Raise the Hammer

Oh come on Ryan--if I'm burning a Copenhagen-shaped straw man, it's because you and the other cycling chauvinists on this board keep holding it up as a model that should be followed--you keep citing lessons learned in cities that are NOT Hamilton yet constantly asserting that they are an evidence-backed, universally applicable magic bullet.

If I'm attacking anything, Ryan, it's exactly that: the idea that all the "answers" are out there, universally applicable, that they're purely structural, and that the trump all other solutions. You're giving me the engineer's approach to public policy, and I'm arguing that it's not as simple as just plunking down lanes: this is a public issue that involves people (and changing their potentially misguided opinions), and public dollars, so if you and other cycling proponents here want to be the voice of change in Hamilton on this issue, you're going to have eventually address the concerns of people like Dreschel (and yes, even A Smith) instead of haughtily dismissing them.

And here you have an opportunity: I think I'm fairly open minded guy, and I read Dreschel's column and I think, "Hey, that's similar to my experience w/ cyclists in Hamilton. Maybe this guy has some ideas worth thinking about." So I go to the smartest group of cycling proponents I know, but instead of attempting to ease my concerns about the lack of a safe cycling culture, I've been repeatedly told that my concerns and ideas are various colours of idiotic or logically ass-backwards.

Not to go too far on a tangent, but has anyone here ever heard of the Seaborn Panel? It was an environmental assessment panel convened in the 80s to investigate how to manage nuclear waste in Canada. I'll skip the boring bits, but what it found was that the science and technology was there to build a repository for nuclear waste 500m underground, and it would be perfectly safe for humans and the environment. Yet Mr Seaborn told AECL, Yes, you've got your science down right, but you don't have a social license for this concept--people just don't have enough confidence that this multi-billion dollar project will be safe and you will have to go back to the drawing board and demonstrate that you can get social acceptance.

Which is to say, "Burying thousands of tons of nuclear waste underground has its opponents, and you engineers and PhDs in nuclear physics can't just bludgeon them over the heads with your opinion that this is the safest and best way to dispose of nuclear waste--explain to them the risks, the trade-offs, and the science behind it and build their trust in the concept: it's a technical problem AND a social one."

The analogy I'm trying to draw here is not that cycling lanes or licenses are as controversial as nuclear waste, but that Hamilton's cycling chauvinists are bluntly trying to convince skeptics that infrastructure is enough, and that any other concerns people like Dreschel, or me, or A Smith, or whoever have, are stupid and we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads over them--if you build it, they will come.

Worse still, you're positioned as a group who wants positive, progressive public policy catered to you by citizens/tax payers/whatever, yet are obstinately opposed to doing anything that might endear yourselves to a skeptical and sometimes hostile public: a soft-licensing regime is a pain in the ass to you, but if that were the price of increased investment in cycling infrastructure, would you say no? Why? I have heard all the ways it might not HELP increase ridership, but no one's showed me it would HURT it either, and I'm arguing that it might have some positive short and long-term effects if done properly.

I hope that none of you would address the concerns of citizens, politicians or city staff the same way that you've addressed mine. As far as I know, constructive dialogue between citizens works, not the "we know best" attitude: that seems to only serve to perpetuate this phony "war on the car/cyclists vs. the world" narrative that columnists like Dreschel use to sell papers.

And Jonathan, answer the question: Which cities have seen licensing reduce ridership? Maybe it just sounds like you're e-belligerent, but seriously, I answered your question, now do me the courtesy of answering mine.