Vision Zero impacts on motorcyclists | GTAMotorcycle.com

Vision Zero impacts on motorcyclists

canw650

Active member
Agenda Item History - 2019.IE6.8

This has got to be the lowest effort attempt at improving Toronto road safety, but thought I would highlight the effects on motorcyclists with this proposal:

11. City Council amend Municipal Code Chapter 950, Traffic and Parking, to add motorcycles to the Designated Class of Vehicles permitted in reserved lanes on Bay Street from Front Street West to Bloor Street East.

12. City Council request the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario to review and amend road safety related educational programs with a Vision Zero lens related to vulnerable road users including but not limited to mandatory motorcycle training program for M-class Licensing; improved cycling education in schools; enhanced vulnerable road user training requirements for all M and G Class driver education schools including improvements to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Driver's Handbook, Knowledge and Road Tests.

14. City Council request the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario to change the maximum Blood Alcohol Concentration for all licensed motorcycle drivers to 0 percent.

This city needs infrastructure improvements. No point building wide, flat, and straight roads that would pass for freeways in some parts of the world and then expect people to crawl along at 50kmh. Traffic calming circles, roundabouts, pedestrian right of ways e.t.c. are desperately needed.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Interesting. Personally, if I'm on a bike my BAC is zero, but holy jeebus would this put a hurting on many patios in the summer. I'm not convinced that mandating zero is necessary. 0.08-0.1 has long been considered impaired, recently they brought in the warn at 0.05, now they want zero? Either above zero is impaired or it isn't, setting limits based on the class of vehicle you are driving does not make much sense to me. Especially with the new two-hour rule, you couldn't have a sip of alcohol until two hours after you got off your bike or you could easily get a DUI conviction. I have talked myself into the "this is a stupid idea" camp.

It would be an interesting research project to see how many bikes crash due to cages with drivers at a BAC 0.01 to 0.05 vs how many bikes crash with riders at BAC 0.01 to 0.05.
 

Mad Mike

Well-known member
Not liking that Zero alcohol thing. I'm not going to be overlimit in my car or bike, but I do like a pint or two and have managed to keep myself off the tarmac for several decades -- if you're taking votes, mine is a NAY.
 

LePhillou

Well-known member
Site Supporter
0 is exaggerated because i could have a beer 3 hours ago and still have something in my blood.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
0 is exaggerated because i could have a beer 3 hours ago and still have something in my blood.
I think zero is a bad idea. If they wanted to do something lower than 0.08, maybe 0.05, but again, if that is impaired, why would every other vehicle operator be allowed at that level? It's a slippery slope with little science and lots of fanatics/cheap vote buying.
 

GreenPlane

Well-known member
I personally don't drink when ride/drive. However, I'm against 0 rule because as far as I remember, even some food items and medicine can give some small amount of alcohol reading using breath tests (for a short period of time).. also, how it will work? For example, I have M and G lics and let's say they will check me in 2 hours after I got home.. do I need to prove that I didn't ride the bike in the last 2 hours? I guess it is much more straightforward if they change right after e.g. an accident..
 

Trials

Well-known member
I'm good with it, alcohol is evil stuff. ... the kind you drink to get polluted, not the kind found naturally in food.
 

hedo2002

Well-known member
Site Supporter
The level for ALL vehicles is .08, but it is VERY rare to see anyone under .1 being charged, Call that the "error" buffer. But, currently at .05, your licence is suspended for (IIRC), 3 days. So in effect, the current limit is .05.

I would assume they are targeting 0 for bikes as things can go sideways much quicker, and often with MUCH more devastating consequences on a bike.

As for the previous comment, of riding, (even with a small amount of alcohol in one's system), isn't a valid argument, against a lower limit. I can say without reservation, that NOT one person I ever arrested for Impaired Driving, thought they were over the limit.

OOPS edit one knew he was hammered, (so did I, when he refused to "walk the line" without my setting up a safety net, as he stated in case I fall)...lol Also, arrested many who readily admitted they had driven home from the bar, having consumed a similar amount for years and years, (usually without having ever being caught).

During my decades of riding, not once, did I ever consume an alcoholic beverage. Unfortunately, I can't say the same when it came to cars or pickups, albeit has been decades since I have consumed enough, to even come close to the legal limit. Not that it is an excuse, but those were also different times, (late 70's), when it wasn't uncommon for many to drive with an open beer in hand.

I think zero is a bad idea. If they wanted to do something lower than 0.08, maybe 0.05, but again, if that is impaired, why would every other vehicle operator be allowed at that level? It's a slippery slope with little science and lots of fanatics/cheap vote buying.
 

Trials

Well-known member
Ya the 1970's and earlier were absolutely crazy for impaired driving. Cars typically didn't even have seat belts or head rests, little kids jumped up and down in the back seat of a big heavy car with bald tires, rusty fenders flapping in the wind and a leaky exhaust spewing leaded fuel smoke. ABS was invented when they told you to pump the brakes.
By all rights we should have never survived it.

Oh and the cigarette smoke! OMG people smoked everywhere and you just had to deal with it.
 
Last edited:

LePhillou

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I think zero is a bad idea. If they wanted to do something lower than 0.08, maybe 0.05, but again, if that is impaired, why would every other vehicle operator be allowed at that level? It's a slippery slope with little science and lots of fanatics/cheap vote buying.
taking "other vehicles on the road" out of the equation, with the bike you already have the higher responsibility of being in better control of your riding if you want to make it home, with the car, you can make more mistakes or be more sloppy and get away with it

So i still see an impaired cager as being more dangerous than an impaired motorcyclist. As i said, i know that after a guiness or a radler, i'm definitely good to ride 2-3 hours later. So i don't know what kinda risk they're trying to mitigate. Trying to protect riders from themselves? I think we need more protection from cagers who are already driving under the influence of cellphones; way more dangerous in proportion
 

MaksTO

Well-known member
taking "other vehicles on the road" out of the equation, with the bike you already have the higher responsibility of being in better control of your riding if you want to make it home, with the car, you can make more mistakes or be more sloppy and get away with it

So i still see an impaired cager as being more dangerous than an impaired motorcyclist. As i said, i know that after a guiness or a radler, i'm definitely good to ride 2-3 hours later. So i don't know what kinda risk they're trying to mitigate. Trying to protect riders from themselves? I think we need more protection from cagers who are already driving under the influence of cellphones; way more dangerous in proportion
I think cataclysmic fines for driving and texting would help. Treat it like drunk driving, and stop being so lenient with it. If you have a bit of alcohol, at least you are still looking at the road (I don't condone drinking and driving fyi), with a phone you see exactly nothing in front of you.

Drinking impairs judgment - texting and driving completely removes the possibility for judgment, because you can't even see what you should be judging in the first place.
 

Krime

Well-known member
Site Supporter
0 BAC is horrible. As someone posted, you could easily consume a drink hours before jumping on the saddle and be perfectly alert, the drink long since forgotten, and end up in a lot of unwarranted trouble minutes later. Talk about having to worry about something to the extent that shouldn't have to.

I'd like to see the stats where it shows the number of at fault motorcycle collisions where the motorcyclist had consumed alcohol that was within the current legal amount. I'm sure they don't exist, because it was never a factor to begin with...
 

sburns

Well-known member
Ya the 1970's and earlier were absolutely crazy for impaired driving. Cars typically didn't even have seat belts or head rests, little kids jumped up and down in the back seat of a big heavy car with bald tires, rusty fenders flapping in the wind and a leaky exhaust spewing leaded fuel smoke. ABS was invented when they told you to pump the brakes.
By all rights we should have never survived it.

Oh and the cigarette smoke! OMG people smoked everywhere and you just had to deal with it.
I am sure it was, glad I missed it.
One of the guys I use to work with told me some interesting stories about those days back then. Like how he rigged up a dispenser in his car for beverages, and how they use to hide cases of beer under the floor (raised computer floors). Was everyone drunk in the 70's??
 

Lyndsay

Well-known member
Site Supporter
0 BAC is horrible. As someone posted, you could easily consume a drink hours before jumping on the saddle and be perfectly alert, the drink long since forgotten, and end up in a lot of unwarranted trouble minutes later. Talk about having to worry about something to the extent that shouldn't have to.
According to www.americanaddictioncenters.org Alcohol can be detected by breath samples for 12-24 hours. 0 is ridiculous in this case. you could have a (one, 1) drink the night before and test positive on your way to work tomorrow.
 

Krime

Well-known member
Site Supporter
According to www.americanaddictioncenters.org Alcohol can be detected by breath samples for 12-24 hours. 0 is ridiculous in this case. you could have a (one, 1) drink the night before and test positive on your way to work tomorrow.
Insane. 7 years ago, I had the biggest a-hole of a cop pull me over on my way to the cottage with my wife. He had a vendetta against sportbikers and threatened to give me a no insurance ticket and have my bike towed roadside because my insurance slip was out of date by a couple months and I'd misplaced the most recent one. He told me if I couldn't handle the power of a litre bike, that I should be riding a moped instead. When I asked him to show me the speed he clocked me at that had gotten him so fired up, I learned I was going 18 over the limit (98 in an 80) while PASSING a car on a rural road. Complete d-bag out for blood.

If this 0 BAC comes into effect, it's going to give bad cops like this fuel to inflict maximum, unwarranted damage. Had I have never had this experience, I probably wouldn't be so passionate against this since I've always liked to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that people are inherently good and want to do the right thing... but with cops like this out there, it's clear that we can't arm them with this kind of ammunition and expect them to use it responsibly.
 

Top Bottom