the air pollution caused by of all of the car and truck use and heart disease resulting from sedentary lifestyles. Furthermore, statistics tell us that road safety for cyclists increases in areas with increased bicycle traffic so discouraging potential cyclists increases the likelihood of cyclists on the roads being in accidents. Perpetuating the fear of using bicycles helps only the automotive and oil industries. Getting out and using our bikes is (in my opinion) a better way of showing our support.
anthony
No. This is not a promotional ride, it is one of respect.
Fri, 05/16/2008 - 12:42I don't believe that the intention of this ride is to emphasize the dangers of cycling. It's to show respect those fellow cyclists who have fallen. As humans we need to mourn and to express our grief, privately and publicly, this is a one avenue to do so publicly. We also need closure, and we need the reminder that we must do more to make our roads safer for everybody, including cyclists. That's what this ride is about.
You are right that we don't want to promote cycling by scaring would-be riders with stories of death and memories of dead cyclists. This ride is not meant to promote cycling. It is for those who have been touched by the death of a cyclist. It is a place to share emotions, memories and stories so that we don't feel as alone. The community of cyclists that participate are there to listen and support to each other. Some are also motivated by these rides to take positive actions so that rides like this may one day no longer be necessary.
Yes, cycling overall is safe. But let's not dismiss those who fataly found it to less than safe.
Darren_S
Good idea.
Sat, 05/17/2008 - 10:55I have been involved in a lot of memorials and have talked to a lot of families of the deceased. Not one has yet told me that cycling is 'unsafe' or would they recommend people stop cycling. They always want something positive to come out of the tragedy. Usually they want to reduce one of the risks that cyclists face.
Derek is right though. Cycling is very 'safe', walking is far more deadly. That said cyclists still face a series of intolerable and unnecessary risks either through driver behaviour or poor road design or a combination of both, then that is exacerbated by political inaction. I think to get the next generation of riders on to the streets those risks have to be addressed.
Memorials in part remind us of the consequence of inaction along with respect for the cyclist and their loss. As long as they are not turned into 'three ring circuses' and remain respectful they are positive, it may be really hard to see but they are. There is balance, there are more than enough grass roots inspired rides that demonstrate how much fun cycling is.
The EnigManiac
Maybe...
Sat, 05/17/2008 - 15:56...what we need to do is initiate legal proceedings against the city each and every time a cyclist is seriously hurt or killed, particularly when the cyclist was not at fault in any way. Through political inaction, negligence and poor design, they share in the responsibility and should be held accountable, at least in part. City planners know or ought to know the unacceptable and easily avoidable risks cyclists face in the city and if the city chooses to ignore , discredit, disrespect or delay correcting the problems, then they should pay. It's not as if every serious cyclist in the city hasn't informed the mayor and councillors time and time again of the myriad of dangers we face. How much you want to bet that after a few court cases, councillors will start addressing cyclist concerns promptly and effectively?
Darren_S
Lawsuits.
Sat, 05/17/2008 - 16:14Problem with most lawsuits is that they settle out of court so very little is learned by the public. Typically families/cyclists must chose security of a settlement over the unknowns of a suit. It would be asking quite a lot ask a family/cyclist to see a suit to the end. For the City it is just a numbers game, what is cheaper fixing it or paying off a death.
The EnigManiac
While that's true...
Sun, 05/18/2008 - 10:31...if the approximately 100 or so yearly serious incidents were each followed by legal action against the city, including the average of 3 deaths per year, it would soon become prohibitive to the city to settle out of court so often. And, the families don't have to settle out of court. They have the option of insisting on court proceedings. Continuous negligence by the city would be increasingly costly to the city and they would be forced---through court directives or legal cost---eventually, to rectify the issues, rather than maintain a policy of ignoring them.
Darren_S
Works stateside
Sun, 05/18/2008 - 15:26Your theory works well stateside because they have few limitations on what the can ask for. Here the City is protected by limits of how much people can sue for. Majority of the collisions are covered by insurance so little heat is felt by the City.
Would be interesting to see if a class action suit against the City would have legs or not.
Tone (not verified)
Sue the city and you are suing citizens
Sun, 05/18/2008 - 17:41Regarding the effectiveness of a lawsuit ... I think it would depend on how it was perceived by the general public.
The fellow who was blind and took the TTC to (I believe) the human rights commission because they would not agree to announce all stops on all transit worked because the request was so reasonable and the TTC was so absurd in denying it (it claimed its drivers were too busy safely operating their vehicles and could not be expected to also call out the stops).
I've met very few people who have heard the story that side with the TTC!
However, keep in mind that if you sue the city in a lot of people's minds, you are suing everyone who pays property taxes. If the suit is reasonable to the non-cyclist ... it could be very effective. But, if not, it will position all of us as just another special interest looking for cash/benefits from the city. And, that could do a lot of damage to the cause. Worse, it could easily be perceived as a special interest trying to capitalize on a death to advance their cause ... which, from the point of view of advancing the cause of cycling in Toronto ... would be a disaster.
The politicians who run this city would be very willing to bend to a suit that had wide pubic support ... and be very unwilling to settle something that angered their wider constitiutents.
Tone (not verified)
Sue the city and you are suing citizens
Sun, 05/18/2008 - 17:41Regarding the effectiveness of a lawsuit ... I think it would depend on how it was perceived by the general public.
The fellow who was blind and took the TTC to (I believe) the human rights commission because they would not agree to announce all stops on all transit worked because the request was so reasonable and the TTC was so absurd in denying it (it claimed its drivers were too busy safely operating their vehicles and could not be expected to also call out the stops).
I've met very few people who have heard the story that side with the TTC!
However, keep in mind that if you sue the city in a lot of people's minds, you are suing everyone who pays property taxes. If the suit is reasonable to the non-cyclist ... it could be very effective. But, if not, it will position all of us as just another special interest looking for cash/benefits from the city. And, that could do a lot of damage to the cause. Worse, it could easily be perceived as a special interest trying to capitalize on a death to advance their cause ... which, from the point of view of advancing the cause of cycling in Toronto ... would be a disaster.
The politicians who run this city would be very willing to bend to a suit that had wide public support ... and be very unwilling to settle something that angered their wider constituents.
Darren_S
Sue logic
Sun, 05/18/2008 - 19:41Respectively Tone I think your logic with respect to a suit is way off. If it did we would still have the Ford Pinto cruising the streets, massive racial discrimination, women pregnant and barefooted at home... You are not running a popularity contest. You are seeking to right a wrong.
Further, if this relationship existed of, "Sue the city and you are suing the citizens", we would not have the problems we have today because we would enjoy the inverse that would exist under your relationship. Offend a citizen and you offend the city.
The EnigManiac
Folks don't see it that way...
Mon, 05/19/2008 - 14:20...at least, I don't think they do, Tone. Almost everyone wants to 'stick it to the man' or force oft-described lazy, good-for-nothing politicians to be accountable for their ineptitude and few actually see councilors or any other politicians as their representatives. So, I would disagree that folks would see it as themselves that are being sued. I also think most people recognize when someone's negligence has caused or contributed to injury and / or death and they want whomever is, in whole or in part, responsible to pay. As was mentioned above, courts are not swayed by public consensus---heck most folks wouldn't care about a court action anyway---nor would there likely be any anti-cyclist sentiment, so that concern, I think is unfounded as well.
But taking the city to court isn't about retribution or revenge. It's about getting a judgment against them and a court order to fix the problem.
Tone (not verified)
Win the battle ... lose the war
Mon, 05/19/2008 - 19:49I do think a lawsuit could work if the incident involved obvious negligence and involved the family or individual involved in the accident.
I would have serious concerns about the impact of public support for cycling infrastructure for a more activist-oriented legal action that used a specific incident to make a larger point about the city's support (or lack thereof) for cycling infrastructure.
I'm a middle-class, middle aged guy who enjoys cycling ... commutes to work and appreciates the cycling infrastructure that exists, while wishing for more. I've been riding Toronto streets for over a decade and -- as a cyclist -- don't find the city grossly negligent in providing the needed infrastructure.
I would find the second option pretty difficult to support, so I can only imagine with the Case Oates of this world would do with it.
Contrary to Enig's sentiment, I don't actually want to stick it to the man. As 41, I'd be lying to myself to think that I'm that far removed from "the man" ... what I have learned is that if you want to make real change in public policy, you've got to get public support. Or at least address and neutralize the strongest opposition. I think going too far with a lawsuit could easily do just the opposite.