Another serious car/bike collision

I saw the aftermath of this on my way to work this morning. I wish there was a clearer description of what happened - the driver of the car must of really nailed him from behind to have him go straight back into the windshield if they were both going in the same direction.

Of my entire bike ride home, crossing LakeShore at Parliament is by far my least favourite. The drivers are really freaking aggressive there.

Ever see "Everything is Illuminated? I am going to stick some pebbles in the tire-valves of a few dozen cars this week!

The third poster is right. The driver of that car must have been going at a pretty good clip to smash his bike 10 meters further up the road. Bike looks like a fixie.

As for the contention that police don't know anything, the Star's article states that the cyclist cut in front of the car. That's pretty easy to ascertain because there would be skid marks where the impact occurred from the bike's tires. Also, if you look at the video, it shows the vehicle stopped in the left lane where no bicyclist should be. Sounds like the newspaper, the police and the driver's got it right.

sorry rob (I say sorry out of natural Canadian-ness, but also because I do appreciate everyone's comments and opinions) BUT I have to wonder if "less hurt" means DEAD?

the cyclist that was killed on Eglinton this week must have been wearing a helmet, since the media and police didn't mention he wasn't in the very first report, as they always do.

the last 4 (or 5 - not sure about the little girl) cyclists killed in Toronto were all wearing helmets. why isn't that reported?

bottom line: it is NOT OKAY to run over cyclists no matter what they are wearing.

drivers are too aggressive. today one guy was pulling out of side street, looking the opposite way and talking on his phone WHILE HIS CAR WAS MOVING FORWARD and I yelled "hey" and he started swearing a blue streak at me. F words galore! my favourite!

and this whole incident makes me feel less guilty about riding on the sidewalk under certain bridges in this town, too. i'd rather not do it but if the alternative is...

whatever the circumstances of this case are, let us not forget that the driver who caused the death of the cyclist last week has yet to be charged. that should be a clear cut case, unlike this one it would seem.

When a driver gets ejected from the car,
the media will report that the driver wasn't wearing seat belts.

When a cyclist suffers severe head injuries,
the media will report that the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.

I think the goal is to show that seat belts and helmet may have prevented serious injury,
and encourage/scare people into wearing them, since wearing one is not enforced by law.
And of course, they don't prevent collisions.

What a rough start for Bike Month.

Its tough being a cyclist in this city. I wish we had more bike paths like the parklands of the DVP for getting around. I fear for my life stometimes riding on the streets and this is why.

Careless driving toronto is your best traffic ticket defence in Ontario

As one of the untended to loose ends of "how could they?", I believe the proceeds of the sale of the cops and city's accumulation of stray and stolen and sacrificed bikes are given to a police benevolent fund. Why not redirect that $ to the funeral expenses, or change provincial law to ensure the car is sold or something like that....
yup Bike Month is happening with carma

In On May 28th, 2008 IronMac (not verified) says:

"Also, if you look at the video, it shows the vehicle stopped in the left lane where no bicyclist should be."

Hello! Are you the one who gives bicyclists a bad name by making left hand turns from the curb lane?

It IS entirely possible the motorist pulled out aggressively around the cyclist and clipped him.while he had been in the right lane. Without independant verification this is challenging to surmise. If the bicycle was in other than the left lane this seems entirely plausible.

Cyclists are also entitled to ride around hazards and these underpasses are notorious for potholes, rough pavement and debris.

The cyclists version of events would be of interest but for the reality police routinely dismiss this in favour of hearsay provided by motorists. Eh PC Ali Rashid #9497 who cannot produce the "witnesses" who claim I fell when I was hit. The marks left on my back wheel are of no consequence.

The police, media and motorists could all use some remedial driver education. The preceeding cyclists killing should have shared responsibility between the woman who did the dooring and the van driver who passed too closely killing the cyclist.

"Riding sans helmet is perfectly legal last time I looked."

--Yeah it's legal - but stupid. I'll never understand why people are so against wearing a lid while mingling with cars on the road.

As for the "sidewalk-hoppers" ... I really find it hard to hold my tongue on this one. Granted, it's a shitty place to cycle ... but there are a lot of shitty places to drive a car in the city as well and I hope people aren't driving their cars up onto the sidewalk to avoid potholes.

Fair enough. We are all entitled to our opinions. I'm not a fan of sidewalk-cyclists. That's just the way I am.

Although rare, hitting a pothole in a car can cause a driver to lose control of the vehicle, thus causing an accident and possibly injuring someone or causing death.

I agree that the consequences would be more frequent and more dire while on a bicycle ... but with a little care and caution from everyone on the road - things would be a whole lot safer out there.

I have had my share of issues with motorists, but I have also had close to the same number of issues with other cyclists.

I wish everyone would just be a little smarter out there.

from the placement of the bicycle and the motorists comments I suspect he had taken the space but was clipped just the same.
neither lights nor mirrors are reaquired so one is inclined to suspect failing to see a cyclist under an underpass is still the responsibility of the motorist. does anyone want to verify all lights illuminating the roadspace under the underpass are functioning properly?
is this a design failure or an operator failure?
playing chicken with what is coming up in ones mirror is an unending nightmare. motorists with an iota of competence SHOULD be capable of safely driving around cyclists in safety as prescribed by the HTA. constantly bailing in fear due to aggressive drivers behind and to the right side won't do you well.

Geoffrey, you're right, he could be making a left onto Longboat Ave. but you can still look at the skid marks and see where the two were. In fact, if the cyclist was in the left lane making a left turn then why did the bicycle end up in the right lane? His bike should have ended up in the left lane.

I think that the driver was tearing through, cyclist moved into the left lane for some reason and got clipped on the right hand side of the car and that's why the bike is now in the right lane.

Don't let your prior experience with the police cloud your judgement.

BTW, if you like, we can head down there and check out the scene ourselves.

At that time of the morning, in bright sunlight, there's no way that you'd need those dim underpass lights to see a cyclist silhouetted by the sun. The driver would have to be on the phone or doing something else in their vehicle to not see him if he was riding in the left lane or stopped in order to make a left-hand turn.

I would love to go have a peek. That said health issues say otherwise.

Bicycles are funny beasts. Not having four wheels they tend to rotate rather easily when force is applied to the rear wheel. The direction of rotation may be dictated by as little as which crank the cyclist was leaning on at impact. If the rider was laying into the curbside crank that may well have exposed more of the curbside tire sidewall to the motorists bumper resulting in the bicycle rotating toward the curb. Another rider might correct in the reverse so there may be no absolute rule in such situations.

That said by the position of the bike I suspect the rider was riding in the left side of the right (curb) lane. If the cyclist were in the right side of the left lane when hit the front wheel should have pointed more northward and if the cyclist had been in the left side of the left lane the bicyle should have ended up in the southbound lanes.

At this juncture that is only conjecture. The cyclists testimony should be taken without prejudice, abuse or threats (ahem) without omission. The testimony of both should be compared with the physical evidence (including vehicle position, road condition and marks left on the street) with the aim of identifying a workable solution to preventing this recurring. By workable banning cyclists from this structure would not be workable.

On the other hand improved operator education may be indicated and the ministry of transport bears a responsibility here. The police likewise bear a responsibility in treating motorists who mutilate cyclists with kid gloves. When a motor vehicle is used as a weapon charges against the operator should reflect this.

I doubt we will ever hear the cyclists version of events. I will share with you I was hit twice on July 27 about 8 pm on the Queensway westbound in the curblane at Ellis and spent a week in St Josephs for (as PC Ali Rashid puts it) "falling off my bike". What he recorded in his memobook notes seems to have little with the reality of the incident. The marks on my rear tire support what I experienced. PC Rashid's notes don't include most of what I'd disclosed to him.

Tanya you are of course correct. That said underpasses are a human constraint on visibility and as such those who benefit from the construction of these should incur some amount of the liability for mishaps that occur due to their existance where inadequate lighting is provided beneath them.
This is not the same as going for a ride on a foggy day. These structures cannot necessarily be anticipated.

I looked more closely at Google Maps. There is no left-turn onto Longboat because Longboat does not access Parliament. In other words, the cyclist had no reason to be in the left lane at that point. I don't know why he'd swerve into the left lane because it would have to be a huge pothole or a lot of debris to make any cyclist do that.

The idea that the driver clipped him while the cyclist was in the curb lane and the driver was making a lane change into the left lane makes no sense. Why? Because directly south of the underpass is a sharp north turn. If you're going very fast, you're not going to take that point to make a lane change. That's extremely reckless and someone driving a small little Toyota compact sedan isn't really someone who'd do that. In any case, the vehicle is squarely in the middle of the left lane and it's pointing north.

And the idea that the vehicle drifted into the curb lane and then clipped the cyclist who was cycling on the left side of that lane...hrmmm..that's not borne out by the position of the vehicle which is still squarely in the middle of the left lane.

From the looks of it, I still think that somehow the cyclist swerved into the left lane, no idea why since it can't be to make a left hand turn. Sure, I can see that it would be great to blame everyone else, the driver, the police, the bureaucrats, the city, the builders of the underpass, but from where I stand it looks like the cyclist is at fault.

I'll see if I can't swing down there tomorrow morning to see if there are any large potholes and whatnot in the curb lane.

Every time there is a motor vehicle collision we do not here reports of whether or not people were talking on the cell phone, actually...

I think that the police and media should report on this EVERY TIME IT HAPPENS so it will encourage a complete ban on talking on the phone while you are driving. it's overdue.

tanya, thank your your input - always helpful.

jay, please don't call those cyclists who chose not to wear a helmet stupid....you might never get your passport renewed :-)

As someone acquainted with the facts (and at the scene afterwards), here is what happened:

The cyclist ran a red light on an advanced green in the opposite direction and did not signal his intent to turn north. The driver saw the cyclist NOT slowing down for the light and slowed his/her turn. He/she was not talking on a cell phone and not unduly accelerating (it's a Matrix, for Pete's sake). Driver completed the turn once the cyclist turned and stayed in the left lane, knowing full well that the cyclist stayed on the road and had not cut into the sidewalk.

Immediately after the overpass/bridge, the cyclist cut left abruptly. Damage to the car was confined to the windshield with only minor scratches to the hood of the car, implying that the bike was struck square on the front of the car and the cyclist hit the windshield. No new dents or scratches to the right side of the car, implying no "clip" situation.

The cyclist, a bike courier, was not wearing a helmet, and there were NO brakes on his bike when examined at the scene. Apparently this practice is followed in some courier circles, I am truly baffled at this.

Several cyclists who came upon the scene afterwards immediately assumed that the driver was at fault. In this case I believe the driver had no time to react to the questionable judgement of the cyclist and now he is in the hospital with injuries that could have been much, much worse.

No, I was not the driver, nor am I a relative.

IronMac, your assessment of the situation is spot on.

tanya, you are correct, this is a badly lit stretch of road and a bad intersection for both drivers and cyclists. And you are right on in saying that it shouldn't be us vs them, as several of the police on the scene also mentioned.

Media reporting was pretty lame, with the Star the only outlet willing to state anything approaching the facts. Citypulse characterized it as another incident in the "war between cars and bikes". This kind of bullsh does nothing to improve the already fragile atmosphere of cooperation that exists between police, city hall, motorists, and cyclists.

Brakeless bikes are still illegal in Ontario (unroadworthy vehicle?), so is running a red light. If the driver had been guilty of certain Highway Traffic Act offences leading up to the accident, I think the howls from some on this comment board would have been audible, relevant to cause or not.

Luke: I do not mean to imply that the cyclist was generally an unsafe one and therefore "had it coming" . ABSOLUTELY NOT. Facts do, however, colour a situation, and I stated these ones to show that it's not always an aggressive driver talking on a cell phone or for whatever personal reason out for blood on the roads, as some other comment posters have assumed, speculated, mentioned, or alluded to.

Anyone can be a bad/aggressive driver, anyone can lose control, anyone can have a bad day, be out of sorts, blinded by the transition between light and the darkness under an overpass, hit a pothole or other object, regardless of whether they're in a car or on a bike. It can happen to anyone, and every situation should be judged of it's own accord.

My heart goes out to the cyclist, who I am told has avoided long term injury, and to the driver, who was clearly shaken up and traumatized on scene.

For those involved, fault matters. But for the rest of us ... well, playing with stereotypes for a couple of days (evil driver? negligent big city? reckless cyclist?) really didn't, to me, seem like a very constructive use of time or energy.

What I take away from this incidence is what I always take away from these kinds of accidents: a reminder that riding a bicycle in traffic is inherently full of risks: risks that need to be managed carefully.

Should the city do everything in its power to improve roads for all users? Absolutely. Should drivers be more careful of the other vehicles they share the road with? They should.

But, at the end of the day, I ride to work on a vehicle that has almost no protection, while mixing with traffic that is much bigger, heavier and is driven by people of wildly varying skill. Effort might improve that, but nothing is ever going to dramatically change the equation.

I've been commuting fairly regularly now for over a decade. I've only once come in contact with another vehicle -- when I wasn't paying 100 per cent attention and was leaving no margins and had no escape routes. Unlike driving, where a low speed lapse in attention might result in a "fender bender" a moment of inattention on the bike can get you hurt or even killed.

In the end, whether an accident is your fault or not doesn't really matter when you are going to receive the brunt of the hurt.

As gas prices rise and more inexperienced cyclists take the road, I emplore everyone to be careful, be cautious, take training (the CanBike course is supposed to be quite good) and manage the risk out there. A bike is an amazing way to get from point A to B, but it does require far more dilligence than most other forms of transportation.

Fixed gear bikes have brakes enough to satisfy the requirement of the HTA. Whether this rider was capable of operating them we still don't know. Under the HTA "adequate brakes" is described as those capable of locking the rear wheel on dry pavement. A capable rider with properly installed equipment no more needs ancilliary brakes than one would if riding a bicycle equipped with coaster brakes (though these would be simpler to operate for the uninitiated).
On another matter we still do not have the bicyclists version of events. Normally when one vehicle runs into the back of another vehicle the rearmost vehicle is automatically considered at fault. For whatever reason this has not been considered in this debate BUT the cyclists use of the left lane HAS been attacked repeatedly. IF a vehicle stops in the curb lane are cyclists forbidden to pass it?
As for the gender of the motorist and what she was driving and what role that played in what MAY have been a competition for the lane situation; no. I've never seen a female driver of a Volvo door a cyclist before either. NOT.
Repeat after me. RED. HERRING.

Geoffrey thank you for this clarification.

However, I don't get your point on gender. If this is a reference to Luke's comment about chauvinism, I took it to mean chauvinism wrt being chauvinistic towards cyclists, not necessarily something related to gender. Unless this was a reference to another comment, which I missed.

And no, we do not have the cyclist's version of events. Nor, if I may point out, has it been determined that the car ran into the bike from the rear. If indeed the cyclist cut in front of the car leaving the drive no time to react, then this is not necessarily a rear-end situation.

to hear that the cyclist is going to make it out without any long-term injuries.

I just came back from the scene of the accident. Google Maps is correct, there is no access to Longboat Ave. and the underpass is one of the best that I've ever seen with a level and clean surface. It's practically brand-new. I had expected at least a pothole but the City must have done some roadwork due to the new condos and general revitalization of the area such as on Mill St.

You can also see that they must have brought in a street scrubbing machine to clean up after the accident. I don't know why but that's the part that really sticks in my mind about this. :(

Let me clear this up before this debate gets any further. I was not the eyewitness (nor did I state that I was), but there WAS a third-party eyewitness who gave a statement to police, and I was told that his/her account matched that of my first post. When I said IronMac's assessment was spot on, this was in regards to the information I currently have. The data on the state of the cyclist's brakes and the events leading up to and potentially causing the accident were gathered from police and others on the scene closer to the source of the facts (I will not state who, and I have better things to do than make up a bunch of spurious crap to post on cycling blogs, so you'll have to take my word for it).

I personally do not want to belabour this incident further, and it was never my intention to stir up a heated debate or point fingers at anyone, I just wanted to make known what I know because of 1) comments posted on this board that implied or stated outright that, well, a cyclist got hurt so obviously the motorist is to blame; and 2) there was little of this this reported in the media, who either didn't care to delve deeper or wanted to spin it like a war between cars & bikes (viz CP24).

I don't know if I'll visit this board again, but I thank those who participated in the discussion for their input.

Darren_S: I am told that the eyewitness' account was "self-initiated". The traffic investigation squad (the folks who do nothing but investigate and reconstruct accidents) was on scene approx'ly 20 minutes after the accident. The driver was taken completely by surprise by the sudden appearance of the cyclist and there was no communication beforehand.

Rodney King nothwithstanding (oh come on), it could have been a plain error of judgement on the cyclist's part: turning quickly without looking. As easy as not checking your blind spot when changing lanes while driving.

Just think of it: a simple yet tragic mistake leading to an accident. No bloodthirsty driver, no road rage, no conspiracy of police warping the facts to suit their own nefarious purposes.

Weak tea, indeed, eh?

Some people asserted here that riding bike without helmet is legal in Ontario.
Just to clarify, the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e...) makes riding without helmet on the public road illegal:

Bicyclists to wear helmet

(2.1) No person shall ride on or operate a bicycle on a highway unless the person is wearing a bicycle helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin. 1993, c. 18, s. 1.