In the lefty news site Straight Goods, our favourite cycling lawyer, Albert Koehl, weighs in on the lethal cost of automobiles. You may also know Koehl from helping to push the cycling agenda with the province, perhaps one reason why the provincial Environmental Commissioner mentioned Toronto's slow pace of bike lanes.
Darcy Allan Sheppard accomplished this year what almost 3,000 other Canadians will fail to do: get more than fleeting public attention for his death on our roads. If Sheppard's death had not occurred in downtown Toronto, in gruesome circumstances, and under the wheels of a car driven by Ontario's former top law-maker, the public would already have forgotten his name.
While the tragedy on Toronto's Bloor St. may have highlighted the frailty of the human body in conflicts with the car, the fact is occupants of cars are hardly safe from the danger on our roads.
Although cyclists are over-represented in road fatalities, the most common victims of road accidents are drivers and their passengers, comprising three quarters of all deaths. Motor vehicle occupants also count heavily among the 20,000 Canadians wounded so seriously by motor vehicles each year that they require hospital care, often for long terms.
So routine are serious traffic accidents that we more often hear about them as obstacles in the morning traffic report than in news headlines.
Cars aren't deadly just because of collisions.
Polluting emissions from car and truck traffic claim 440 lives in Toronto alone each year, according to the city's public health authority. Climate change, which is caused in significant part by transportation emissions, will claim more lives still. Over 35 percent of Toronto's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are from motor vehicles.
The tragedy of these numbers is not that we accept them so willingly, but that we accept them despite the obvious alternatives.
First, buses and streetcars are many times safer than cars, while emitting a fraction of the air and climate poisons. A 30 percent reduction in traffic emissions would save 190 lives in Toronto each year and result in $900 million in health benefits, according to Toronto Public Health. Mass transit can be improved quickly with better and more frequent bus service.
Second, bicycles produce zero climate and air pollutants — while posing minimal risks to other road users. Cycling fatalities can be reduced. In certain European countries where bikes have been given dedicated space, cyclists (despite shunning helmets) are much safer.
"Good fences make good neighbours" wrote the poet Robert Frost. Painted lines for bikes make good relations on our streets.
Yes, cyclists must obey the rules of the road, although this doesn't help cyclists injured by motorists in so-called "doorings" that are all too common. When I cycle, I fairly diligently obey every rule of the road but sometimes marvel at the irony of it all: complying with the rules of a society that has already carelessly passed through urgent warning signs of climate change and unnecessarily wasted so many innocent lives.
Third, cars are transportation products, not necessities. Other personal transportation products would make our cities safer and healthier. Power and speed, along with polluting emissions, are car design features, and consequences, that kill.
We may be able to justify the use of a car to carry groceries, take kids to soccer practice, or pick up grandparents — but do milk and eggs really need to leave the mall in a machine capable of achieving 0-60kmph in 6 seconds? Low cost, low emission, low speed vehicles, similar to the electric ZENN car, provide another logical alternative, especially since city traffic doesn't average even 40kmph anyway.
Finally, when our roads are safer and more hospitable places, people will walk more.
The car may be part of our culture but this is no reason to stand in the way of safer and more efficient options. The facts support a war on traffic deaths and injuries, traffic pollution, and vehicle GHG emissions that have made us all —- motorists, passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians —- victims.
Albert Koehl is a lawyer with Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal), a Canadian environmental law organization.
In November 2007, Ecojustice and KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, a church-based social justice organization, demanded that Canada's Auditor General investigate the government's oil and gas subsidies and the cuts to programs for poor households.
Comments
R A N T W I C K (not verified)
Nice piece, but...
Wed, 10/28/2009 - 09:47That was well written stuff, and I can agree with most of it. I question, however, the statement "Although cyclists are over-represented in road fatalities..." I would like to know what that is based upon... are there stats that say bicyclists die in road accidents at a greater per capita rate than car drivers? If so, I would like to see them, because most of what I've ever read says that this isn't so, despite public perceptions of cycling as a dangerous activity.
I guess I'm posting this in the wrong place... I'm off to paste this comment on the actual article if I can.
geoffrey
based on distance travelled
Wed, 10/28/2009 - 15:03This was a widely circulated bicycle blog item a few months ago. It seems by distance travelled bicyclists and pedestrians were over represented. A number of blogs reinterpreted the data in terms of time and came up with rather different results. Sorry, google has failed me on this one.
robb (not verified)
cyclist road fatality rate
Wed, 10/28/2009 - 22:18CBC quotes thst cyclists are 12 times more likely than motorists to die, per km travelled.
locutas_of_spragge
Die how?
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 04:30Imagine Albert B. Albert doesn't exist, but a lot of men like him do. Albert knows he should get more exercise, but the car just offers so much convenience he never gets around to getting on his bike. And he knows he should watch his weight, but it just takes too much time, and he has so much to do already. And he gets stressed and irritable in traffic jams, but he doesn't see much alternative. After paying all that money for his car, and more for insurance, it seems silly to leave it in the driveway.
The one day, Albert rolls home feeling lousy, gets out of his car, and can't make it up the house steps. And the Rolaids won't touch this case of heartburn. When Albert does get to the hospital, the doctors do what they can, but too much of his heart has already died, and he passes into history as another victim of Canada's leading cause of death.
Now, Albert's death certificate won't list his cause of death as his car. It won't even list the car as a contributing cause. But we all know that, on average, if Albert had taken his car less and a bike more, he had (statistically) a much better chance of living longer (and since I made Albert B up to represent an average, I can say he would not have had that MI if he had ridden a bike).
To say that fewer drivers than cyclists die per km travelled, you have to ignore the elephant in the back seat: the overall health effects of a sedentary, car-dependant lifestyle.
robb (not verified)
True
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 12:18This is absolutely true. When we talk of the risks associated with any physical activity, from football to hockey to cycling, it always should be weighed against the benefits.
Still, I wish I wasn't so likely to die in a bike accident. It just doesn't seem necessary, given the many ways that exist to make it safer.
electric
Probably true, we're also more likely to die in a collision
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 19:44But per/km is not a very relevant metric for comparing drivers to cyclists because a car driver covers 24x more km a year,
Fatalities per Million Exposure Hours
Skydiving 128.71
General Flying 15.58 (single engine cessna and amateur pilot)
Motorcycling 8.80
Scuba Diving 0.98
Living 1.53 (just doing stuff in your home)
Swimming 1.07
Snowmobiling .88
Motoring .47
Water skiing .28
Bicycling .26
Airline Flying .15 (Modern jet-liners with real pilots, not little commuter planes)
Hunting .08
Data compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.
Yes, you're 33x more likely to die riding a motorcycle than a bicycle and just half as likely as a motorist to die for every million hours More here
AnnieD
Living
Fri, 10/30/2009 - 09:33They should have left out the "living" category, since it detracts from the main message.
If there are 1.53 fatalities in one million hours of exposure "living", then that works out to an average life expectancy of:
1,000,000 / 1.53 / 24 (hours in a day) / 365.25 (days in a year) = 74.6 years
which is almost exactly 6 years lower than the median life expectancy in Canada.
Not knowing exactly how they came up with that number, one possible explanation is that healthy people are out and about biking, water skiing, and motoring to the restaurant and theatre and the population of people hanging out at home is somewhat less healthy than average. Or maybe these are just stats from the late 1970's and the "living" category is mislabelled "just doing stuff in your home" and really does refer to all exposures.
Hmmm.... clearly I'm overthinking this.
Otherwise, it's a neat little table.
I'm going to bike to the airport now and fly somewhere. Maybe take up hunting...
PS: Per km exposure is particularly misleading if it includes highway driving. I wouldn't object so much to it if it's only city driving, though. With all the traffic, average car and cycling speeds aren't grossly different - results should be fairly consistent either way. But then again, most car deaths occur on the highway, no?
AnnieD
Well, look at that
Fri, 10/30/2009 - 09:38Just found another post with these stats and they've labelled living as "living (all causes of death)". The stats are from the US, 1993, which sounds about right.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html
electric
Glad you found the complete tables
Fri, 10/30/2009 - 18:55The original site seems to have moved.
Anyways, yes per/km isn't particularly useful without the rate(hours per km in this case). Imagine per km fatalities of Jet liners compared to motor-vehicles or per km fatalities of the space shuttle to an automobile... pretty mis-leading.
uber (not verified)
ok...
Wed, 10/28/2009 - 09:51blah blah blah blah...blah.
so nothing new here. a few items i can agree with as they are generalities...some i disagree with too.
but this guy must get paid by the word or minute of typing...and his next paycheque must have been predicted to be on the low side (he is a lawyer afterall).
So he writes a long winded essay that points out the obvious, raises the hackles of cyclists to join arms in the 'fight!', and then tries to pawn it off as the most important thing we need to read right now.
It's things like this that pushes the 'fence sitters' further from listening to to what cyclists have to say...all they'll read is what my post started with at the top!