Cyclist killed on Eglinton Ave.

Obviously cycling and cyclists have a long way to go in Toronto. Let the price of gas go up my friends! Our lives, apparently, are worth less because, in this culture, the more resources you use, the more respect you get and the more your life is worth. Imagine if you opened a door into oncoming car traffic and someone broke a mirror? Fur would fly. There would be no talk of accidents. We can expect inane and nonsensical reporting from the Star and their "progressive" paper. We saw what they said this week about the new Bike Union, comparing it to a kite club. So, no surprises there. Let's just say that the Star had better be misreporting the Union's stand on this one, if they hope to garner any support from cyclists on the ground. I think we need a real Union that will stand up for real cyclists, the ones that are out there on the road in the rain and snow. I'm f*cking really angry about this. I agree the city must post signs. That's a good start. But this is clearly negligence on the part of the driver. Let them have their day in court. As if it isn't enough having to breathe the bad air cars create, we have to eat their doors too, and then, if they kill us, it's an accident. You should be pissed off! I am! Bloody pissed off!

This is yet another tragic reminder that cyclists are not considered as important as those that drive bigger, more expensive vehicles. It is very puzzling that a man can innocently be riding along the street and somehow it is his fault that a door opens, that it is an unfortunate "accident" and that no one but he is responsible for his death. Imagine the reverse: that a cyclist killed a motorist getting out of her car . No one would dare say that it was the motorist's fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, that perhaps she should have squeezed out of the car door without getting in the way of the oncoming cyclist. What an uncivilized society we live in. Shouldn't it be everyone's right to be able to ride home safely without worrying about car doors opening and countless other hazards? Oh, and by the way, the only way to 100 percent ensure not being doored, is to ride in the middle of the car lane, all the time.Some of these cars have pretty wide doors when they suddenly swing open without warning.

My condolence goes out to the victim's family. it's a tragic incident. So what if the volvo driver was shaken. Who will provide for his family? who's going to cover his funeral expense? I got the a door prize from a cabby last year and he didn't offer any help and took off fearing that I would call the police. My left hand was busted up really bad and I spent most of year going to physiotherapy and the cost came out my pocket. The OHIP doesn't cover it. I always get this from the drivers: "why don't you get off the fu$%&king road and go ride in a park" Perhaps it will take a lot more dead cyclist before the city do something about it.

Charges may be laid by a Justice of the Peace.

Anyone can take any person to court and charge them under HTA. Then it is up to the court to decide. The only possible loss is court costs.

Not a resident of Toronto, I would agree a "union" must fight for its members and insist a charge be laid.

Further to say the driver may have looked therefore is not going to be charged. Let us use the same reasoning when making a turn. You look and still a collision occurs. The blame is still placed on the driver making the turn.

Driver's also need to realize the speed of a bicycle. When a bicycle appears farther away, especially in those convex mirrors, a fast cyclists can come up very fast.

I think we in Canada have to start filling more civil suits as well.

I have never been doored. This is because I refuse to drive in the door zone. I always take the lane. Car drivers don't like it; so be it. I'm still alive and breathing, and not dead.

I strongly urge everyone else to do the same. I want to live in a city in which car drivers are used to bicyclists routinely taking the lane.

If she'd killed a pedestrian "by accident" I am sure there would have been charges.
But who is cyclist? Just another misfit of the car-dependent culture.
The Volvo lady should at least loose her right to drive for life.
The government is a business operation, cops are its enforcement arm. Cyclists do not contribute economically so they are not important, that is why you don't see charges against drivers, and bike theft is prolific with impunity.

Injury and death from collision with an opened car door is not only preventable, but a reminder that many drivers just don't care about anything outside the vehicle.

Sadly what is needed is a wake-up call to drivers. Imagine instead if the driver was struck by the fast moving bike and injured or killed. Not only would this make headlines, but serve as warning to drivers that they need to watch out, if only for their own safety.

I am a cyclist who once had a close call with a an opening car door. I have since promised myself that if such a thing were to become unavoidable, I'm not going to be thrown into moving traffic, but over or into the parked cars. Unfortunately to accomplish that requires me to steer my bike towards the open door frame, which will likely result in serious injuries to the person in the car.

In other words, to avoid my own injury or death, I'm going to have to risk killing the person opening the door.

Hopefully, that will never happen as I am fairly vigilant about looking into the parked cars for human shapes and movement, but with the plethora of tinted windows and windowless vans, it is impossible to predict all situations.

I'm sure the Critical Mass rides will be much more animated because of this.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080209/pedestrian_death...

Pedestrian guilty of wearing dark clothes in a crosswalk, another for crossing a street where a pedestrian pathway crosses it without the benefit of a crosswalk or other pedestrian signal as this would inconvenience motorists?

Sorry Supersuminal. The police figure anyone not in a motorvehicle is of little importance.

When I heard about the death I emailed the Mayor and the City Councillors on the police Services Board. I received this response today from the Mayors Office. I also included my original letter.

Dear Mr. Juliusson,

Thank you for your email letter.

I appreciate you taking the time to write.

I will be sure to share your concerns and sentiments with the Mayor.
I have also forwarded a copy of your correspondence to the Office of the Chief for his staff's review and response.

Best.
Joanne Miller

David Juliusson 5/30/2008 5:03 PM >>>

To Mayor Miller:

It is with great sadness I read about the death of a cyclist on May 22. My sympathies go to his family. I also sympathize with the driver. It will be a hard thing to live with for her.

I am appalled by the statements made by Sgt. Tim Burrows on the accident. He doesn't want charges brought because the driver is shaken. He stated "it is difficult for a driver to see a cyclist even if they do look." He implied that it is cyclists responsibility for their own safety.

According to the Highway Act, opening the doors of parked vehicles are forbidden without taking due precautions to ensure that this act will not interfere with the moment or endanger any other person or vehicle. The drivers act knocked a man into the street where he was killed. That to me is definitely interference.

Ironically, Mayor Miller, two days earlier you made a speech at the launch of the Toronto Cycling Union proclaiming your support for cycling and cycling related issues. As a member of the Police Services Board you and the other members should be outraged by a comment like Sgt Burrows made.

What is sad is he is reflecting how the police deal with car/bike crashes. To most bike activists, getting hit by a car door is referred to as a door prize. I have had one personally in 1992. As I lay on St. Clair St. the motorist sped off. A pedestrian got the licence number, called the police and then left. I was till in shock. When the police came an hour later, they refused to take a report, saying they felt sure the driver felt "sorry". I went through physio on my knee and have a scar. I lived. I honestly thought after all the positive comments recently that this attitude was a thing of the past. Or were the speeches at the Bike Union launch and Bike to Work just speeches?

Like many cyclists, I clearly remember Councillor Ford's comments on bicycling. In 2007 , stated, "I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day." Sgt. Burrows message strikes me as something similar. That is sad

Yours sincerely,
David Juliusson

I received a response from the Police to my email on the cyclist killed. I would like to share it and will give my views at the end. I hope to get comments from others on this.

Dear Mr. Juliusson,

I am writing in response to your e-mail correspondence of June 10, 2008
concerning the death of a cyclist on Eglinton Avenue on May 22, 2008.

In your correspondence you express concern with the reported comments of
Sgt. Tim Burrows that seem to imply that the driver of the parked car
was not negligent and did not bear any responsibility for what
ultimately happened to the cyclist. The Toronto Police Service has
received several letters similar to yours expressing unhappiness with
what Sgt. Burrows was quoted as saying.

In order to properly respond to the concerns of the earlier letter
writers I spoke with Sgt. Burrows to determine if he was quoted
correctly or if his words, as reported, were taken out of context. In
fact, he was responding to a reporter who asked him if the driver of the
parked car would be charged with the criminal offence of Criminal
Negligence Causing Death. This is an entirely different and more
serious charge than the Highway Traffic Act offence of Open Vehicle Door
Improperly (HTA s. 165), which the other letter writers thought he was
referring to.

Please be assured that the Toronto Police Service takes the safety of
all road users, cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike, very
seriously. By way of example, the Service is launching a safe cycling
campaign starting June 16 which will consist of enforcement and
awareness initiatives designed to reduce the incidence of cycling
accidents and injuries.

Finally, the accident of May 22 which took the life of the cyclist is
still being actively investigated and the public will be notified if and
when charges are laid.

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns with us.

Sincerely,

Inspector Stu Eley
Executive Officer to Chief William Blair

This letter says nothing. It is an official response that hopes I will go away and it can be quietly swept under the rug. Hence the active investigation. What needs to be investigated? A car door was opened. It hit a cyclist who was driven into traffic where he was killed by a cube van that had no way of avoiding him. It is straightforward. Why does it need a three week investigation? Make it sound good and it goes away. This was what many of us were hoping was a thing of the past. Mayor Miller gave a great speech on bike safety at the launch of the Bike union. If this letter is any indication, the speech was just that. The Police are not going to change their actions just because the Mayor gave a speech, even if he is a member of the Police Board. The cyclists death is not even worth a $75 fine.

They did give information on the Bike Safety blitz starting June 16. Does this mean they will enforce car parking in the bike lanes or other offences? No. If other years are an indication, it means going after bikes who don't stop at stop signs properly or with no bell. Be careful out there. The cyclist death is worth $75 if the police conclude their investigation. Not having a bell costs you $90. Mind your manner for a week and then we'll be back to being ignored.

Why exacty as a community are we quietly tolerating this? Why, as a group, are we simply writing letters saying "this is really bad, I wish you would stop?" Of course the letters need to be written but any other life or death issue would have disruptive people in the streets on a regular basis until something is changed.

What if DUI were enforced this way? What if street racers got $75 tickets when they crashed into taxi drivers?

Why are we so convinced that our power is in the hands of the mayor, the city council, or the parking authority and we need only keep asking nicely and someday they'll deliver? Sure, this may well be true if we are in it for our grandchildren but if we're in it for the safety of us or our children then we need to work not just in city hall but we need to work the media and out in the streets. Our power as a group was clearly demonstrated (perhaps, some may say in a misdirected way) on May 30th when the Gardiner was taken. This kind of action, albeit with perhaps a clearer message, needs to be taken several times a month until real change is affected. Maybe Eglinton or Bloor need to be shut down a few times over the next few weeks with press releases sent to the media outlets clearly defining the motivation and the message.

Hey, if there's a better way, or a way in which the path we've taken as a community up to now will start bringing about real change I'm all for hearing it but otherwise it is frustrating to see that as a group we're not really sticking together except for a few hundred of us on the last Friday of the month and even then (purposefully) without an agenda or motive.

Seriously, I'm not saying this in a sarcastic way - I'm not an experienced activist, nor am I very experienced with Toronto politics but someone explain to me here or offline (toddtyrtle at quirky nomads dot com (quirkynomads one word - trying to avoid spam) what the short and long term plan and expectations are for affecting change are. Because at the moment it seems like the plan is to ask nicely and if that doesn't work then maybe we could ask nicely again. When is enough enough?

Very well put, Luke, and I thank you for that. Like I said, I'm coming to the game late, and have a fair bit of energy (which I haven't been giving for years and years. And I apologize to anyone I may have inadvertently offended with the impression I thought folks were apathetic.

As for the financial side of things, absolutely, money is a major motivator and where we can, I think we need to leverage that aspect. However, I hesitate to bring up comparison to civil rights movements, revolutions, or other far bigger (and in many cases more urgent) causes than this one, but in many cases, the change was affected not by money but by determinaton, sacrifice, and organization.

And believe me, I know about the time (and space) constraints. At this point, for all my agitation, I won't even be back in Toronto for a few weeks yet and have been out of town since February.

So hopefully, once I get back in town (and hopefully don't get sent somewhere else for a while), I can actually contribute more than a few angry (but at the same time very idealistic) rants. Maybe I'll see some of you soon.

Thanks again for the patiently delivered dose of perspective.

Toronto Police Service
News Release

Traffic fatality #20/2008, Update, Charge laid

Friday, June 27, 2008 - 3:11 PM
Traffic Services
416-808-1900

On Thursday, May 22, 2008, at 1:12 p.m., police responded to a personal injury collision at Eglinton Avenue West/Avenue Road.

It is alleged that:

• a 57-year-old man was cycling east on Eglinton Avenue West, passing a line of parked cars on the south side of the street,
• an occupant of one of the cars, a woman, 43, opened the driver's door,
• the cyclist struck the door, lost control of his bicycle, fell onto the roadway and was struck by a truck.

The cyclist was taken to hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. This is the first cycling fatality of 2008.

Traffic Services, in consultation with the City of Toronto’s Prosecutors' Office, have laid a charge of “Open Vehicle Door Improperly” under the Highway Traffic Act.

An information laying out the charge has been filed with Old City Hall Courts.

Constable Wendy Drummond, Public Information, for Sergeant Tim Burrows, Traffic Services

There are no files attached to this release.

What does this do relative to civil action? Can the individual be sued for their negligence?

How about the city? There have been cases in other areas where a city has been found at fault for failing to provide adequate infrastructure. Could a case be made against the city that failure to provide adequate cycling infrastructure contributed to the unsafe condition that created the accident?

I am glad that some charges were laid. It took the public writing the Mayor and the Chief of Police to get it taken seriously. Finally an announcement. The Public Information Officer for the Public Information Officer who felt no charges should be laid issued the statement that a $110 fine will happen.

Killing a cyclist is the only way in our society to do so and not face serious consequences. If I accidently fired a legally registered handgun, I would face criminal charges. If I was carrying a butchers knife to my friends to help prepare dinner and it fell and hurt someone I could do jail time. Even if I drove my car and accidently killed someone I would be charged with vehicular homicide. For killing a cyclist? Charged with opening a door improperly and fined $110.

We are blaming the wrong people. Admittedly the police handled this case poorly. Charges are only being laid due to public pressure. The main problem lies with the province. The Highway Act needs to be changed so that seriously hurting or killing someone is a crime.

We need to contact our MPP's and write that we want stricter laws against bad motorists. When the cost of the fine for not having a bell is the same as killing somene, something is seriously wrong.

As I write this, there is a story in today's Toronto Star. Two men on a cross country ride to raise money for juvenile diabetes were killed by a motorist. No charges ave been laid.

i've been doored and almost got run over too, on queen near urbane. i was lucky that the car that almost ran me over was paying attention.

some disgusting indian man hit me with his door and kept calling me a bitch and then baby and stuff. i guess he couldn't really understand why i was freaking out on him. he was nasty. i knocked his phone out of his hand. i wanted to vandalize his car but i'd probably be charged for vandalism and he wouldn't be charged for anything. i'd have to lose my life first in order for it to be taken seriously, but apparently maybe only $110 worth. depending on your work that could be a days worth of work, even less. i believe that i am worth more than $110, and so was that poor man that was killed on eglinton.

people like that disgusting indian man think nothing of it, and take it upon themselves to exercise sexism and being a disgusting pig, but i almost lost my life and it wasn't that funny for me.

i was very fortunate. there should be laws against this. something should be done to punish drivers who open car doors on cyclists. there should be a nation-wide letter delivered to every drivers' license holder stating that it is a punishable offense, and the charges should be harsh and criminal-related, something that'll make them look like a total moron and give them not only demerit points but a criminal record, alongside a hefty fine and a large amount of financial compensation to the victim and his or her family. it's complete negligence. you get in more sh*t for running a red than you do for knocking a cyclist to the ground with your door. cops be laying the smack down on ticketing cyclists who ride on the sidewalk, but when we ride on the roads and get killed, no one gets in trouble, it's just an "unfortunate incident." that's BS, f*** them all.

it's outrageous. it makes me very sad too that this is the state of our city. something needs to be done. seriously. this is ridiculous.

I'm sure you wrote this in the heat of the moment, but the race of the man who opened the door had nothing to do with the story (the "disgusting indian" as you called him twice).

It comes off as fairly racist, in fact.

He may have been careless, ignorant and many other things, but the fact that he was Indian had nothing to do with it. Noting that he was, though, really does nothing to contribute to a sense of tolerance in this city.

Report the incidence. Hopefully, you took down the licence plate. Even if nothing comes of it, it is important that these incidences get reported if folks like the Cyclist Union are to have any ammunition for policy changes.

Get checked out by a doctor to make sure you don't have any injuries -- not to sound like an ambulance chaser, but if you have sustained any injuries (particularly stuff that might impact you for some time) you can take the gentleman in question to civil court.

Hope that you are ok!

LH points out that side by side riding is disrespectful. But if the lane is too narrow to share then riding in the center of the lane is defensive. Doing so side by side takes up less room than two cyclists in the middle of the lane one behind the other. It also makes it much more likely the driver will change lanes to pass than the single cyclist in the middle of the lane where they like to do the split lanes and buzz trick.

Regarding David Juliusson's comment:

"Killing a cyclist is the only way in our society to do so and not face serious consequences. If I accidently fired a legally registered handgun, I would face criminal charges. If I was carrying a butchers knife to my friends to help prepare dinner and it fell and hurt someone I could do jail time. Even if I drove my car and accidently killed someone I would be charged with vehicular homicide. For killing a cyclist? Charged with opening a door improperly and fined $110."

I think the issue here is that negligence needs to be fairly significant to trigger a criminal charge. I'm no lawyer, but I believe that the typical measure is the "reasonable person" rule: would a reasonable person know that their actions were negligent and could cause harm? If the answer is yes ... a charge can be laid, if not, it is an "accident."

In the case of firing a legally registered handgun ... if it was being handled in a grossly negligent way charges probably could be laid. But, if you accidently shot a buddy while hunting ... taking reasonable precautions ... perhaps not.

The difference between accident and criminality ... in the absence of intent ... lies in this threshold of negligence

Since the same standard is applied to traffic deaths, the issue here is that opening a door into traffic does not meet the reasonable person rule ... and frankly, probably should not, unless the HTA becomes very specific about the actions that need to be taken before swinging a door open (you can see my suggestion in this very thread). Without spelling it out, how could you distinguish between people who "took reasonable precautions" and missed a cyclist in their blind spot? Witnessess beyond the driver would be terribly hard to come by.

It would seem to be a very hard law to enforce.

With current laws, the best redress for these kinds of accidents is civil court (as it is for most traffic accidents) where the threshold for proof is lower.

Besides, no law will prevent an accident ... it merely outlines the punishment after the fact. I'd rather see a lot more education (it worked for seatbelts and smoking!) aimed at reducing accidents before they happened. If I die because someone doored me, it's not going to make my family that much happier that the person who did it gets charged ... I'll still be equally dead.

Tone wrote:

"Besides, no law will prevent an accident ... it merely outlines the punishment after the fact."

Kevin's comment:

Not true. Crashes are prevented in three ways:

1. If the person who did the dooring is in jail, then she's certainly not going to be dooring anyone else until she gets out.
2. When she eventually gets out of jail, odd are that she will consider the experience of being jailed to be somewhat unpleasant. Reflection upon the unpleasant nature of being jailed may lead her to refrain from dooring anyone else in the future.
3. Other people may get the message that dooring results in significant jail time. This may lead them to refrain from dooring anyone else.

Bicycle safety is all about policing drivers, just as it is for pedestrian and... driver safety. Duh. Yeah, you can police pedestrians and cyclists, but since damned few people are killed by being walked or ridden into (as objectionable as that is), we might want to the cops to go after the people in the heavy steel containers which commonly maim and kill. But WTF do I know?

I dunno, you know I just can't get into any excuses for the drivers. I mean they all make DAMN sure there are no cars coming before they open their door. They wait a couple seconds to make sure there are no cars coming out of their blind spot too.

Why can't they do that for cyclists?

Someone has already mentioned that education is necessary. I think they're quite right. Massive amounts of education is the only thing that is going to reduce dooring incidents.

I should clarify ... my point was not that there shouldn't be legal penalties to discourage people from opening doors on cyclists. I agree wholeheartedly that having some kind of appropriate penalty in place makes a statement about how we -- collectively -- view that kind of behaviour.

And, I agree that non-smoking and seat belt statues played a significant role in the campaign to change people's behaviour.

What I was specifically responding to was David's call to treat the opening of doors as criminally negligent ... which goes far beyond what we did from a public policy perspective with, say, anti-smoking laws.

AnnieD's point is a very good one -- if you have infrastructure that puts people cycling and people getting out of their cars in dangerous proximity, you are creating a potentially fatal situation. Solving that issue will do a lot more for cyclist safety than throwing a few drivers into jail.

For me, what separates this issue from, say drinking and driving is that it is possible for a driver to do a shoulder check before opening their door and still not see a cyclist ... particularly when we are in their "blind spot": that zone very close to the rear quarter of the car where a cyclist may not been seen nor have much time to react to an opening door.

That means it is possible for a driver to act responsibly and still door a cyclist -- something I keep in mind every time I ride.