The Toronto Star is reporting that a cyclist was killed on Thursday at 1:00pm after being doored and run over on Eglinton Ave. near Braemar Ave (Map).
A 57 year-old male cyclist was killed today after a collision with an opening car door hurled him into oncoming traffic. He was the city's 20th traffic fatality this year.
The accident occurred as the man was biking eastbound on Eglinton Ave., near Braemar Ave., just after 1 p.m. this afternoon. The cyclist was struck by a Ford cube van after colliding with the driver's side door of a parked Volvo, police say.
He was taken to hospital, but died from his injuries around 5 p.m. this evening.
Police are asking for any witnesses to the collision to call 416-808-1900.
I'm sure more details will show up in the media soon, and ARC will hold a memorial next Thursday.
Very sad. I was hoping this year would continue on a positive note...
Updated media links:
- Toronto Star
- CBC
- National Post
- Toronto Star - With Bike Union quotes, and "it does not look like charges will be laid".
- Toronto Police press release (PDF)
Update: Charges laid.
Comments
Aidan
city has liabilty
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 06:28Without knowing the accident details, and the guilt or innocence of the two vehicle operators (but...) I'd say the city has liabilty here, on a moral if not legal level. Get rid of arterial on-street parking! How are you supposed to be safe to the left of the door prize, and to the right of the idiots?!
My condolences to the family. Another damn waste.
Luke Siragusa
Watch...
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 08:42...no one will be charged. Just another unfortunate incident.
Bullsh_t. Absolute bullsh_t.
Anonymous (not verified)
It suprises me that the city
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 10:00It suprises me that the city doesn't post signage targeting/warning door openner's near parking spots. Or even signs instruction drivers were to stop when street cars are stopping, how many times do cars block the streetcar doors (or passengers get stuck while exiting the Streetcar). The truth is some people don't know because the city hasn't made a valid effort to educate drivers on urban driving.
To further my point yesterday I almost ate an open door but luckily stopped in time. The driver thought it was my fault I told him legally he would of been ticketed he said he never heard of such thing. I fear that this is the case with most car owners.
The death of this cyclist could of and should of been avoided, unfortunatly it happen again so long as we can inform all drivers of the real danger they pose.
hamish wilson (not verified)
dooring can kill
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 10:56This is a tragedy, and it likely was preventable.
It's a good fit to the reality of biking in Toronto though, and if it casts a dark shadow over the Bike Month and the blah-blah from the City - that's great!
I was nearly doored by a cabbie 2879 ASWR 765 on Wed. c. 12:15 at Bloor/Spadina as the cabbie needed a coffee, we exchanged pleasantries, and I ended up calling 911. But no blood on the streets, no injuries "we can't file a report on that" and the 911 hangs up on me.
Yet if I were to take my Ulock and start swinging it around me with the same equivalent of force with the laws of physics that a sharp door edge brings to a cyclist, the cops wouldn't just be there quickly, I'd be "taken care of".
Our cops also failed Geoffrey when he was "bumped" when taking a lane on the Lakeshore, and there are very good bike-sensitive cops around, but there are also "carist" ones.
And they sometimes don't look either - a friend Danny Beaton was doored by a cop on Spadina and Danny thought it might have been a case of cycling while being native, though he didn't push the incident being stretched/stressed as it was before being injured.
And sometimes accidents do just happen, maybe because we travel a bit too quickly for urban conditions, maybe because the cyclist isn't in mirror zone, because there's the fear of being run down - see above.
We can't just blame the City though, the province could act too - how about penalties for door prizes of $5,000, $10,000 if causing death plus funeral expenses plus 2 months in jail and loss of driving privileges?
There are reasons for cyclists riding on sidewalks, and sometimes pushing pedestrians around to the point of serious injury to them, and sometimes (but rarely) death.
Condolences,
but thanks to ARC + Darren + Derek + tino for their ongoing caring enough to do these sometimes draining memorials.
tanya
911 is for *emergencies*
Fri, 06/27/2008 - 16:41While I can appreciate that you felt threatened by the car door, after you avoided the car door it ceased to be an emergency. The appropriate number to call would be 416-808-2222. Please don't tie up dispatchers that may need to respond to actual emergencies.
Tanya the cranky.
Anonymous (not verified)
open doors
Sun, 05/25/2008 - 21:00yup....i ride defensively when it comes to parked cars....the last time someone opened a door infront of me on runnymede ,which has a designated bike lane,i yelled "hey,what the".......the driver told me to puck off.....he could care less.....you(the cyclist) are just an annoyance to guys like that.
John G. Spragge (not verified)
the door prize
Sun, 05/25/2008 - 23:59When it comes to opening doors, I've skidded to a halt as drivers opened their doors. Most apologized; a few looked at me as though they hadn't realized that cyclists existed before.
As far as preventing the door prize, making sure you look to see if cars have a person in the driver's seat who might open the door helps. I usually try to look three cars or so ahead, and proceed cautiously if I see an occupant. But you can't always see a driver in a vehicle ahead, and even the best and most careful cyclist can't always determine a driver's intentions. In the end, the responsibility rests on the driver, or the passenger, to ensure they can open the door without endangering anyone.
toroadie
Car doors
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 10:24Drivers need a lot more education. With that in mind, I made a little video with a few
careless drivers opening doors, I had to add some non door footage to make the 60 second limit for the toronto urban film festival. I hope it gets aired on the TTC so some occasional drivers will practice a bit more safety. That's unlikely but that's my contribution to improving the safety of cycling in the city.
vic
Wording of the headline
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 10:59Matt has a good posting on his website about the way the headline of the Star's article is worded to put blame on the cyclist.
Martin Reis (not verified)
Charges
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 11:55I'll be very surprised if any charges will be laid. A few years ago Ron Freeman was nearly killed in almost identical collision on College street. The driver received a $100 fine, that was all.
Anonymous (not verified)
The media should be alerted
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 12:04The media should be alerted to the fact that dooring is the ONLY action that a driver can take that will be assessed by insurance companies as 100% fault for accident. Anything else and the fault is shared. If the INSURANCE industry sees it this way there must be something to it.
Witnesses? The action causing the accident is 100% on the driver, no witnesses are needed if it is established that the victim was doored.
no charges and we march on TPS and city hall.
Condolences to the family & friends of the victim in this preventable tragedy
Anonymous (not verified)
It is a ticketable & demerit
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 12:06It is a ticketable & demerit loss offense. There would need to be a different charge laid as dooring is a traffic violation.
However, as long as police ticket the driver then the driver can be held responsible for the terrible extent of their actions in civil court
Ryan Marr (not verified)
This happend right in front
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 12:42This happend right in front of my office. I am a cyclist and a driver. I obviously rode into work as much to make a point to my co workers than anything today. I ride from queen and landsdowne but occasionally drive a small vehicle when I need to lug some gear around. some of my co-workers were walking by and saw the man being lifted into the ambulance and when they got back to the office called me crazy for cycling on eglington.
Well I hope this is a reminder that cycling has a real stigma and a lot of people are in fear of cycling to work, and events like this are no help.
bwinton
How dangerous is cycling?
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 12:54More particularly, I know that Bike Lane Diary keeps (kept?) a count of Smog Days, but does anyone keep a list of cyclist deaths? Google didn't give me anything more recent than the 1986-1996 study.
Thanks! (Uh, in a morbid kind of way.)
Martino (not verified)
Dearly Departed/Upcoming events
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 15:14Been working on this ...
http://dearlydepartedcyclists.blogspot.com/
Mike Schwab (not verified)
Odds of dying page in 2004 in U.S.
Sun, 05/25/2008 - 12:09http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx
National Safety Council - Odds of dying page in 2004 in U.S.
Pedalcyclist 1 in 348,347
Car occupant 1 in 19,216
Not adjusted for what percentage of the population engages in the
activity, or for how long.
Assuming 80% of U.S. residents ride in a car, becomes 1 in 15,372.8 of
car occupants.
Assuming 20% of U.S. residents ride a bicycle, becomes 1 in 69,669.4
of bicycle riders.
darren
sad
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 13:01It's so sad to hear about this.
My sadness will soon turn to anger though if there are no charges. It seems no one knows that opening a car door in the path of traffic is illegal, even the police. Here's the latest from the Star:
I have a tip for them.
-dj
vic
No charges
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 13:02From the latest Star article:
So the lesson we learn here is: Even when you do something negligent and illegal that results in someone's death, you will not have to suffer any consequences if it was "an accident".
The EnigManiac
There are no such things as accidents
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 13:14and dooring is never an accident. It is a case of carelessness, inattention or outright negligence and, therefore, not an accident.
Such a shame this happened.
And, for the record, it is May 23 and we have already reached our usual yearly average of 3 cyclists deaths. There's still more than half a year to go.
Anonymous (not verified)
This was the first cycling
Sat, 06/28/2008 - 09:14This was the first cycling death in Toronto. It is still the only one.
Mark Atyeo (not verified)
With or without charge, there is liability in this tragedy.
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 14:16There ought to be a charge laid though. I was injured by an opening car door on Bloor Street. Although my assailant (for lack of a better word) was a passenger and not driving. There must have been a charge laid because I attended court or hearing (it was about 23 years ago). With or without charges I believe that there can be liability (in this case causing death) in this case.
I was injured while westbound on Bloor near Spadina, riding at night with no headlight and at speed. I was struck by a passenger door opened towards the curb lane by a vehicle that was stopped in traffic. I was between parked cars on my right and stopped traffic on my left.
A broken metatarsal resulted in a (modest) out-of-court settlement. I don't see why a similar collision (there are no accidents) during daylight would not bring rise to a similar finding of responsibility.
M.
rob r
Bike Union statement disappoints
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 14:53I have to say, I'm a little disappointed in the following quote from Yvonne Bambrick of the Bike Union, quoted in the second Star article...
"You have to be aware that there are bikes on the road. You must look before you open your door onto the roadway," Bambrick said, adding that cyclists also have to take some responsibility.
"Be aware of the road users around you and act accordingly . . . you can't not pay attention when you're on a bike."
It starts off fine, but then all of a sudden it's like she's making excuses for the guilty motorist.
This is a case where the driver is clearly 100% at fault for killing a cyclist. This is not an occasion to say, "well, sometimes cyclists are careless, too".
If the Bike Union wants my membership dues, I expect them to advocate for cyclists, not make public statements that sound like they came out of the mouth of Rob Ford.
Svend
I don't have a problem with
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 15:06I don't have a problem with her comment, it's a good idea for both motorists and cyclists to be cautious and ride defensively - always being alert and ready for the unexpected.
Most dooring can be avoided if we ride a bit further away from parked cars than many people do, this isn't excusing drivers who don't look before opening their doors.
rob r
Sorry, I don't buy it
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 15:20"Most dooring can be avoided if we ride a bit further away from parked cars than many people do"
Easier said than done. For example, when streetcar tracks form a barrier to the centre lane, or when cars in the centre lane (most often cabbies) drive too far to the right, forcing us closer to the parked cars.
Anyway, none of this is the point. The point is a cyclist who was following the rules of the road was killed by a careless motorist, who is getting off without any charges being laid. An appropriate response from a bike union would be outrage and demands that laws be changed to hold motorists accountable in such situations. Instead we get a response that verges on blaming the victim.
Martino (not verified)
I was right (and still wish I will be wrong)
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 15:22"Although the investigation is still ongoing, Sgt. Tim Burrows,
communications and media relations officer for Toronto Traffic
Services, said that it was likely an accident and it does not look
like charges will be laid."
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/429336
AnnieD
It seems perfectly
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 15:47It seems perfectly appropriate for the Bike Union to take this opportunity to remind cyclists that being safe is more important than being right.
Martino (not verified)
Blaming the victim
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 15:55Nice job blaming the victim, Annie. Very sad.
rob r
What's most important is not getting killed
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 16:17"It seems perfectly appropriate for the Bike Union to take this opportunity to remind cyclists that being safe is more important than being right."
As far as we know, the cyclist was being safe. Now he's dead. Therefore, her comment did not address the issue and was not only irrelevant, but a little disrespectful to the victim and his family.
carbontax (not verified)
A welcome Bike Union clarification
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 10:59The union has clarifiied its postion on the recent death of a cyclist on Eglinton, as Anthony has pointed out by posting the Star article.
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/429709 (Just so you don't have to look it up)
I think it is entirely fair to join or not join an organization based on its policies and actions. In fact, it is hard to understand what other basis there could be for membership. And this was definitely not a trivial matter. I think we can say with confidence that this was a case where an uncontroversial statement was made in a context that made it controversial. After all, as Annie D points out, we would all concur that being correct is not sufficient to be safe, and that cyclists should assume that drivers will do illegal and unsafe things.
But the reported death or serious injury of an individual cyclist is never the occasion for such statements. It is impossible for them to be taken merely as general advice for safe cycling. Instead they become statements about the specific cause of the cyclist's death.
Personally I think there are powerful psychological motivations for cyclists and motorists alike to believe that a dead cyclist was doing something wrong. On one hand it lets the motorists off the hook for endangering vulnerable road users. On the other, a cyclist gets to feel that they are not vulnerable to a similar fate and can continue to ride without fear.
Theoretical speculations aside, I think Ms. Bambrick's statements on Sunday mean that it is time to join the bike union. I am going to do it today.
http://bikeunion.to/join
Derek (not verified)
Cyclists Must Avoid Door Zones
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 15:34Clearly the driver that caused the fatal crash last week is 100% at fault but I can't understand any discussion around how to ride safely in the door zone. It always shocks me when I'm stopped at the side of the road in my car how many cyclist pass by inches from my mirror trusting that I won't open the door. The only safe way to ride in the door zone (such as when moving to the front of the line at a red light) is when you are moving slowly enough that you would either be able to stop or at least not be hurt if a door were suddenly hurled open in front of you. Travelling at 30kph you are going approximately 2 car lenghts every second and there is just no way to be able to look in the back window to check for occupants of cars as you pass and even if that were possible you still wouldn't have time to shoulder check and then veer out into traffic if you did see anyone in a stopped car.
The safest place to ride is far enough out into the road that you are out of range of the doors and only moving towards the curb when there is a long enough open stretch that you can move over and let cars pass before moving back into the roadway before passing more parked cars. I find that most drivers understand this behaviour and other than the odd a-hole every couple of months don't object to me riding this way as I train and commute more than 10,000km around the GTA each year. Sometimes the right of way needs to be taken rather than passively waiting for it to be granted by passing motorists but whatever you do stay out of reach of those doors!
anthony
Remove traffic lanes
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 16:14The only way we could have space for cyclists to not have to ride in the door zone is to remove traffic lanes, or remove parking.
On roads, like Eglinton, that only have four lanes, that can only mean the removal of parking.
That's fine my me; but concidering how easliy councillors cave to a few businesses:
see http://www.world19.com/bikes.htm
I don't think that will be happening anytime soon.
Derek (not verified)
Avoiding Door Zones
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 16:35No, I disagree. Streets like Bloor and Eglinton with 4 lanes work quite well for cycling when there are parked cars on the street because the parked cars don't take up a full lane and it is possible to ride along the dashed white line out of reach of the parked car doors and leaving enough foom for the cars to pass on your left.
Cyclist must however refuse to ride in the door zone. If the street narrows or a wide parked vehicle such as a truck is coming up the cyclist must move left into the travel lane blocking cars from behind from passing until it is safe to move to the right again without going into the door zone. It is generally easy to do this by pulling left as soon as the rear bumper of an overtaking car has passed you after shoulder checking to make sure that there is room (watch out for trailers) because even with tailgating drivers there is generally more than enough room between the cars for a bike.
What I'm advocating is taking the lane when it's necessary for safety but otherwise moving over to let faster vehicles pass and get on with their day as opposed to taking the lane on a point of principle which some cyclists seem to do which unnecessarily aggrevates drivers.
chephy (not verified)
Bloor and Eglinton wide enough??
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 17:11"Streets like Bloor and Eglinton with 4 lanes work quite well for cycling when there are parked cars on the street because the parked cars don't take up a full lane and it is possible to ride along the dashed white line out of reach of the parked car doors and leaving enough foom for the cars to pass on your left."
Derek, you and I must bike on different Bloor and Eglinton! Yes, parked cars don't take up a full lane, but the lanes on these streets are not wide enough to do what you've described. It is possible to be on the outer edge of the door zone which reduces your chances of being hit, but if someone flings the door wide open, you're still going down.
Tone (not verified)
Speed makes all the difference
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 17:43I think Derek's comment reflects (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) the experience of someone who is fit enough to maintain 30 - 40 km/k for more than a quick burst. Given the speed of traffic on most busy Toronto streets, that's fast enough to either keep up with traffic or at least not hold it up so much that people get hostile.
I can usually manage that (assuming its not uphill) and find the method Derek describes works fine. It's also pretty easy at that pace to pull into a gap in traffic to pass some parked cars, pull right when there is space to let some traffic past, and still have enough momentum to catch the next gap when a new line of parked cars approaches.
That said, not everyone is comfortable making such a move. That difference (at least to me) goes a long way in explaining a vastly different perception of cycling in this city.
Derek (not verified)
Speed makes all the difference
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 17:58Tone is correct. I'm a racer and can probably accelerate more quickly and hold speed better than most cyclists even on my commuting bike. Why don't more cyclists just take up racing?
Seriously, Tone is correct that differences in fitness go a long way to explaingin why it is so hard for cyclists to work together and be effective at changing public policy rather than remaining a fragmented group that can't agree with one another compared to drivers who have the playing field levelled by the design specs of their cars. I'm not sure what the answer is to bring us together.
The EnigManiac
A very good point
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 20:40is made by Tone and Derek. Unlike motor vehicles that are, essentially, equal in their capacity to achieve and maintain legal speeds, there is a huge disparity between cyclists fitness---and therefore---ability to merge with motoring traffic. Yet, the contention by the speedier cyclists seems to be that they don't want to inconvenience motorists by slowing them too much.
While I am an experienced cyclist and long-time commuter, I am not the speediest guy on the roads. Even still, I take the lane through stretches where it is either not possible to or dangerous to move right for fear of being in the dreaded door zone. If motorists have to slow up behind me, so be it. The way I see it is they sometimes have to slow up behind semi's, street-cleaners, back-hoes and other construction vehicles, so they can slow up behind me. On the occasion where a driver says something to me, I remind them that I don't slow up subways, bicycles, pedestrians or scooters and they're welcome to consider those options. After all, they don't need such a large vehicle transporting one or two people. But, I rarely have someone complain.
My strategy for streets like Bloor is to ride a foot outside the door zone and that means riding the dotted line or just to the left of it. It seems to have worked. In 28 years of riding Toronto's streets, I have yet to be doored.
Derek (not verified)
Bloor and Eglinton wide enough??
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 17:47Most of my commuting is from Mimico through Mississauga and I generally take Queen if I'm heading into the city so perhaps my memory as to how much of Bloor and Eglinton is rideable between the traffic lane and door zone is letting me down (Queen is definately not wide enough although Lakeshore is) but my point is the same. Don't ride in the door zone at more than ~10kph so that if you do hit a door you won't be seriously hurt. If you are squeezed into the door zone, push your way out into traffic to get out of it. Maybe I'm just hyper sensitive about doors because in the last 20 years of cycling the only two accidents that I have had have both involved hitting doors although luckily it was only my bikes that got wrecked. I completely agree that it is the driver's fault 100% if they fling a door in front of a cyclist, a cyclist has the abiltiy to ride out of the door zone or slowly through the door zone to greatly decrease their own risk and we need to take responsibility for our own safety and do that.
Ben
re Cyclists Must Avoid Door Zones
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 16:23Traffic conditions and infrastructure may necessitate riding in the door zone (e.g. heavy but fast traffic next to parked cars on a streetcar line). There is also a question of skill and athletic ability; perhaps some cyclists are able to merge into a steady stream of traffic travelling at 40 km/h, but most aren't. I don't think it is very likely that you never go into the door zone, unless you like waiting for breaks in traffic or sidewalk surfing.
Within the door zone, there is no "safe speed," as an occupant of a motor vehicle can open their door into you regardless of what speed you happen to be going.
There are of course techniques a cyclist can use to increase their safety in the door zone, but the door opener is the one with the responsibility not to harm anyone.
AnnieD
Advocacy groups
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 20:51carbontax wrote:
This is a sensitive issue for me. I'm involved in an organization that advocates in a different area and where the most active volunteers are those who have the most at stake. These are often very vulnerable families who are already extremely busy dealing with personal situations, and the organization could really benefit from the support and strength in numbers gained from families with less demanding situations. When people ask me "Should I join? Why should I pay for the membership - what will I get?" or say "I joined once but they didn't organize enough meetings and the newsletter wasn't very useful" well, it drives me batty.
Joining an all-volunteer advocacy group is not like joining a health club. There is no they who is getting paid to provide you a service. Members who don't volunteer have no right to complain about the work done by members who volunteer. If you don't like the direction the organization is taking, then become involved and change the direction.
So you don't like the organization's policies, but don't have the time or inclination to become involved? If the issue is important to you, seriously think about the impact of withholding your membership just because you don't fully support the direction the organization is taking. Advocacy groups are fluid - their effectiveness can change overnight with a change in volunteer base or funding. The bike union is a very young organization and if the biggest bike geeks (um, yeah, those of us who actually spend time reading and posting on a cycling website) aren't willing to support it to get it off to a strong start, it could wither away to nothing before it ever finds its legs, and then where does that leave us? So join the union, make your voice heard, volunteer if you can, and if it still doesn't reflect your views in a couple of years, then you can call it quits.
Stepping off soapbox with apologies. (I did warn you that this was a sensitive area.)
Darren_S
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Mon, 05/26/2008 - 21:49The Union was going to catch flack no matter what. It is unprepared to respond because it is so new and if they did not it would leave people asking why not. I think you need to give them some time before they can effectively respond to issues like these. I think one or two months is reasonable, after that they will have to deal with a lot of frustrated cyclists.
Yvonne did do a killer job on CFRB this morning explaining why cyclists end up in the door zones.
With respect to the volunteer comment above, I do not know if I buy the assertion that volunteer's deserve a free pass simply because they are "volunteers'. There is some responsibility and accountability involved, just do not know where the line should be drawn. Probably depends too on who you claim to represent.
Ben
The Least I Can Do
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 15:35I am sending this email to Councillors Stintz and Walker, as well as the Toronto Police Services:
Martino (not verified)
For the record
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 16:491996 King/Jarvis - Car
1996 Bathurst/Queen - Truck
1996 Commissioners/Lake Ontario -Transport Truck
1996 Mount Pleasant/Roxborough - Car
1996 Wilson/Keele - Car
1996 Queensway/Roncesvalles - Van
1997 Dufferin/Bloor - Dump Truck
1997 Eglinton/Allen - Car
1997 University/Dundas - Bus/Doored by Car
1998 Oak Park/Lumsden - Minivan
1998 Martingrove/Westway - Car
1998 Midland/Havendale - Car
1998 Spadina/Clarence Square - Tanker Truck
1998 Lakeshore/Royal York - ??
1998 Pape/Harcourt - Van
1999 Kipling/New Toronto - ??
1999 Lawrence/Morningdew - Pickup Truck
2000 Bloor/Islington - Chevy Blazer
2000 Old Kingston Rd/Orchard Park - ??
2001 McCowan/Commander - None
2001 Jarvis/Isabella - ??
2002 Finch/404 - Car
2002 Martingrove/Finch - Car
2003 Islington/Albion - Car
2004 Dundas/Dupont - Pickup Truck
2004 Robert Jenkins
2005 Horner and Kipling - Truck
2005 Gladstone and Queen - Truck
2005 Eastern and Leslie - Truck
2006 Keele and Wilson - Truck
2006 Queensquay and Windermere - Car
2006 Avenue Rd and Cortleigh - Truck
2006 Eglinton and Leslie - Cement Mixer
2007 York Mills and Bayfiew - Dump Truck
2007 Pharmacy and Lawrence - Truck
2007 Baymills and Birchmount/Warden - Car/Crosswalk
2008 Eglinton/Braemar - Doored by car/Van
Tone (not verified)
Education campaign
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 17:14Whether or not the driver gets fined or not really doesn't address the core problem ... that opening a door into traffic is an inherently dangerous act. One that is far more dangerous because people don't understand what a just how difficult it is to see if the "coast is clear" ... and how fatal any accident could be. .
The Union could go a long way towards addressing this issue with a public education campaign on the right way to open a door in traffic (noting the legalities involved).
My modest first draft:
THREE STEPS TO SAFETY
How to open a door in traffic
Step one: do a shoulder and mirror check to ensure no traffic is approaching.
Step two: open your door slightly (~10 cm). Look again to see if there is any oncoming cyclist traffic.
Step three: once you have confirmed it is safe to do so, open the door and exit.
If we could get people doing this these three steps, it would give us cyclists a window of opportunity (step two) while in the "strike zone" to either warn the driver (bell or yell), move to the left, and/or get hard on the brakes to either avoid or at least minimize any collision.
No matter how defensive a cyclist you are, there are these moments when you are in the blind spot of a parked car that, if they cooincide with a person about the exit the vehicle, you are not going to have a lot of chance to react.
Luke Siragusa
Tone: A few more steps required
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 17:44LOL. I expect the recommendations will work. That is, after a motorist puts down his coffee, hangs up the cellphone, and stifles the seismic sound levels of the radio enough to actually hear what's going on.
Anonymous (not verified)
RE: Education Campaign by
Wed, 07/02/2008 - 14:40RE: Education Campaign by Tone
Just opening that door slightly for the second verification is also a great way to warn oncoming cyclists that someone wants to exit. Cyclists are looking for doors that are about to open, and that little warning is enough to nudge them into a decision - merge with traffic, slow down, stop, etc.
So even if the driver doesn't see an oncoming cyclists (accidents DO happen, people), this technique is an extra layer of insurance that keeps everyone safe.
Luke Siragusa
Well said rob.
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 18:00Annie let's review the case:
- The cyclist was 57; i.e., he was mature not some hot dogging adolescent and riding responsibly. He was a father too.
- He was experienced. FWIW this was stated on CFRB's John Moore Show (more following).
- the accident occurred at 1:12 PM so adverse weather and poor visibility weren't factors.
Yes, he shouldn't have been riding in the door zone, but who among us has never momentarily ventured there as a courtesy to motorists wishing to pass?
Responsibility + experience + ideal riding conditions + (possibly?) courtesy = game over. WTF is wrong with this picture?
Annie that could've been you with your brains bleeding onto the asphalt. That's the reality. What other class of road user has to routinely anticipate the equivalent of someone surprising them by swinging a baseball bat at their head during the course of their trip?
Plaudits to John Moore
The CFRB broadcaster -- and avid cyclist -- led his 4 PM CFRB show with this item. He adeptly fielded the usual array of CO addled callers bemoaning cyclists' lawlessness and right to a place on the road -- completely immaterial here. He argued the case competently while elaborating on the hazards confronting workaday cyclists.
Favourite quote from Mr. Moore: "Bicycles are the transportation of the future!" The man is obviously sympathetic -- excellent job!
John appealed to Yvonne Bambrick of the Toronto Cyclists Union for a comment. Compassion and exasperation was evident in her voice; I was expecting a more forceful tone, perhaps tact is the favoured approach on the part of the Union.
We'll see.
AnnieD
Yes, the fault is entirely
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 18:02Yes, the fault is entirely the driver's. But when I tell this story to my kids, there is no way I'm going to pass up the opportunity to remind them of the dangers of biking alongside parked cars, along with reminders of a few strategies to do so more safely. How do those warning to my kids translate into assigning blame to the cyclist? I think Yvonne's comments came from that same maternal instinct - the need to tell all cyclists, including the many less experienced ones out there, to bike defensively because there are a lot of people out there doing a lot of stupid things. It's not a commentary on what this particular cyclist should have done.
Darren_S
Correction Tino
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 18:38A correction to your list Tino. The killing of Patrick Lonergan on Pharmacy was a homicide. It is incidental that a truck was involved.
Aidan
Bike Union Action - Wait and See
Fri, 05/23/2008 - 18:51If you haven't sent your coin to the Bike Union yet, I suggest you wait like me to see what they do about this killing. If they pussy out, they're just another weak-tea cycling group that the police, drivers and the city can talk pretty to, and run down.
Come on Bike Union, surprise me (please!).
anthony
Wait and see won't work, you need to join to make the difference
Sat, 05/24/2008 - 02:14Cyclists should be outraged about this.
Not just that a cyclists died, but that it is being treated as a mere "accident" and being written off as a "tragic set of circumstances" by our police.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
The city has run several campaigns to warn motorists about improperly opening a door into traffic. The province has a law specifically about this. The reason for both is that we already know that opening a door into a cyclist is an extremely dangerous action. And here, unfortunately, is proof of just how dangerous it is.
If I took out a gun and started shooting down the street and someone died I would be charged and held criminally responsible for the victim's death, even if the death was not as a result as a result of having been hit by the bullet, but by the car that drove over him after he was hit by the bullet. That the police don't see it this way when it happens to be a car door instead of a bullet is inexcusable.
Aiden said:
Yvonne was asking for charges, from http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/05/23/1714...
It is the membership that will direct the approach to be taken by the Union. If you want a more aggressive approach than this to be taken by the Bike Union then you need to be a member in order to direct the board. The board will respond.
We also need to ask the Cycling Committee to bring TPS to account for not being more aggressive with their enforcement. Marge, Tammy, can at least one of you bring a copy of these comments to the next committee meeting to be put "on record." We need to let our councillors (know through this avenue as well) that cyclists are angry that the police allow motorists to kill cyclists on the streets without consequence.
All of us who are outraged should, at the very least, be sending off an email to their councillor to let him/her know that we are not happy about the way that the police have handled this homicide.
Pages