Toronto's plan to deal with an epidemic of pedestrian fatalities

Toronto is suffering through something of an epidemic of pedestrian deaths at the moment.
A total of 163 pedestrians have been killed on the streets of Toronto since 2011, more than have died in the much better-publicized shootings during that period. That's about one every 10 days on average, although a pedestrian is hit non-lethally by a vehicle about every four hours. And, worryingly, the numbers are on the increase: the last five years has seen 15% more deaths than the previous five. The percentage of collisions resulting in death has also see a spike recently, especially over the last three years.
Yes, Toronto has more pedestrians and more vehicles than it used to have, but an analysis of the details reveals a concerning trend that is probably only going to get worse as the population continues to age: the victims are disproportionately over 65 and hit by a larger vehicle (mainly cars, minivans and SUVs), typically somewhere in the suburbs, and while crossing a major arterial road at a spot without traffic lights or crosswalks. People 65 and older make up 14% of the city’s population, but they represent half of its pedestrian fatalities. Seniors are three to four times more likely to die when struck at speeds of 30-50 km/h than younger people. Drivers are thought to be at fault in 50-60% of pedestrian fatalities, and the pedestrians themselves are at fault in 25-30% of cases (the remaining cases are unclear).
Under some pressure, and following a lacklustre and poorly-received earlier promise to cut pedestrian deaths by just 20% (suggesting that 80% of the current carnage is considered acceptable), Mayor John Tory has recently vowed to pursue a goal of zero pedestrian deaths. While Toronto's pedestrian deaths as a share of its population is actually slightly better than that of cities like Vancouver and New York, for example, the situation in both of those cities is improving, while Toronto seems to be headed in the wrong direction. So, clearly Toronto can learn from the experiences of other cities, and clearly it needs to do so soon.
So, what exactly can be done?
The best results seem to come from reducing speed limits and traffic-calming measures. Research shows that being hit at 30 km/h is roughly like falling from the second storey of a building (it's going to hurt, but most people will survive), whereas being hit at 65 km/h is more like falling from the fifth floor (most people will die).
In 2013, after a particularly bad year for pedestrian fatalities, New York instituted its 63-point Vision Zero program, with the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities within 10 years. It dropped the default speed limit to 25 mph (about 40 km/h) from 30 mph, and put some real funding (US$115-million) into capital investments in safer roads. It also ramped up its traffic police efforts: citations for failing to yield and for texting while driving jumped more than 200% in 2015, speeding violations climbed 75%, and the 140 speed cameras set up near schools have generated more than one million violations. In addition, it has tweaked 700 traffic signals so the pedestrian signals start a little earlier than the ones for motorists (to give walkers a head start on crossing), and there are plans to extend this scheme to many of the most dangerous intersections, as well as at school crosswalks on the worst roadways. Education and media campaigns have been waged, and a new right-of-way law has made it easier to prosecute bad drivers (in 2015, a quarter of motorists who killed a pedestrian or cyclist were arrested under this law). And all these changes are paying concrete dividends: New York's 137 pedestrian deaths in 2015 was a long way from zero, granted, but it was still its safest year on record (a slim improvement on 2014, and much better than 2013).
New York's Vision Zero (and San Francisco's similar program) is based in large part of the experience in Sweden which, as so often, provides the gold standard for socially-beneficial, people-centred improvements. Sweden enshrined law aimed at zero pedestrian fatalities way back in 1997, and it has seen enviable results: the capital city of Stockholm, for example, has cut road deaths since 2000 by nearly half, and pedestrian deaths by about a third (the city of about one million people had only six pedestrian fatalities in 2013).
Toronto's plan, however, remains vague - an additional investment of $40-million over five years on safety-related improvements has been mentioned, and there has been talk of lowering speed limits from 50 km/h to 40 km/h in some locations, and from 60 km/h to 50 km/h in others - and many traffic activists remain unconvinced that Toronto is taking the issue seriously even now.

Hearn Generating Station provides a dramatic new home for Luminato

I'm not in the habit of doing reviews in this blog of all the various theatre and contemporary dance performances we attend, but last night's was a bit special, so I thought I would make an exception.
The occasion was the grand opening of this year's Luminato Festival here in Toronto. I'm not even a huge fan of Luminato, which I feel is another one of those festivals that started small and kind of funky and edgy, but which has grown unwieldy and a bit corporate. But this year, the usually scattered and multifarious festival has found a focus in a dramatic new headquarters. And it is this location itself that is the star of the show, for me at least.
The Hearn Generating Station, a long-abandoned 1950s-era coal-fired power station in an obscure but apparently soon-to-be-gentrified part of the Portlands area of East Toronto (just a 20-minute jaunt down the cycle track from my house, as it happens), is a fascinating glimpse into a post-industrial, even post-apocalyptic, future. Looking for all the world like one of those deserted and run-down warehouses where gang bosses carry out their torture scenes in TV dramas, the Hearn is all twisted (and, yes, tortured) rebar, decomposing concrete, rusting ironwork and obscure machinery. Hell, there are even the obligatory pools of extremely suspect-looking water, and exposed electrical connections and pipework that go precisely nowhere. I'm almost certain I recognize it from more than one nasty scene in a TV show. It's also absolutely massive and cavernous, apparently large enough to fit 12 Parthenons inside (if that is the kind of image that helps you visualize things, rising 20 storeys from the main floor, scaled by iffy-looking metal staircases and cross-crossed by steel girders.
This, then, is the unprepossessing material that has been reclaimed by the Luminato people, who have added eerie lighting, ambient industrial music, and a whole host of strange interactive art installations and photo montages printed on the brick walls. My own favourite was the huge 8-metre disco ball, made up of 1,200 mirrors, slowly spinning and reflecting distorted gobs of light throughout the whole building.

The particular event we were there to see - just the first of an eclectic program of artistic endeavour planned for the Hearn this Luminato season, including performances ranging from the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and Tafelmusik to left-field drone-metal legends Sun O))) to the queer hip-hop of Yes Yes Y'all, and from the serious and seriously Scottish James Plays to a doggie-themed drag show by The House of Filth - was an intense music and dance performance by Vancouver’s Holy Body Tattoo troupe set to live music by Montreal’s post-rock project Godspeed You! Black Emperor (careful with that exclamation point - they are picky). Seated just a couple a metres back from the ominous signs warning "Caution - Extreme Noise", we were soon grateful for the earplugs provided, as the music morphed between delicate (if amplified) chamber orchestra sections and brutal, punishing, cacophonous crescendos of guitars, drums and feedback.
The dance likewise lurched from skittish, hyperactive, spastic movements to extended statue-like poses to apparently random outbursts of shouting, laughter and physical flailing. Most of it took place on a series of up-lit and down-lit boxes or pedestals, although this loosened up significantly in the wild second half. At times, the audience really did not know what to make of it all, including the several (deliberately uneasy) false finishes. Some of the "dancing", however, was excellent, and the sheer physical stamina of the dancers was most impressive to behold, even if the choreography was a bit self-indulgent at times. But, together with the music and the surreal surroundings, the package as a whole was really quite spectacular, well worth the extended wait while "technical difficulties" were attended to before the show began.

Change the Canadian anthem. Get over it.

It's kind of ridiculous that parliament is finding it so difficult to pass a very simple bill to change two little words in Canada's national anthem.
All that is being proposed is that the line "True patriot love in all thy sons command" be changed to "True patriot love in all of us command", not a major or particularly contentious concession to 21st century gender neutrality and inclusiveness, one wouldn't have thought.
Much has been made of the fact that the bill is being brought to parliament by Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger, who is suffering through the final stages of ALS. Bélanger was forced to turn out for his bill's official presentation yesterday, thanks to the Conservatives' rather hard-hearted insistence that another Liberal MP could not possibly be substituted for the purpose. Bélanger made an emotional and rather pitiful appearance yesterday to fulfill this unnecessarily legalistic requirement.
It's difficult to understand exactly what the Tories have against the change. Some of them are complaining that there has not been enough public discussion, and that the bill is being rushed. But how much discussion can such a small and simple change require? Okay, it is not the most poetic of lines -  some have argued that perhaps "in all our hearts command" might sound better - but it really doesn't matter that much. One Saskatchewan Conservative MP complained that changing the anthem would be tantamount to admitting that it has been discriminatory for 100 years. Well, duh!
Parliament has much more important things to discuss. Stop the prevarication and obstructionism. Pass the bill. Get over it.

The direction of a horse-race is surely not a big deal

Woodbine Racetrack in Toronto is convinced that, by running clockwise races, they will inject a whole new level of excitement into the sport, and miraculously attract much-needed new blood into what appears to be a failing business model.
Apparently, for obscure historical reasons, North American racetracks run their horse-races anti-clockwise, as distinct from the European and Caribbean clockwise tradition. Who knew?
The horse-racing business may be going through a bad patch in Toronto at the moment, but is changing the direction of the race really going to make a significant difference to the punters who might frequent it, and thereby revive interest in a languishing sport/business?
Call me cynical, but I just have this feeling that most people who go to horse-racing are much more exercised by the betting and the movement of money than in the direction of the race (or even in the race itself, for that matter).

Rooting for Toronto's capybaras

Capybara fever is in full flight in Toronto at the moment.

Two capybaras escaped from their cage in Toronto's High Park Zoo back on May 24th, and are still at loose in the park, despite the attentions of a whole battery of city staffers, rodent experts from Toronto Zoo and the Ministry of Natural Resources, local capybara breeders (what?!), and even a Brazilian ex-wrangler of capybaras. Park staff have tried to coax them home by playing capybara calls over a speaker, but the wily rodents are having none of it. A series of cages baited with corn and fruit remain unvisited (by capybaras, at least). Heartfelt but spurious sightings of the animals from as far away as Scarborough are commonplace.

The cute, if rather ungainly, animals have certainly caught Toronto's collective imagination, and have provided plenty of ammunition for the Internet's meme-making machine. Dubbed Bonnie and Clyde by many, the capybaras have found their way onto photoshopped Blue Jays logos and CN Tower advertising, and have even colonized Steve McQueen's motorcycle from The Great Escape. They boast not one but two Twitter accounts.

TV news crews have shared long, breathless clips of the capybaras in the park, and local amateur naturalists have been able to snap several good photos of the rodents in their new habitat. But no-one seems to be able to get near them (bear in mind, they can run at 35 km/h when pressed, they are prodigious swimmers, and they are, well, just shy).

However, the increasing media and tourist attention is likely to spook the animals, and one can easily imagine them coming to grief on a park road or, an even sadder prospect, out in the concrete jungle surrounding the park. If they were to make it down to the none-too-distant shores of Lake Ontario, though, the whole continent (and its wealth of grasses and aquatic plants) is theirs for the taking. Most of Toronto is rooting for them.

UPDATE

As of June 28, both capybaras were back in their pens in High Park Zoo. One was caught in a trap baited with fruit and corn back on June 12th. The other lasted until this Tuesday, after a five-week jaunt through the park.

What will the local press have to write about now?

Michael Chan excuses Chinese boorishness (again)

Ontario Liberal MPP and cabinet minister Michael Chan should be ashamed of himself (and his party should ashamed of him) for his defence of visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's boorish and undiplomatic behaviour last week.
Back on June 1st, Mr. Wang reacted aggressively to a perfectly reasonable press question about China's human rights record and their treatment of Kevin Garratt (who is still languishing in a Chinese jail for alleged spying). Wang, rather than answering the question with the usual diplomatic platitudes, evaded the question completely and shot back, "Your question is full of prejudice against China and arrogance ... I don't know where that comes from. This is totally unacceptable", adding, "Please don't ask questions in such an irresponsible manner. We welcome goodwill suggestions but we reject groundless or unwarranted accusations". He claimed that only the Chinese were qualified to talk about China's human rights record (even if that were true, that is exactly what he, as China's official representative, was being asked to do).
Whatever the outburst might indicate about China's hypersensitivity to widespread condemnation of its human rights record, the fact remains that Wang's tantrum was totally inappropriate. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion hopped from foot to foot uncomfortably and ineffectually as he usually does, but made no attempt to defend the hapless reporter. Dion claims that he and Wang had already had "mature and respectful discussions on our respective positions" on Chinese human rights and China's aggressive claims in the East China Sea, but his humble and impotent response to Wang in public gives us a good idea of just how tame his approach probably was in private. I suspect that the "respect" was largely a one-way affair.
Anyway, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau contented himself with an anodyne statement about Canada's “dissatisfaction” with Mr. Wang's antics, the whole thing died down. Then, Chinese-born MPP Michael Chan, who is technically the Ontario Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade, and not an apologist for the Chinese government, waded in with comments in a Canadian Chinese-language blog suggesting that, instead of looking at Chinese human rights as they exist today, we should instead be thankful for how much they have improved over the last 40 years.
Instead of dealing with the incident he was questioned about, Chan lists booming economic growth, increased ease of tourism, and the wider latitude for Chinese students to study abroad, as important achievements for China during the last 40 years. This may well be the case, but these achievements have nothing to do with Chinese attitudes towards human rights, which appear to have changed little, and they should not be used as excuses or to deflect appropriate criticism.
Mr. Chan already has a record of some inappropriately pro-Chinese statements (sometimes at the expense of Canada) and some rather murky behind-the-scenes activities. He has been the subject of several allegations that he is too close to the Chinese consulate in Toronto; he has been berated for active lobbying for the controversial Confucius Institute to come to Toronto’s school board, and for hiring two staffers known for pro-Chinese regime activities; he has praised China’s anti-corruption campaign, which many critics see as merely a new way for the leadership to purge its enemies; and he has apparently been seen pumping his fist in the air and shouting "Long Live the Motherland" in Mandarin.
Now, some of these may be allegations only, but it does seem that his allegiances are severely conflicted for someone in his sensitive and powerful position. These latest comments are not helping his case any.

I hereby vow to improve my fuel efficiency

An article in the Drive section of today's Globe and Mail, a section that I rarely read with much attention, has reminded me of something I once knew, but appear to have forgotten in recent years.
A few years ago now, I read a similar article and vowed to reduce my driving speed in order to improve my fuel efficiency. I kept to speed limits obsessively for a year or more, tried to avoid sharp acceleration, and even planned ahead for the most fuel-efficient way to negotiate hills. This was not exactly "hyper-miling", but it did noticeably improve my fuel efficiency and, for a while at least, it gave me an interesting challenge during the usually humdrum and tedious act of driving.
Unfortunately, it didn't last too long. All it took was a couple of occasions when I was pushed for time and had to put my foot down, and soon I was back to my old inefficient habits. So, this article is a timely one for me.
A vehicle uses over 20% more fuel when driving at 120 km/h on the highway than when driving at the official speed limit of 100 km/h. Yes, the journey at 100 km/h takes 20% longer but, unless there are pressing reasons to the contrary, an extra 12 minutes on an hour's journey is really not enough to get excited about. Even just sticking to the posted speed limits in town is enough to generate substantial fuel savings and, with gas prices back above $1, that can save more money than you might think.
What else can help? Accelerate gently when acceleration is needed; leave more space between you and the car in front (so as to avoid constantly braking and accelerating); allow yourself to speed up on downhill slopes, and slack off the accelerator on the uphills; coast wherever possible (including when slowing to a stop); keep the windows closed and the AC off unless the weather absolutely requires it; and avoid idling while parked. I drive a hybrid anyway (although a 2.5 litre 4-wheel drive hybrid, and so not one of the most efficient cars on the road), so observing these simple rules will have even more impact on my fuel efficiency than they might have with other cars.
The article in question reports fuel savings of 25-30% from the simple observation of these recommendations, and of almost 50% in the case of hybrids. No-one will think any the worse of you for driving like an old duffer (when was the last time you saw someone you knew while driving anyway), and your bank account and the environment will certainly thank you for it.
So, I am renewing my vows. Let's see how long it lasts this time...

What you need to know about sunscreen

There is a profusion of articles in today's Globe and Mail on different aspects of the thorny issue of sunscreen.
A quick trip to the supermarket or pharmacy will be enough to show what a proliferation of different brands, types and claims of sunscreens there exists these days. There are myriad different SPFs; UVA, UVB and broad-spectrum sunscreens; physical and chemical sunscreens; PABA and PABA-free sunscreens; water-resistant, sports, and active use sunscreens; no-rub and non-greasy sunscreens; sprays, lotions, gels and sticks; etc, etc. We are using more and more sunscreen, and yet skin cancers are still on the rise (some 6,800 Canadians were diagnosed with melanoma skin cancer in 2015, and about 1,150 died from it; another 78,000 more were diagnosed with non-melanoma skin cancers). Some studies have shown that certain sunscreens cause severe medical problems in test rodents, and yet most health authorities and cancer charities assure us that sunscreens are perfectly safe and advisable.
So, what is a person to do? First, then, a very quick primer.
SPF (sun protection factor) is a measure of how much UVB radiation penetrates the skin. SPF15, for example, means that only 1/15 of the UVB reached and penetrates the skin, while the other 14/15 is blocked by the sunscreen. What that means in practice is that it should take 15 times longer for your skin to burn when you are wearing an SPF15 sunscreen than if you were wearing no sunscreen at all. The higher the SPF, therefore, the better, although there are diminishing returns as the SPF gets higher (for example, SPF30 blocks all but 3% of UVB, while SPF60 block all but 2%). SPFs of up to 100 are available nowadays, but most advisory groups recommend an SPF of at least 30.
For that matter, what is UVA and UVB. UVB is medium wavelength ultraviolet radiation, most of which is absorbed by the earth's ozone layer, but the UVB radiation that does get through is the most destructive and is typically what causes most skin cancers. Longer wavelength UVA radiation penetrates deeper into the skin, and mainly causes aging skin and wrinkles, but it can also contribute to skin cancer. (UVC is the shortest wave ultraviolet light, which is completely absorbed by the atmosphere before it can reach us). "Broad-spectrum" means UVA and UVB, and this is the best recommendation if available.
Physical sunscreens (sometimes called "natural" sunscreens) use tiny particles of ingredients like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide to reflect ultraviolet rays so that they do not penetrate the skin at all. Chemical sunscreens use chemical filters such as PABA (4-aminobenzoic acid), retinyl palmitate, oxybenzone or avobenzone to absorb ultraviolet rays in the skin and to alter their properties. Most cancer organizations do not recommend one type over the other and leave it up to personal preference. Some people find the texture of physical sunscreens off-putting; on the other hand, some people's skins may be particularly sensitive to certain chemicals like PABA or the alcohol used in certain creams. Although some studies on rats, etc, have shown various sunscreen ingredients to be damaging in extreme concentrations, normal everyday use has not been shown to present any dangers, and certainly the alternative - no sunscreen at all - is a much greater and proven risk. Skin cancer and dermatology experts like Yale's Dr. David Leffell feel able to state categorically, "None of the approved ingredients [in sunscreens] have been shown to cause any problems in humans."
When using sunscreens, most people only apply about a third to a half of what they should, even when using creams, gels or lotions. Sprays, however, are much less efficient in covering the skin properly (and also relatively expensive because of all the wastage), and are generally less recommended. You don't need to apply sunscreen 15-30 minutes before going into the sun, as many brands used to counsel, but you should make sure to reapply it at least every couple of hours or as directed on the bottle, especially if you go in the water (even water-resistant sunscreen is not completely waterproof, and it will wash off over time).
UV-blocking clothing is another option, and modern sun-protective sportswear (utilizing special fabrics, dyes and chemical treatments) is much more breathable, lightweight and stylish than it used to be. Clothing blocks both UVB and UVA rays, and UV-blocking clothing often uses a UPF (ultraviolet protection factor) measure, rather than just SPF (which only measures UVB protection). In general, synthetic fabrics like polyester block UV better than natural fabrics like cotton. A standard white t-shirt, for example, might only have a UPF of about 7, while some sun-protective clothing has a UPF of 50+ (i.e. it blocks over 98% of harmful rays).
General advice, therefore, seems to be: look for a water-resistant, broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of at least 30, and reapply regularly as directed, especially if it gets washed off by water. Don't get too caught up in this ingredient or that ingredient - the risk to humans is extremely small, and the products are heavily regulated by Health Canada and other watchdog organizations. Make sure to apply a lot of lotion (probably more than you think is necessary), and avoid inefficient sprays. If possible, avoid direct sunlight during the peak hours of 11am to 3pm, and preferably cover up with a hat and clothing if you do need to be out during that time.