Cyclist taken out

[redridernl]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

Nice, touche, hadn't thought of that. So 90% of them have a right to be on the road, doesn't mean they have to take up an entire lane when they only take up 10% of the space. No matter how you look at it, it's illogical and grossly inefficient.

It's a public road. 100% of them have the right to use it. It may be inconvenient and annoying but it doesn't matter if they've got a ping pong table set up in the middle of the road, you can't run them down. None of your reasoning will affect those two basic facts.

 

[Riceburner]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

Nice, touche, hadn't thought of that. So 90% of them have a right to be on the road, doesn't mean they have to take up an entire lane when they only take up 10% of the space. No matter how you look at it, it's illogical and grossly inefficient.

A MC isn't much wider than a cyclist, but we have the right to the entire lane width. Granted we have the ability to go at speed, but not all do.

 

[fastar1]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

Answer honestly, if cars became flying like 'back to the future' and could travel over grass, gravel, whatever, do you honestly believe new roads would be paved, or old roads repaired and repaved? There would be no reason for it, so yes, cyclists are guests and should act accordingly. How is it that you think I'm acting like I'm entitled? Why aren't you accusing the cyclist of being entitled? The cyclist physically takes up about 1/10 of the space that a car does, yet he seemed to think he could take up as much room as he wanted rather than needed. I don't know the stats now, but it used to be that 1 in 5 North Americans were in some way employed by the auto industry. Think of all the tax revenues generated from the companies that mine raw materials, to the companies that process the materials, to the manufacturing companies that make the parts, to the assembly plants, to the sales centers, the shipping companies in between each of them and the countless lawyers, insurance companies, finance companies, oil/gas companies that were involved. And all of them paying taxes because of cars. Furthermore, there's a distinct difference between legal and ethical, too many people confuse the two. I can legally drive at 100 in the left lane on any 400 series highway, does that mean I should? Here's a direct quote from a buisness law book:

While the definition of law as enforceable rules has practical value, it does not suggest what is just or moral. We must not assume that so long as we obey the law we are acting morally. As discussed in Chapter 1, legal compliance and ethical behaviour are two different things, and people must decide for themselves what standard they will adhere to. Many choose to live by a personal code of conduct demanding adherence to more stringent rules than those set out in the law, while others disregard even these basic requirements. Some think that moral values have no place in the business world, but in fact the opposite is true. As was pointed out in Chapter 1, there is now an expectation of high ethical standards in business activities, and it is hoped that those who study the law as it relates to business will appreciate and adhere to those higher standards.

If we didn't need road for cars, of course we'd still build roads. Busways, rail lines, sidewalks, park and cycle paths are examples, and they'd be much more common if money and space wasn't tied up building roads for cars. Now that the car-dependent society of the past hundred years is being more widely recognised as a mistake, there are more alternatives being built. Here's an urban road that's being re-prioritized in a pilot program to serve transit first https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=54c9209f85da9510VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD and this one is a rural bike highway http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/highway-107-extension-burnside-connector-trail-1.4207510

But that was only to answer your question. I don't see how it's relevant to the point that we all share the roads equally regardless of who pays more or less for them, as opposed to drivers being owners or hosts or whatever, and cyclists being guests. That is at the heart of why I described your thinking as entitled.

The cyclist also behaved entitled. I actually DID mention it when I referred to "another dimwitted one who thinks he owns the road" even though it's irrelevant to my point. I only wrote that to try and pre-empt the inevitable but-what-about-the-cyclist moaning, but I guess I wasn't explicit enough! The only point of my first reply was that your perspective is flatly wrong and unhealthy to the point of being hazardous to other road users.

Just because your perspective is wrong, that doesn't mean everything you're against is in the right. It only means you're wrong. I don't know why it has to be so hard for people to examine the validity of their claim 'A' without deflecting accusations onto problems 'B', 'C', and 'D' like your points about flying cars, about the cyclist blocking the lane, about jobs from the auto industry, or about what is legal vs. ethical. All irrelevant.

Please. The road is a shared resource. Cyclists are not guests. You were wrong. It's that simple.

 

[nobbie48]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

A bit of a tangent but...

http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2017/07/05/cyclist-advocate-killed-while-riding-his-bike.html

It appears that the cyclist was riding on a sidewalk which IIRC is illegal but he driver of the van was charged. I don't know the details but would this have happened if the cyclist had also obeyed the laws? More details are needed, particularly direction of travel.

Whether it's over the top or not, driver's are possibly facing a tough challenge. Cyclists can pass you on the right, left, on the sidewalk, going the wrong way, riding drunk and you are still wholly responsible for their safety. I'm not suggesting the right to hit them but at what point do the cyclists take some responsibility?

Re the Volvo driver in the OP, that was criminal.

 

[RockerGuy]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

********* cyclist gets a hard lesson in life.

http://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/ottawa-cyclist-gets-hit-car-gets-ticket/

 

[SVeezy]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

I find this whole topic very frustrating. The driver in the Volvo is a criminal and a psychopath. Drivers need to share the road. If someone chooses to walk in the middle of the road they are stupid but it doesn't give anyone the right to run them over. Cyclists need to accept that they will lose every time in a collision with a vehicle and behave accordingly. That is all.

 

[fastar1]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

********* cyclist gets a hard lesson in life.

http://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/ottawa-cyclist-gets-hit-car-gets-ticket/

How many times have you watched a video of a driver getting t-boned after running a red light and thought "********* driver gets a hard lesson in life"?

Point is, there are ********* cyclists and drivers. Don't know why so many here want to single out just one group.

 

[Riceburner]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

There are idiots all over. Was cycling yesterday, saw a guy in the distance getting his mail. Watched him, head down looking at his mail all the way to the intersection and step onto the street without looking up. Only looked up as I passed behind him. He was about 6 feet into the street. I teach my kids better awareness.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

How many times have you watched a video of a driver getting t-boned after running a red light and thought "********* driver gets a hard lesson in life"?

Point is, there are ********* cyclists and drivers. Don't know why so many here want to single out just one group.

Perhaps because when you are so vulnerable and yet seem to take no responsibility for your own safety, it's particularly comment worthy?

You know, like motorcyclists.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

A bit of a tangent but...

http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2017/07/05/cyclist-advocate-killed-while-riding-his-bike.html

It appears that the cyclist was riding on a sidewalk which IIRC is illegal but he driver of the van was charged. I don't know the details but would this have happened if the cyclist had also obeyed the laws? More details are needed, particularly direction of travel.

Whether it's over the top or not, driver's are possibly facing a tough challenge. Cyclists can pass you on the right, left, on the sidewalk, going the wrong way, riding drunk and you are still wholly responsible for their safety. I'm not suggesting the right to hit them but at what point do the cyclists take some responsibility?

Re the Volvo driver in the OP, that was criminal.

The article indicates that the driver of the van has not been charged at this point. However while I disagree with riding on the sidewalk, if you're only trundling along at 5km/h (brisk walking speed), should you be on the roadway? This incident sounds like more negligence than intent and I suspect things may play out in civil court vs traffic court.

 

[kwtoxman]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

That latest shows the driver was charged.

....there is substantial evidence about how the collision unfolded, including at least one witness and video surveillance from the plaza. Police said [the cyclist] was between two and four metres into the plaza driveway when he was struck...

There is some dispute about being on the sidewalk, and still it wasn't relevant enough based on the police charge and where the cyclist was hit.

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...calls-for-stricter-penalties-for-drivers.html
Some more talk here about a vulnerable road user law and the people involved in it.

Nobbie48's extrapolations are plainly unrealistic. Cyclists are obviously held responsible for their conduct through the same applicable laws and legislation that other road users are.

 

[Baggsy]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

That latest shows the driver was charged.

There is some dispute about being on the sidewalk, and still it wasn't relevant enough based on the police charge and where the cyclist was hit.

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...calls-for-stricter-penalties-for-drivers.html
Some more talk here about a vulnerable road user law and the people involved in it.

Nobbie48's extrapolations are plainly unrealistic. Cyclists are obviously held responsible for their conduct through the same applicable laws and legislation that other road users are.

Not seeing that. I'd like to see more enforcement.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

That latest shows the driver was charged.

There is some dispute about being on the sidewalk, and still it wasn't relevant enough based on the police charge and where the cyclist was hit.

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...calls-for-stricter-penalties-for-drivers.html
Some more talk here about a vulnerable road user law and the people involved in it.

Nobbie48's extrapolations are plainly unrealistic. Cyclists are obviously held responsible for their conduct through the same applicable laws and legislation that other road users are.

"Obviously"? My experience says otherwise. I see cyclists flout the law every day. Most days I see it happen at least once, in the presence of police. In 18 years of working in downtown Toronto I've seen exactly one incident in which two bicycle cops stopped a cyclist for running a stop sign.

 

[daught]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

Are most cyclists hit and killed because of something they do? Do they get hit because they run red lights? Probably most are just hit from behind.

 

[kwtoxman]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

Not seeing that. I'd like to see more enforcement.

"Obviously"? My experience says otherwise. I see cyclists flout the law every day. Most days I see it happen at least once, in the presence of police. In 18 years of working in downtown Toronto I've seen exactly one incident in which two bicycle cops stopped a cyclist for running a stop sign.

Yes, it's obvious; the simple understanding that police who get involved in cycling incidents apply the law to cyclists the same way they do for other road users. There was no other intent to that statement, which was in response to and had referenced the established context of a hyperbolic post proclaiming from a recent police action that drivers are "wholly responsible" for the safety of cyclists who take no responsibility and "pass you on the right, left, on the sidewalk, going the wrong way, riding drunk".

You two are instead talking about proactive policing (proactive enforcement). That is a related but different issue, and a problem found in all types of traffic enforcement. I find it rather pointless to isolate the issue of proactive enforcement to cyclists when the same thing occurs with vehicles (and it's even worse). Plus vehicles are much more common and accidents are more dangerous to the public and other road users. By all means proactive enforcement is severely lacking, but it's lacking for all traffic and separate from what was being discussed.

 

[Robbo]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

I went downtown last week to pick up my wife from a business dinner. Two cyclists took unnecessary risks.
The first totally disregarded that I was making a left on an advanced green light. It was dark and the cyclist was wearing dark clothing. Saw him before he saw me or it would have ended badly.
30 seconds later I was making a right turn from King st onto Brant (signalled early the car in front did the same). However, a cyclist decided to pass on the rhs of me...could also have ended badly if I hadn't stopped mid-turn.
I don't know how you guys drive downtown every day. I was glad to get the f@ck out of there tbh.


Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com

 

[fastar1]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

"Obviously"? My experience says otherwise. I see cyclists flout the law every day. Most days I see it happen at least once, in the presence of police. In 18 years of working in downtown Toronto I've seen exactly one incident in which two bicycle cops stopped a cyclist for running a stop sign.

Riders who flout the law can still take responsibility for their conduct. I used to ride through an intersection every morning that had a restriction against straight through traffic, and it often had cops on the other side enforcing the rule. Every time I whizzed through they watched and did nothing.

It was easy to deduce that the purpose of the restriction is to prevent traffic from using the residential street next to a school to get around a congested 6-lane main artery that runs parallel. The traffic engineers simply didn't consider cyclists when they put up the restriction, as it would make no sense to force bicycles onto that parallel arterial road.

I don't know if the cops thought it through to that extent or just went with their guts and decided it didn't make sense to fine me, but if they had I would have dealt with it responsibly. I DID break the law, but I would have tried to explain to the cop that the rule didn't take cyclists into consideration, and if they ticketed me anyways (fine, that's their job) I would have tried to get my local councillor to recognise that the lack of an exception for cyclists was an oversight and fought it in court. And if I lost, I would have paid and went done a longer route around that corner if I saw the cops next time.

There are other instances where cyclists may in fact break the law but that doesn't mean they're necessarily creating a hazard. The 'Idaho stop' reflects that for example.

Yes, of course many cyclists are entitled and add risk to the roadways. We see it every day. All I'm saying is to look at it from a cyclist's point of view, and sometimes what you see as stupid and reckless will make more sense.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

Riders who flout the law can still take responsibility for their conduct. I used to ride through an intersection every morning that had a restriction against straight through traffic, and it often had cops on the other side enforcing the rule. Every time I whizzed through they watched and did nothing.

It was easy to deduce that the purpose of the restriction is to prevent traffic from using the residential street next to a school to get around a congested 6-lane main artery that runs parallel. The traffic engineers simply didn't consider cyclists when they put up the restriction, as it would make no sense to force bicycles onto that parallel arterial road.

I don't know if the cops thought it through to that extent or just went with their guts and decided it didn't make sense to fine me, but if they had I would have dealt with it responsibly. I DID break the law, but I would have tried to explain to the cop that the rule didn't take cyclists into consideration, and if they ticketed me anyways (fine, that's their job) I would have tried to get my local councillor to recognise that the lack of an exception for cyclists was an oversight and fought it in court. And if I lost, I would have paid and went done a longer route around that corner if I saw the cops next time.

There are other instances where cyclists may in fact break the law but that doesn't mean they're necessarily creating a hazard. The 'Idaho stop' reflects that for example.

Yes, of course many cyclists are entitled and add risk to the roadways. We see it every day. All I'm saying is to look at it from a cyclist's point of view, and sometimes what you see as stupid and reckless will make more sense.

I'm constantly seeing cyclists blow through crosswalks full of people, at speed. It's rare that cyclists dismount to go through the pedestrian scramble at Yonge and Dundas, for example. This is, in fact, dangerous. I see them ride on the sidewalks along Gerrard and then straight out into crosswalks ($65.00 fine for riding on the sidewalk under Toronto bylaws and $85.00 HTA fine for crosswalk). This is also dangerous and separated bicycle lanes were added in the area at no small expense.

 

[fastar1]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

I'm constantly seeing cyclists blow through crosswalks full of people, at speed. It's rare that cyclists dismount to go through the pedestrian scramble at Yonge and Dundas, for example. This is, in fact, dangerous. I see them ride on the sidewalks along Gerrard and then straight out into crosswalks ($65.00 fine for riding on the sidewalk under Toronto bylaws and $85.00 HTA fine for crosswalk). This is also dangerous and separated bicycle lanes were added in the area at no small expense.

Those actions aren't dangerous or irresponsible because they're illegal, they're dangerous and irresponsible if they put people at risk. Riding on the sidewalk is the safe and responsible thing to do in some cases. There's a section of bike lane on Dufferin that's purposely designed to make cyclists ride up on the sidewalk for about 200m, with no markings or signs to indicate it's legal. There are sections of park paths that can only be accessed by the sidewalk. Some seniors are smart to avoid riding on certain streets when there's a mostly unused sidewalk available for them instead.

The arguments for riding on the sidewalk downtown are weaker, especially if the speed limits are capped at 40. But just doing something illegal isn't necessarily always dangerous or irresponsible. (likewise, doing what's legal isn't always safe and responsible, as the original post demonstrates).

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Cyclist hit and run

Those actions aren't dangerous or irresponsible because they're illegal, they're dangerous and irresponsible if they put people at risk. Riding on the sidewalk is the safe and responsible thing to do in some cases. There's a section of bike lane on Dufferin that's purposely designed to make cyclists ride up on the sidewalk for about 200m, with no markings or signs to indicate it's legal. There are sections of park paths that can only be accessed by the sidewalk. Some seniors are smart to avoid riding on certain streets when there's a mostly unused sidewalk available for them instead.

The arguments for riding on the sidewalk downtown are weaker, especially if the speed limits are capped at 40. But just doing something illegal isn't necessarily always dangerous or irresponsible. (likewise, doing what's legal isn't always safe and responsible, as the original post demonstrates).

No, they aren't dangerous or irrespponsible because they're illegal. They're illegal because they are dangerous and irresponsible (in the context I described), and yet the law is not enforced. I frequently see cyclists splitting the pedestrians in the scramble at speeds up to 30 Kmh (my estimate). That's dangerous.

Then again almost every time I'm at Yonge and Dundas (several times a day) I see pedestrians who leave the curb to cross diagonally when there are all of 2 seconds left on the clock.