edwards block

The recent hubbub being stirred up by those who have set their own hair on fire over the introduction of smart meters is refreshing in one respect: it’s a nice change from reports of suspicious chem-trails and inside jobs on 9/11.

British Columbians are probably right to be apprehensive about BC Hydro’s motivations and future intent, particularly as the utility is controlled by a provincial government that already seems determined to govern more from an ideological imperative (or to satisfy the demands of crony capitalists) than from interest in the common good. When decisions are being made behind closed doors by cabinet – or politically appointed bureaucrats – with little or no independent oversight, we should not be surprised by hoi polloi expectations of conspiracy (see BC Rail, HST, et al). However, as far as I can see most of the anti-smart meter bleating is just annoying and politically counterproductive.

What are Smart Meters?

If you’re not aware, BC Hydro, the publicly owned utility that provides electricity to British Columbian homes and businesses (and exports electricity to the United States), has launched a project to replace all of the old analogue meters currently in use with new digital meters equipped with wireless signalling technology. This has inspired a minor movement in opposition, with people threatening to blockade their analogue meters in order to prevent replacement.

They’re called smart meters because – unlike the old analogue meters, which only recorded the total electricity usage and had to be read manually every month or two – the new meters can record usage on an hourly basis, detect power failures and irregular voltage levels, and contain two radio transmitters. One of these radios transmits data hourly to a receiver located in the same neighbourhood (which then relays the data to BC Hydro’s mainframe). The other radio, disabled unless the customer requests activation, allows that customer to use in-home or in-business technology to manage his or her own electrical conservation.

I expect that the new meters are also capable of recording bi-directional power transfers. I’m sure there’s a more technically accurate phrase to describe that, but basically it means that if you are generating your own electricity on your property, you’ll be able to “upload” it to the grid and be paid for it. BC Hydro doesn’t make this very clear in their promotional propaganda, beyond one sentence that reads “The measurement technology determines how much power is being consumed and produced.” I’m too lazy to read the technical specs to find out for sure, but that “produced” sounds promising.

If you think that the likelihood of your generating any power, let alone surplus power, is science fiction, just think of a product that is getting a lot of hype (and taxpayer subsidies) lately: the electric car. Personally, I have a lot of concerns with the electric car (at least from an metro-urban planning perspective – see pending separate rant on this topic), but if you want to know why you might soon be in a position to sell electricity, check out another smart concept, the smart grid, in this Wikipedia article.

Speaking of smart grid, the smart meter program isn’t just about individual meters. All of those individual meters collectively provide additional functionality as well, within neighbourhoods, within regions, and across the province. For instance, if one of your neighbours is by-passing the meter in order to steal electricity to secretly provide lighting to his basement hydroponic herb garden (a problem that can increase the likelihood of electrocution, fire, power failures, and electrical interference), the aggregated meters will record a discrepancy between the amount of power used on one block compared to the amount of power recorded by meters, making it easier to track down the leak. It’s only fair, after all, that everyone pays for what they use, regardless of the nature of that use.

Of course, it should be pointed out that this wouldn’t be as significant an issue if governments hadn’t put BC Hydro in the absurd position of being forced to fink to the police on anyone with higher-than-average power usage, effectively using a public utility as a law enforcement investigation unit. That few would bother to steal the electricity in the first place if they were just left to grow their herbs in peace is a detail that merits no official recognition.

There are undoubtedly larger-network benefits to the smart grid as well. For instance, the ability to manage the overall power network based on demand and supply is desirable. Power might be shifted across different transmission systems based on higher or lower demand in one region, or in order to react to supply problems in the form of generation outages (ie: dam maintenance or transmission line damage). An intelligent grid can potentially better manage electricity and promote better conservation, with less waste. Besides potentially relieving upward pressure on domestic electricity prices, it’s possible that better resource management might also reduce the need to generate extra electricity through the burning of coal and other polluting resources at times when systems near, or exceed, capacity.

The Opposition

There are certainly questions to be asked about any new technology being introduced, particularly when one has no choice over whether one uses the technology. “Is it safe?” and “Will my privacy be protected?” are two that immediately spring to mind.

Unfortunately, rather than have constructive conversations about these subjects, we seem to have a bunch of people with varying political agendas who would rather scream “It’s going to give me brain cancer!” and “They want to track how often I recharge my vibrator!” Most of these people are quite rational about most other things, and have legitimate political concerns about many topics, yet resort to irrational histrionics about smart meters.

Not only does this behaviour call into question their general credibility about other topics, but more importantly it occupies the space that should be used for more constructive conversations about resource management, public ownership and privatisation, environmental stewardship, open government, and equitable and fair cost recovery.

Considering its history, it is highly likely that the provincial government, in collusion with vested interests and foreign powers, is incrementally working toward the privatisation of British Columbia’s electrical grid. In all likelihood, the universal use of smart meters will make BC Hydro and/or its component parts more attractive to private investors. This presumed fact does not mean that the adoption of smart meters is the wrong decision any more than offering free wifi on BC Ferries will make it easier to privatise the ships. A strong case for smart meters can be made even if continued public ownership were certain.

British Columbians who are genuinely interested in continuing to have a publicly owned electrical utility would do well to aggressively promote that idea. Instead, people seem content to fritter away their increasingly limited political capital on absurd-sounding claims, like how smart meters “will effectively blanket homes and neighbourhoods with radiation”¹, “[...]what you are doing at any moment can be intercepted by market researchers, insurance investigators, saboteurs, would-be burglars[...]², or one American site that says “Smart Meters is a grid designed to control and incarcerate the public”³.

It’s not just anonymous cranks and semi-literate Facebookers, though. Opposition to smart meters seems to be the thing to do for some NDP activists. Take Bill Tieleman, for instance. His Tyee article on the subject last summer resorted to a lot of the same sort of panicmongering. He quotes a New York doctor who speaks of “exposure to radiofrequency radiation at elevated levels for long periods of time”. It seems that the doctor is either speaking out of context, or doesn’t understand how smart meters work, and Tieleman only impairs his own credibility by quoting him.

One thing Tieleman does mention, which is quite important to any discussion about ethics in government and about the implementation of the smart meter program, is the allegation by journalist Will McMartin about possible Liberal-party graft in the awarding of the smart meter contract⁴. This is certainly an issue of concern, and both McMartin and Tieleman are right to raise it. However, it is only an issue of implementation, not about the value of the program itself. If city council awards the garbage collection contract to one of the mayor’s political cronies, it does not therefore mean that garbage collection should be abandoned.

At least the NDP’s energy critic, John Horgan, seems to be staying away from the loonier claims of the anti-smart meter folk, which is probably tricky since many of them are probably people who vote NDP. At a public meeting in Kelowna, he avoided appearing to agree with those making hysterical health claims but tried to sound sympathetic by saying “But I do know, with absolute certainty, that the anxiety that these smart meters are creating are leading to health issues for people.”

In other words, if I may creatively paraphrase Horgan, “you people are making yourselves sick worrying about something that emits a mere fraction of the radio frequency power of that iPhone in your pocket, and you’ll never have to hold it up to your head. Get over it and let’s talk about something important.”⁵. Horgan can’t say so, but no doubt he thinks that that the crazy lefties who rail against smart meters for health reasons are as loony as the crazy rightists who rail against fluoridated drinking water and polio vaccination.

The NDP is well advised not to jump on the bandwagon of the irrationally discontent, unless they want to further drive away the environmentalist voters that they alienated in the last election by opportunistically opposing the carbon tax, a decision that cost them more votes than they gained.

It is difficult to comprehend how people can get worked up about a meter that sends out a two second signal once an hour, compared to all of the other much more intensive signals surrounding them. At this moment, there are, within detectable range of the chair in my living room, no fewer than twenty-eight detectable wireless modems all beaming signals, many probably doing so continuously, 24 hours a day. And then there are the cellular signals. Here’s a cell tower map of greater Vancouver:

Add to that the satellites beaming cable television throughout the city, the commercial radio signals, the two-way radios, the ham radios, the microwave transmitters on the mountains… even if you add up all the smart meters on your street, their output is minuscule by comparison.

Effectiveness of implementation

I’ve already mentioned the increased opportunity for privatisation. I’m not going to launch into a discussion of the merits, or lack thereof, of a privatised utility, other than to say that I doubt that most British Columbians are enthusiastic about the prospect. Privatisation is not an issue with meters per se, and some might call it a slippery-slope sort of suggestion, but if the subject is relevant, it relates to implementation. I’m uneasy about appearing to engage in conspiracy-mongering myself, but with this government almost anything sounds plausible, especially after the BC Rail fiasco.

With that in mind, it occurs to me that having the population in an uproar that appears to be caused by BC Hydro (even though BC Hydro is effectively forced to do whatever the provincial cabinet decides) serves very conveniently to cause deterioration of the traditionally good relationship between BC Hydro and its customers. Is the smart meter controversy eroding the pride that British Columbians feel about their utility? Even among those who don’t care much about the meter question, just being peripherally aware of controversy may be erosive. In business terms, it’s damaging the brand, and a damaged brand will be easier to dispose of, politically.

BC Hydro has provided on their FAQ, in my opinion, sufficient information about the health and privacy concerns that customers might have about how the meters will be operated at the time of implementation. Rather than report total electrical usage once a month, the meters will report total electrical usage once an hour. No one reasonable is going to have a problem with that.

One thing BC Hydro probably did wrong was to call them “smart meters.” The word smart evokes the concept of intelligence – artificial intelligence, in this regard. Who wants one of Ridley Scott’s replicants hanging on the wall outside her bedroom window? “Smart” vaguely suggests “sinister”, or “spying”, at least when applied to a cold machine of efficient calculation that doesn’t play games or have a “like” button. It’s no wonder there’s resistance. They should have stuck a fruit decal on it and called it an “iMeter.” Then, instead of launching anti-meter websites, the citizenry would be lined up outside of BC Hydro’s Dunsmuir Street headquarters, holding up fists full of cash and clamouring to be the first on their blocks to take home the new iMeter.

Though I found many of the answers on BC Hydro’s FAQ candid and informative, I also felt that a couple of the answers were potentially less than honest. Oddly, though, I kind of hope that they are lying. The first questionable question is “Will my rates go up because of smart meters?”, to which they provide an unqualified “no” as an answer.

The second question is “Will BC Hydro be introducing time-of-use rates?”. The answer here is also negative, ostensibly because time-of-use rating is generally only used in markets where the risk of exceeding capacity is high and time-of-use helps prevent it.

The paranoid in me thinks that they mean what they say, that “they” will not raise rates, but who can say what the government will force them to do, or what a future private owner might do? But the fact is, rates are almost certain to rise, eventually. It’ll just be for some other reason, of course.

But really, I’m nor terribly concerned. I think that they should raise rates.

As citizens of British Columbia, and therefore as investors in the utility, I think every residential household should be entitled to a base amount of electricity, regardless of the size of dwelling or the number of occupants, for free. Yes, that’s right – for free. But just a base amount. I’m talking about just enough to power a minimal number of energy-efficient lights and appliances necessary for basic survival and comfort. Any electrical usage above that basic amount would be charged for, at graduated rates based on a usage scale, so that the more you use, the more you pay.

(BC Hydro should stick to its commitment to avoid a time-of-use scheme as much as possible, unless capacity issues make it necessary. However, I would not favour time-of-use if capacity issues arise as a result of selling excessive quantities of power to jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, especially those who have no conservation incentives of their own.)

The result? Customers would have a much stronger incentive to conserve energy than currently exists, and the incentive would apply to all users, regardless of economic station, without unduly burdening (and even helping) the low income. This could mean everything from turning out a light when you leave the room to investing in energy efficient appliances and better insulation.

Now that’s something I’d like to see the anti-meter crowd redirect their energies toward.

1. http://www.notosmartmeters.com/health-issues/ [↩]
2. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Smart-Meters-in-BC/104594719619502?sk=info [↩]
3. http://ppjg.me/2012/01/21/icleis-murder-meters-and-spy-grid-turning-mr-roger-neighborhood-into-electronic-internment-camps/ [↩]
4. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/07/SmartMeterProfits/ [↩]
5. http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/134976123.html [↩]

Last night I went to the Vancouver Club to demonstrate my opposition to the presence of former United States Vice president Dick Cheney. Cheney, who has recently published a memoir titled In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir, was invited by the “Bon Mot Book Club” to address the club’s members.

I don’t go to very many public protests, because I don’t much like them. This has has more to do with temperament than judgement: I simply don’t like crowds, regardless of whether a crowd is pleased or angry. While a pleased crowd is generally less frightening, I find many crowds far too inclined to herd mentality to be worth the deprivation of my solitude. I’m not just talking about protest crowds: a crowd of sport fans, church parishioners, or family members have just as much potential for uncritical group-think when they gather.

Nevertheless, I felt compelled to attend this demonstration, as I believe Dick Cheney should be tried for crimes that contravene international law, particularly the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which was signed by Cheney’s former boss (or puppet, depending on your point of view), Ronald Reagan. Canada, as a signatory to this and other anti-torture conventions, has a moral (and possibly legal) responsibility to either deny Cheney admission or to turn him over to the International Court of Justice (to which a formal complaint against Cheney is outstanding).

By attending the protest, my goal was to express that opinion in a public way, and to express to the Bon Mot Book Club members that welcoming an alleged (and apparently self-confessed) criminal is, at best, a poor choice of dinner guest.

There are some things I did not have as goals while protesting. I did not go to prevent Cheney or anyone else from exercising his or her right to free speech. I did not go to block the doors and prevent the Bon Mot members from exercising freedom of assembly. I did not go to frighten, physically intimidate, or stalk and harass people who looked like they might be headed in the direction of the Vancouver Club, especially people who already looked frightened and intimidated. I did not go to scream, “How much are you getting paid you fucking pigs?” to the police who had been assigned to security. I did not go to try to assault anyone.

Photo: Vancouver Sun

Unfortunately, I was disappointed to find myself in a crowd comprised of many people who were more inclined to this sort of behaviour. I stood toward the back of the crowd, held my sign, and smiled politely at anyone who looked my way. I stayed until it was apparent that all the event ticket holders had arrived (and the media trucks had left), and then I departed, content in having expressed myself. I’m not necessarily opposed to more aggressive action when it is warranted, but stopping Cheney from talking wasn’t likely to save any lives or prevent any tortures at that moment and, at any rate, he has not yet been convicted of anything.

While at the demonstration, I took a couple of pictures with my phone and uploaded them to Twitter. I don’t usually do this sort of thing, but I’m trying to make at least some attempt to keep up with modern communication methods. It’s pretty much the only way the younger generations are communicating these days, and it seems to me that my refusing to play won’t have any detectable effect on the march of technological change (for better or for worse), but will serve to further isolate and lessen the impact of my cultural relevance (such as is it).

Upon arriving home, I found that my Twitter picture, which was accompanied only by the words “Cheney protest”, had been referred to by a Twitter user by the name of FACLC, a fellow in Alberta who considers to himself to be the love child of conservatives Richard Feynman and Ann Coulter. FACLC (whose alleged birth circumstances, I feel, perfectly justify his henceforth being referred to as “The Bastard”) apparently picked five people at random who had posted a reference to Cheney and called them all leftists with an “irresolute commitment to free speech”. Offended at being assigned the simplistic label of leftist, as if that single word somehow sums up my entire identity, and the suggestion that I was stifling free speech by exercising my own, I exchanged a couple of messages with him before I looked at his website and discovered that he’s one of those people for whom a position on anything that’s to the left of his must necessarily equate to communism.

I have to admit, while I was at the demonstration, I had a moment myself of feeling irritated by what I perceived to be the portion of the crowd that I sometimes, unscientifically, identify as being the “loony lefty rent-a-crowd”, the ones who show up to any demonstration that’s against anything. These are often the ones, unfortunately, who hold the bullhorns and scream incomprehensibly about contrails, Bilderbergers, and how 9-11 was an inside job. Some of them have a lot of time, energy, and emotion, but not a lot of critically informed focus, and some, I suspect, are simply members of our community who are struggling to find the right balance of medications with which to treat their mental health conditions. (They wouldn’t, of course, be so noticeable or command so much attention if more of the rest of us were inclined to do the work that we have apathetically left to them).

Looniness, however, is not restricted to those on the left. Dominating most of what passes for forums of public political dialogue these days (ie: the comment sections of news websites, or The Bastard’s Twitter feed), is a hugely energised crowd of people that I must refer to as the “loony right”. Somehow, anonymity and technology seem to inspire them to compete to see who can hold the most rightward of views, however insane or destructive, as if they’d collectively decided to  campaign for the return of western civilisation to the tenth century, but with internet, despite the likelihood that they would end up among the peasantry, or worse.

I don’t consider myself either a leftist or a rightist, and I don’t really care much about where The Bastard or anyone else would place me on that spectrum. Really, my reaction is about being labelled at all. I prefer to be free to arrive at my opinions independent of where they will situate me on the political spectrum or whether by holding them I’m contravening some party’s by-laws. If I have to be confused with one or the other, however, I’d rather be confused with the lefties, who at least seem to be motivated by the desire to build, rather than dismantle, civil society, even if their methods are sometimes misguided.

About the Bon Mot Book Club

If you’ve never heard of them and are wondering how you can join, well, forget it unless you’re rich, Conservative, and, most likely, white. More than one of their members endorsed conservative Liberal (explain that to your American friends) Kevin Falcon in the leadership race won by that “left-liberal” (as BC Conservative leader John Cummins refers to her) Christy Clark. Membership is by invitation or personal referral only, according to their website. If you want to cozy up to someone with referral privileges, try joining the West Vancouver Conservative Party constituency association, where Bon Mot founder Leah Costello is a board member. Or maybe you can petition the Globe and Mail, or the TD Bank, both of whom sponsor the event.

As book clubs go, this one isn’t what you’d call “literary”, so don’t expect to be reading any Proust (or Atwood, I suspect). Most of the books they dine in honour of (I’m reluctant to assume that they actually read them) are probably written by ghost authors.

It’s interesting that Leah named the group Bon Mot, French for “good word” – which is somewhat evocative of The Bible – yet is happy to celebrate someone willing to torture and kill people in the relentless pursuit of profit for his oil company masters. So Christian! Also amusing is Leah’s French pronunciation. If you watch the Bon Mot promotional video you’ll see her at the lectern pronouncing it as the “Bonn Mott” book club. Hearing this made me even happier with the sign I made for the demonstration:

So, like, since the vote last Saturday, I’ve been trying to figure out how to blog about the repeal by the United States Senate of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the law that was essentially a passive-aggressive ban on non-heterosexuals in the various branches of that country’s armed forces.

As a Canadian (a country in which queers have been accepted in the military for eighteen years without the sky falling) I hadn’t really paid much attention to the DADT issue in the United States, mainly because, quite frankly, I don’t really care. I read the news, so I’ve been half-consciously aware of what’s been happening, but I haven’t focussed on it, the same way I haven’t focused on news about Republican evangelical Ted Haggard snorting crystal meth off of the gluteals of gay prostitutes, or news about pre-pubescent boy-singer Justin Bieber. (Sorry about that last sentence – I just threw it in so that I can amuse myself later when I read the blog’s traffic stats).

Lately, though, DADT has kind of wormed its way more deeply into my news-cluttered brain, mainly because an American friend in upstate New York launched a blog dedicated to the subject in October. Harry has been writing a letter to Barack Obama every day, demanding that the President work harder to repeal DADT, and then posting the letters on his blog. I appreciate Harry’s efforts, even if at times I thought he was being a little hard on Obama. Harry’s a thoughtful, caring, generous member of his community, and I congratulate him on walking the talk, as they say. He’s participating in his government, and that should be a good thing.

As much as I admire Harry’s willingness to speak up for equality, I’ve been reading his letters with a continuing unease.

Now, there’s no question that I’m happy that progress is being made on civil rights: there’s absolutely no justifiable reason to deny equality to people because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, particularly in a federal agency. I’ve been an enthusiastic participant in the queer rights movement for almost a quarter of a century. I support equal opportunity in all cases. Nevertheless, to say that I was excited to see the repeal of DADT would be slightly over-emphatic.

A big part of my problem is that the idea that a queer youth would choose to join the military just seems utterly incomprehensible. In my youth, we would amuse ourselves with the idea that if there were ever a draft we’d simply show up at the recruitment depot in dresses, likely guaranteeing quick rejections. [Trivia note: Did you know that the DADT law that requires that homos be kicked out of the military has a notable exception: that anyone who “engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service” are not required to be kicked out. In other words, if you get caught with your pants down, you're outta there, but if you affect a Max Klinger routine they might make you keep your job, and somehow your presence won't affect troop morale negatively. Attention Pentagon: logical weakness.] Of course, many queers, it stands to reason, might discover their homosexuality after they enlist. Standing in a shower with ten guys with buzzcuts ought to make a fag out of anyone.

But here’s where we have to think about why all of these people are in the military in the first place. Are there really all that many young queers who want to leave home, live in a desert, and risk having their heads blown off in order to defend the interests of the “oiligarchy” that is running their homeland into the ground? Not likely. Most of these kids aren’t in the army out of some patriotic desire to “serve their country” – they’re there because they can’t afford college, and they have a choice of joining the army and getting their education paid for, or working at KFC for the rest of their lives.

The word “pride” is closely associated with the queer rights movement, but I can’t help but feel that this word that has long been used (overused, some would argue) as a positive slogan in the pursuit of social justice is now being incorporated into the lexicon of the drum-beating patriotic rhetoric that pollutes much of American cultural conversation. To his credit, Harry has largely refrained from engaging in the pro-war language that we usually hear and sticks to talking about things like how institutional inequality in the the military reinforces homophobia in all aspects of civilian life. Other commentators, however, have been greater proponents of the sort of mindless patriot-speak that, while not new, has certainly become much more prevalent since 9/11. Pride, unfortunately, is often invoked by proponents of DADT repeal, who speak of being able to serve their country with pride, the word having dual meaning in this context.

In his speech at the signing ceremony for the repeal, President Obama said:

There can be no doubt, there were gay soldiers who fought for American independence. Who consecrated the ground at Gettysburg. Who manned the trenches along the Western Front. Who stormed the beaches of Iwo Jima.

He’s undoubtedly right. There can be no doubt, however, if we follow this logic, that there were also gay soldiers among those who tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib, blew up 13 children and the rest of their wedding party in Iraq, or massacred hundreds of unarmed peasants at My Lai. If we’re going to accept that gays and lesbians are as good as anyone else, it seems reasonable that we should also accept that they are as capable of evil as anyone else. Are we doing queers a favour by helping them discover that evil?

In the same speech, Obama also related the words of a heterosexual soldier:

We have a gay guy in the unit. He’s big, he’s mean, he kills lots of bad guys. No one cares that he’s gay.

If, in order to advance civil rights, we have to resort to language that glorifies war and killing, perhaps we need to think a little harder about what we mean by “civil” and “right”. I’m tempted to quote Jane Rule out of context:

“With all that we have learned, we should be helping our heterosexual brothers and sisters out of their state-defined prisons, not volunteering to join them there.”

Putting guns in the hands of our young and sending them into peril in order to advance American hegemony is repulsive. It’s no less so if those young people happen to be queer. Now that DADT is officially doomed, I look forward to seeing all those Americans who campaigned for its repeal to turn their attention and energy toward the dismantling of the military-industrial regime and building a truly just society for all.

On the whole, i suspect, there aren’t a great many things that Gordon Price and i would find in common were we ever huddled together in an election voting booth. I’ve never actually met Mr. Price, and therefore have had no opportunities to delve deeply into his his psyche, or any of his other parts, so i can’t make this claim authoritativey. In fact, the claim is largely based on experiences from many years ago, when Price was a Vancouver alderman (as city councillors were then known), elected under the banner of the Non-Partisan Association (NPA), a municipal political party that claims it isn’t a party at all (a contention with which Vancouver’s No Fun City complainers would happily concur).

Having been intimately involved with the NPA myself back in the 80s, i abandoned the non-party shortly after Price was elected for the first time, though my decision had nothing to do with Price, personally. It did, however, have a lot to do with the greedy cronyism of the privileged, along with increasingly Soviet-style nomination meetings. As i said, i’m not intimately acquainted with Price’s actual positions on things, but that he stuck with the NPA for six elections as alderman (three of those under the leadership of the ever charming Gordon Campbell) hints at some incompatibilities in how we each experience the world.

This disparity in worldview was demonstrated in my only real interaction with Price in, i think, 1996. I was participating in a financially disastrous AIDS fundraiser that involved 1,500 or so cyclists pedalling to Seattle. As the crowd was crossing the Grandview Viaduct, just a few kilometers in and still full of energy, everyone was yelling and honking bicycle horns, and prompting motorists to do the same. Price pedaled up beside me and called out enthusiastically, “Isn’t this great?”.

“Too much noise!” i answered, me being rather sensitive to unnecessary aural stimulation. I just wanted to ride and couldn’t wait to get out into the country.

“Noise is good!” replied Price, who then pushed on to share roadspace with someone more cheefully responsive. I ceased henceforth casting ballots in his favour on that opinion alone.

This anecdote does reveal, however, one common interest: cycling. Price is well known to be an advocate of urban cycling, a cause that is of some significant interest to me. Since i have paid only peripheral attention to civic politics in the years since my flight from formal involvement, i can’t recall how Price actually voted on questions that came before council pertaining to cycling infrastructure. Since i’m insufficiently motivated to do any research on the subject, i’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he voted in ways that i’d have approved of. If he’s anything like that other NPA cycling advocate, Peter Ladner, though, he may have voted against his own beliefs in favour of maintaining the support of those who have a vested interest in the continued growth of car culture. Not that i’d blame him, necessarily – such is the way of governing in our fucked up electoral system.

Meanwhile, Michael Geller, a local architect who likes to describe himself as a “failed NPA candidate”, mainly because he is a failed NPA candidate, has a blog. Recently on this blog he posted a photograph of Dunsmuir Street, apparently taken from the Pacific Centre overpass looking east, that shows a long line of idling cars beside a bike lane that is devoid of any bicycles. Geller claims that the photo was sent to him by “some of my colleagues”, who perceive him to be an advocate of cycling infrastructure (based, presumably, on a single article he wrote that voiced flighty enthusiasm for the separated bike lanes he saw in Amsterdam). The unnamed colleagues, it is assumed, consider the photograph evidence that the bike lane is not being used and therefore cycling infrastructure is a grossly unfair inconvenience to poor tortured motorists.

Geller, apparently inspired by the unnamed colleagues, says that Mayor Gregor Robertson may be doomed in the next election “unless these lanes attract a much higher level of use by cyclists, and the congestion and traffic safety issues caused by the lanes are addressed.” I have no problem at all with Geller writing thoughtfully about negative perceptions about the Dunsmiur bike lane, but his lame attempts to brand himself a cycling advocate are laughable, and his reaching a conclusion on an important issue based on a single photograph as evidence in support explains why Vancouverites sensibly declined to offer him a seat on council. By all means, Mr. Geller, write a post about concerns of the mysterious unnamed colleagues and their issues with bikes, but if you’re really a balanced advocate for cyclists, at least have the decency to critically evaluate the opinions of the unnamed colleagues. I didn’t see a single word questioning the logic of the unnamed colleagues. Is the congestion caused by the bike lanes? Or are the bike lanes caused by the congestion? Why are cars idling a traffic safety issue? Isn’t it a bigger safety issue when those cars are racing up Dunsmuir, trying to get ahead of each other, because the green lights are timed in a way that encourages them to do so? What is it about the way people drive cars that makes people so afraid to ride their bikes downtown? But no, Geller just throws the picture on his blog along with a not-so-veiled threat toward the Mayor.

Geller suggests that the Mayor “could” lose the next election, but then says that “The new Mayor will remove [the bike lanes] in whole or in part after winning.” The use of “will” seems pretty revealling to me. How does Geller know what the new Mayor “will” do? The NPA hasn’t even got a nominee yet. I’m not buying this “some of my colleagues” stuff that Geller has posted. It sounds more like Geller is using his blog to begin the official NPA baiting of the anti-car crowd, a Fordian tactic designed to stir them into a bloodthirsty fervor that will throw the bike-loving bastards out and get city hall safely back into the hands of the “cronyistes”.

Anyway, enough conspiracy theorising. I don’t actually dislike Geller, the guy. I’ve heard him speak at various events, and i think he really is interested and thinking about the city. The trouble is, he’s a bit like the NPA’s only sitting councillor, Suzanne Anton (except, you know, with some brains). They’ve both either been born with money and privilege, or they’ve had money and privilege long enough that they’re grown completely out of touch with the reality on the street. And, perhaps they’re so addicted to the pleasures of this privilege that they’re single-mindedly occupied with keeping it.

So, getting back to Gordon Price. Price, to his credit, posted on his blog a mildly critical response to Geller’s post. Okay, he doesn’t actually criticize Geller, but he does point out the logical failures of Geller and/or the unnamed colleagues, using an old postcard. Check it out.

On May 17, 2008 Carol Ann Berner was driving her car on 64^th Street in Delta. She lost control, presumably upon hitting some speed humps, and after careening off of a parked car her Oldsmobile Intrigue crashed into a fence beside which two people were feeding a horse. The two were Daphne Johanson and her four year old niece, Alexa Middelaer. The four year old was killed.

Alexa Middelaer

Berner was charged with four counts: impaired driving causing death, and dangerous driving causing death (for Middelaer’s death), and impaired driving causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm (for Johanson’s serious injuries). Though she has admitted to driving the car, she has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. The trial is currently taking place in Surrey Provincial Court.

According to various news sources, Berner initially told the police that she had not been drinking and that she had inexplicably lost control of her car. She also said that she had been travelling at a speed not in excess of 60 km/h. After being questioned again about drinking, she allegedly told the officer that she’d had two glasses of wine about three hours before the collision. The officer then conducted a breath sample, for which a blood alcohol reading in excess of .10 was determined.¹  Another media source reported that, in a discussion with undercover officers, “Berner admitted to at least three glasses of wine before driving that afternoon”.²

Carol Ann Berner (Photo: Ric Ernst, PNG)

It was also reported that engineer Steve MacInnis testisfied to the court that, according to the sensing diagnostic module in her car, Berner had been driving as fast as 91km per hour immediately before the accident.³  The speed limit where the accident took place is 50 km/h.

You know the old disclaimer – nothing has been proven in court, so Berner is entitled to be assumed innocent until proved guilty. That’s a principle that I agree with. These things should not be tried in the media, for everyone should be entitled to a fair and impartial trial, lest we inadvertently convict the innocent.

It’s easy to despise Berner. She’s admitted to driving the car that killed the girl. She’s admitted she was drinking. She apparently lied about the speed at which she was travelling. Based on the information I’ve read, I can easily conclude that if Berner had any moral integrity she would plead guilty and spare Middelaer’s family a lot of extra agony (and taxpayers a lot of extra money), instead of throwing the dice onto the legal craps table in the hope of getting off on a technicality.

I’ve been vaguely tempted to attend the trial, just once, so that I can see what a creature like Berner looks like up close and in person – to look at her face, maybe look into her eye and try to get a glimpse into the empty soul that I imagine that someone like Berner possesses. It’s easy to imagine Berner as some sort of other, a monster who bears no resemblance to you or me.

I don’t need to do that, however, and not just because I loathe the idea of going to Surrey. I don’t need to go out there because I can find plenty of Carol Ann Berners anywhere I look. At the local school, sitting in her minivan waiting to pick up her kids. At the arena, sitting in the stands with his buddies watching the hockey game. At The Bay, buying birthday presents for her nieces. In the legislature, sitting in the corner office trying to think of a novel way of making the HST look better. Berner has friends, and children, and grandchildren. She likes a steak and a glass of wine. Sound like anyone you know?

(Photo: CBC)

I would suggest that there is one major difference between Carol Ann Berner and the rest of us: Luck. How often have you been to a party and heard the host ask someone about to leave “Are you sure you’re OK to drive?” How often have you heard the target of that question say “You know, you’re right. Maybe I better leave my car here and take a cab”? Yes, it happens. But it doesn’t happen often enough. Just go stand outside any pub after work. The parking lot is jammed with cars that won’t be there at closing time. Most of the people are consuming some amount of alcohol, and most are driving. Most will be lucky and will not run anyone over on the way home.

Some of the defenders of a little light drinking and driving argue that in most cases, the law is too strict. It is perfectly safe to have a drink or two. Just look at the evidence: all those people are leaving pubs after a couple of drinks, and kids aren’t being killed every day. It’s a seductive argument to those who have a personal stake in believing it. But consider this report compiled by Applied Research and Evaluation Services (ARES) at the University of British Columbia: ⁴

Over the eight-year period between 1999 and 2006, it is estimated that impaired driving killed 9,698 persons, injured 572,187, and caused damage to 1,891,001 vehicles in all crashes, translating into 1,010 fatal crashes, 391,123 injury-only crashes and 1,244,079 property-damage only (PDO) crashes, totaling 1,643,284 crashes in all.. In turn, this cost Canadians between $15.5 billion (Real Dollar Estimate model) and $90.2 billion (Willingness to Pay model) dollars, depending on the costing model and assumptions used. To put this another way, that represents a cost of between about $469.00 and $2,726.00 per Canadian.

In an average year in Canada, impaired driving killed 1,212 persons, injured 71,532, and caused damage to 236,375 vehicles, translating into 1,010 fatal crashes, 48,890 injury-only crashes and 155,510 property-damage only (PDO) crashes, totaling an average of 205,410 crashes in all. In turn, on average, this cost Canadians between $1.90 billion (Real Dollar Estimate model) and $11.28 billion (Willingness to Pay model) dollars, depending on the costing model and assumptions used. To put this another way, that represents a cost of between about $59.00 and $341.00 per Canadian.

Turning to 2006, the most recent year of data, it is estimated that, for Canada, impaired driving, including impairment by drugs other than alcohol, resulted in 1,278 fatalities, 75,374 injuries and, including property-damage-only, a total of 216,480 crashes, at a cost of between $2.2 and $12.8 billion dollars, depending upon the costing model used.

I would hazard a guess that when Carol Ann Berner got into her Oldsmobile Intrigue that day, she didn’t think much about whether or not she should be hurtling down the street in two tons of steel with alcohol in her blood. Now she’s telephoning undercover cops who she thinks are her new friends, telling them that she feels like killing herself.⁵

What happened to Berner could happen to anyone who drinks and drives. Think about that before you turn the key.

1. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/03/bc-alexa-middelaer-carol-berner-trial.html?ref=rss [↩]
2. http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/96424159.html [↩]
3. http://bit.ly/h6hTff [↩]
4. http://madd.ca/english/research/estimating_presence.pdf [↩]
5. http://bit.ly/esSVJo [↩]