Cyclist killed on Eglinton Ave.

Tone:

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.

I don't follow. If a motorist changes lanes, cutting off and consequently killing a motorcyclist because he failed to see him, i.e., the rider was in the blind spot, the errant motorist would still be culpable. The law considers him so; and contingent upon the outcome of the transgression he could be charged with a host of infractions including criminal negligence causing death.

This is the whole point in being licensed to drive a motor vehicle: you're supposedly instructed about hazards such as blind spots in the vetting process; to disregard them while operating a car IS by definition to be negligent in one's responsibility to manage the machine in a safe manner. There is nothing ambiguous about this, nor should there be.

So let's stop apologizing for motorists who "act responsibly" and still kill cyclists. Let's stop passing the buck round and round, obfuscating the issue with extenuations such as deficient infrastructure and minimizing the responsibilities of the motorist.

I'm on no quest for vengeance here; just a mechanism that leaves no room for equivocation, that clearly demarcates the price of transgression. I think it's imperative in rectifying the situation. Sure the motorist may be inattentive or make a mistake, etc. and cause a fatal accident but guess what? If he was or did, he is negligent and depending on the outcome perhaps criminally so.

There is nothing new in what I'm espousing; drunk driving laws exemplify such a model. They are concise: no matter if you're operating your vehicle in a more considerate and precise manner than your fellow motorists, many of whom shouldn't be licensed to operate a lemonade stand, if you blow over the legal limit you lose your license. End of story. Even if to all outward appearances you've done nothing wrong, it's still no if, ands, or buts. Few would argue against the wisdom of such a law because its greater purpose and effect is easily apprehended: it stigmatizes drunk driving and broadly deters related "accidents". Why not the same approach to dooring?

What's confounding in this case is that the highway traffic act simultaneously prohibits this type of behavior by motorists then dismisses it with a negligible fine. That's the disconnect that should be addressed.

While parked early this morning, I took a look back to figure out how big a blind spot there is when checking for cyclists and I don't know what people are referring to here. It's not like when a person is driving and can only look back by way of the rear view mirrors, so what's this blind spot that everyone is talking about? Now I'm usually a front seat passenger (I don't drive) so one thing I didn't realize is the impact that larger cars behind you can have on your view. We had an SUV behind us, so we couldn't see anything further back than 3 cars (which would have been less had the SUV been closer). That's mere seconds for any bike traveling at a good speed.

To the person who said that drivers look for cars but not bikes when opening their doors - do cars even drive in the door zone??? Oh wait - of course cars don't drive in the door zone - that's where all the bike lanes are! (I know I sound like a broken record on this but it really really irritates me).

I'm normally a pretty easygoing person, but the whole 'bike lane in the door zone' issue brings out the snarky in me.