Is a cyclist at fault for riding through an intersection? In the Star's Wheels section a cyclist asks Eric Lai whether he was wrong to ride across an intersection. This cyclist was told by a cop that he was at fault for getting hit by a left turning vehicle while crossing the intersection.
Here's the Question:
Q: While riding my bicycle on the road, a car traveling in the opposite direction turned left in front of me at an intersection, causing me to collide with it.
At the hospital, police advised: "You're at fault because the law states that whenever a cyclist crosses an intersection, they have to get off their bicycle and walk. It doesn't matter if you're riding on the sidewalk or on the road."
Even though I had the right of way on a green light, the officer insists that a cyclist is considered a pedestrian and not a vehicle.
I feel I've been wronged and a careless driver escaped responsibility.
Jim Yeh, Markham
It could be the Star edited the question, or that the cyclist isn't telling us that he was actually riding in the crosswalk. There are by-laws about riding in the crosswalk in most cities, though it seems less a crime than running into someone. In fact, one of the responses suggests there was more to it: "The officer believed that the cyclist was riding "along" the edge of the crosswalk, not necessarily in it, but even if he was on the right edge of the roadway along the crosswalk, the law requires the cyclist to dismount and walk across the intersection."
If we got the same question given to the Sergeant and Ontario transportation ministry spokesperson, and bike union spokesperson, Yvonne Bambrick, then the responses by the authorities look ignorant and prejudiced against cyclists. I'd prefer to think that The Toronto Star just did a bad edit on the question, but that makes Eric's response mysterious too. Eric addresses the question of whether the cyclist was in the crosswalk or not:
A bicycle is considered a "vehicle" under Section 1(1) HTA. If he's anywhere (left, right or centre) within his proper lane as required by Section 154 HTA, then I believe the crosswalk is a non-issue.
Basically, it hinges on this: Did he remain within the through-traffic lane (no violation in my opinion), or did he move outside of that lane and ride alongside the crosswalk?
Well, so who was told what? Given all the facts it tends to make the officials a bit prejudiced, and that just might be an indicator of their default thinking regarding cyclists: law-flaunting individuals who might not deserve to get hit, but it will certainly teach them a lesson they won't soon forget.
Comments
Svend
Shut your yap, officer
Tue, 03/31/2009 - 00:02The officer was unable to identify who made the error so he didn't charge anyone, yet he still acts as a judge in telling the cyclist he was at fault?
Darren_S
Key element
Tue, 03/31/2009 - 05:12The key element of this is where was the cyclist, he tells us roadway. If he was in the crosswalk as suggested why was he not charged for it? This was a serious enough collision that it sent one to hospital. Did the cop feel that the cyclist was riding in the crosswalk because that is where he landed after being hit by the car?
Tom Flaherty
Side Note
Tue, 03/31/2009 - 10:20I usually cross intersections on the right curb side - doesn't everyone? So the officer had to have felt that the cyclist was crossing in the pedestrian area. I always cringe when I see another cyclist more from sidewalk to intersection - and I've seen a few accidents result from the same.
I have a hard time believing that the Police Officer is accurately quoted here, as the law simply does not require a cyclist to walk when passing through an intersection.
It is worth noting that the type of accident described here is the most common of all vehicle/bike collisions.
Be Seen, Be Safe, Be Aware
AnnieD
Getting "squeezed" into the crosswalk
Tue, 03/31/2009 - 10:21I try as best I can to ride in a straight line but there are certain intersections where I regularly get "squeezed" out of my lane towards the crosswalk (eg: University Ave). They're willing to put up with me as long as the sidewalk is there creating a clear barrier that I can't cross, but the second we get to an intersection they see all that space to the right and they fully expect me to get the he!! out of their way so they can get past me. If I don't move, they pass way too close and way too fast. Presumably, they're thinking is "It's not my fault I'm passing too close - she should just move over." I never move over so far as to end up in the crosswalk but it sounds as though I would still be considered at fault in a collision because of my position. It's a lose/lose position (pun intended) for the cyclist.
Tanya Q (not verified)
preventing the squeeze play
Tue, 03/31/2009 - 13:18Hi Annie - you can prevent the squeeze play by riding further to the left. Take the whole lane if you need to. When approaching a red light, unless there are a significant number of cars in front of you turning right (which you will want to pass), its best to wait in line behind the cars. That way you've established your space, and when the light turns green you won't get squeezed over. If you get to a light first, take the lane. After you cross the intersection you can drift back towards the right if the lane has room to share.
I find if you stop with your foot on the curb, or filter up the narrow gap to the right of stopped cars, it just seems to invite the crosswalk squeeze play once the light turns green...
kiwano
Beating the squeeze.
Tue, 03/31/2009 - 14:05As a general principle, I don't approach intersections from a lane position near the curb. If traffic is flowing, or I'm the first to reach a red light, then I take the right lane by stopping in the middle of it. If I'm filtering forward to a red light, I take the left side of the right lane. This is mainly so I don't get clobbered by a motorist making a (possibly unsignalled) right turn without looking, but it also keeps me from getting squeezed. If the motorist in the right lane ends up having to merge into the next lane over (common on 4-lane streets with on-street parking), the barrier/inconvenience that I present is negligable compared to the motor traffic already in that lane, so the motorist-trying-to-merge rarely ever does anything to frighten or intimidate me.
Also, if I'm in the centre of the lane, and a motorist pulls up behind me with their right turn signal on, I slide over to the left side of the lane so that they can make their right turn. If I'm already on the left side of the lane, this usually isn't necessary (though sometimes I do a little token slide to help wave them through). If the car to the right of me in the lane is only up at the intersection because the cars ahead were all able to make their right turn, they can't even pretend to be impatient with me.
John Routh (not verified)
Always Stay Alert at Intersections
Tue, 03/31/2009 - 11:41Regardless of whether the fault was the cyclist or car driver, it pays to be fully alert at any intersection. Most bicycle accidents happen at intersections, so when crossing an intersection be aware of on-coming traffic, cross-wise traffic, look behind you to see cars coming up behind, and pedestrian traffic. If you see left turning traffic in front of you, make eye contact with the driver and let them know your intentions.
Too many times I see cyclists riding obliviously through intersections. 99 times out of 100 nothing will happen, but this cyclist unfortunately found out that 100th time. The lesson here is be aware!
kiwano
Amen to that; being in the
Tue, 03/31/2009 - 14:15Amen to that; being in the right legally is nice on the off chance that something happens, but it's even better to be alert enough that something is a lot less likely to happen. I originally saw this little rhyme about boats/ships at sea, but it adapts pretty well to bikes too:
petlow
Cyclist should not be at fault
Tue, 03/31/2009 - 20:02petlow
I was involved in the same kind of accident last year (May 16/08), and fortunately there were witnesses. The driver was charged with making a dangerous left turn, which resulted in a $110 fine and 3 demerit points. Yes, basically a slap on the wrist. But the insurance settlement came through and I was glad for it. However good the result was in my case, I will live out the rest of my life with a slightly severed finger on my left hand.
I can certainly understand how the above cyclist feels and my heart goes out to him. I know what it feels like to lie on a hospital bed for hours waiting to get tended to. But for a police officer to make him at fault doesn't sit well with me. Why is his position with the crosswalk such an issue? He had the right of way, I hope there is a recourse he can take to reverse the charge against him.
Jane (not verified)
Cop was negligent
Fri, 04/03/2009 - 13:14in or out of the crosswalk, the left turning vehicle failed to avoid a person, striking the person. the officer had no duty to determine fault but rather to lay charges based on known violations.
If it was in the crosswalk;
Pedestrian crossover, duties of driver
(a) is upon the half of the roadway upon which a vehicle or street car is travelling; or
(b) is upon half of the roadway and is approaching the other half of the roadway on which a vehicle or street car is approaching so closely to the pedestrian crossover as to endanger him or her,
the driver of the vehicle or street car shall yield the right of way to the pedestrian or a person in a wheelchair by slowing down or stopping if necessary. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (1).
Cop claims the bike is a pedestrian, so FAIL
If not in the crosswalk;
Left turn, across path of approaching vehicle
(5) No driver or operator of a vehicle in an intersection shall turn left across the path of a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction unless he or she has afforded a reasonable opportunity to the driver or operator of the approaching vehicle to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 141 (5).
Cop claims the bike is a pedestrian, but that is not the case outside of the crosswalk, so FAIL
Driver made a mistake and injured someone, the cop decided the driver was not at fault but was wrong by any standard, including the premise that the cop was to determine fault in this situation. ****
dash (not verified)
Putting aside for the
Fri, 04/03/2009 - 13:40Putting aside for the moment, whatever that cop in particular claims, IS a cyclist a pedestrian under the law? I've never been able to get a solid answer to that.
vic
Cyclist =/= Pedestrian
Fri, 04/03/2009 - 13:48Under the Highway Traffic Act, a cyclists is the operator of a vehicle.
I'm not 100% sure what the law would be for a cyclist riding on the sidewalk. I would assume that a cyclist is NOT a pedestrian.
Darren_S
Somewhat pedestrian.
Sat, 04/04/2009 - 00:09If the HTA applies. either indirectly or directly, to the place where you are operating a bicycle, the bicycle would be considered a vehicle, hence the operator should take heed of the HTA. Both a car and bicycle would be considered vehicles if they were operated on a sidewalk. A bicycle on the Martin Goodman Trail, off-road sections, would not be considered a vehicle. A car would be considered a vehicle because it is also defined as a motor vehicle and subject to more comprehensive regulations.
The HTA also recognizes the difference between a bicycle and car. A cyclist can be pulled over by a police only if a cop witnesses the cyclists doing something contrary to law. So like a pedestrian, a cop cannot pull you aside and question you until he finds some offence you have committed (HTA s.218(1)). This aligns with your constitutional rights. Whereas a cop can pull a car over to simply rifle through the paperwork looking for offences. Ie improper insurance, expired tags, does the driver have a license, etc. This is because the state has licensed the vehicle and driver.
(Please note, never argue about a cops intention per s.218 on the side of the road, it is exceptionally stupid and you should leave it for court and/or a formal complaint. A cop with 3 days experience can easily make up a story to get around s.218 and just cause you more grief. In addition you will need to get some competent legal advice.)
Trikester
What about...
Sat, 04/04/2009 - 12:06The problem with that legal argument that a bike is only a vehicle, would mean that children riding in crosswalks would then be subject to the same laws.
I think we need to see cyclists, due to vulnerability of not driving a deadly vehicle, as somewhere in the middle ground.
HONKA! HONKA!
http://trikester.wordpress.com/
Tanya Q (not verified)
dismount at crosswalks
Tue, 04/07/2009 - 10:33Children should not be riding in crosswalks either; they should get off their bike and walk it, if they are riding on the sidewalk as permitted. (but not required)
vic
Ride-through crosswalks
Tue, 04/07/2009 - 10:42Some MTO-approved ride-through crosswalks on some of Mississauga's off-road pathways will probably be tested out soon:
http://www.mississaugacycling.ca/mto-approves-bike-crossings-631.htm
robb (not verified)
Police attitudes towards charging motorists
Fri, 04/03/2009 - 19:20I find this thread interesting, as I was recently struck by a car door, and had a somewhat similar response from the police officer. In my case, it was a 15 yr old kid who threw open the door in front of me (passenger side) on his mom's instructions to hop out and get his hair cut (she didn't want to spend time finding parking). I was hit, tore my ACL (I discovered later) and had fairly serious damage to my bike too. I called 911, stuck around for the police, and did my best to make sure that charges were put on this woman whose actions had endangered me so badly.
No dice. The cop told me that because it was a kid, he wouldn't do it. He also told me it wouldn't affect my insurance claim, and he was right - that came through pretty quick. Anyway, my point is that the officer was extremely reticent, I thought, to discuss the issue of charges at all.
Which, in a way, makes sense. The majoirty of collisions that police investigate occur between 2 cars. Usually there's no real harm done - a bumped fender, dented panel, whatever. The kind of thing that, say, $110 and 3 demerit points is probably irrelavent in comparison to the drivers rising insurance, etc.
However, the HTA, as outlined above, defines bikes as 'vehicles', undifferentiated from cars. And this is the problem - it makes no sense. How is $110 and 3 demerit points reasonable consequence for making the guy in the article above open his eyes in terror as a car came out of nowhere, bearing down on him, probably making him fear, very reasonably, for his life...? How would $110 and 3 points be reasonable consequence for making someone undergo six months of post-operative physio on their messed up knee...? It is totally unreasonale.
I know in Europe seperate criteria are used to determine fault in collisions that are car/car or car/bike. These criteria take into consideration the relative vulnerability of the cyclist, and place a greater burden of responsibility upon those who drive automobiles. I think this is what we need here. Even if myself, or the gentleman in the Star, had our wish of charges being laid, we'd still not experience 'justice'.
I think that this might be something crucial for the toronto bike plan to consider - is it responsible to encourage people to use a means of transportation when there's no expectation of protection from police...? Short story long - these traffic laws need to change.
(Sorry about my long windedness - I have time to kill as a sit here, resting, elevating and icing my knee...)
Tom Flaherty
Barely Legal
Fri, 04/03/2009 - 21:15The law holds the driver of a car responsible for ensuring that seat belts are being properly worn by any occupant under 16 years old. So, it makes sense to me that the same duty of care would apply to a 15 year old when entering and exiting a car.
Consider that if in a similar situation, the 15 year old was permitted by the driver to exit the car on the driver’s side and was struck dead by a passing vehicle, would the driver be held responsible?
This is something that might be worthy of review by a lawyer.
Kevin Love
We need European-style laws in Ontario
Fri, 04/03/2009 - 21:54I agree, we need European-style laws here in Ontario. In Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands, motorists have a legal responsibility to avoid hitting cyclists. Period. To quote from one of my heroes, John Pucher:
"Motorists are legally responsible for collisions with children and elderly cyclists, even if they are jaywalking, cycling in the wrong direction, ignoring traffic signals, or otherwise behaving contrary to traffic regulations."
He later goes on to write that for adults, "... motorists are generally assumed to be legally responsible for most collisions with cyclists unless it can be proven that the cyclist deliberately caused the crash. Having the right of way by law does not excuse motorists from hitting cyclists, especially children and elderly cyclists."
John Pucher asserts that this is the law in Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands.
Source:
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf
The quotes I took are from p. 520. As this was published in a peer-reviewed journal, I place a high degree of confidence in it.
Darren_S
We already have European-style laws
Fri, 04/03/2009 - 23:42In Ontario, insofar as civil liability is concerned, the onus is on the motorists that they are not at fault when they hit either a pedestrian or cyclist. Not extended to HTA charges because they are quasi-criminal in nature and as such there are protections for someone accused of an offense.
*HTA Onus of disproving negligence
"...motorists have a legal responsibility to avoid hitting ..." Everyone has a duty not to cause harm to anyone else, whether they are driving a car or swimming in a public pool.
robb (not verified)
civil liability isn't adequate
Sat, 04/04/2009 - 11:20Civil liabillity isn't adequate. Barriers to receieving justice in this manner are extremely high - ask anyone who's been involved with a auto-insurance company in a liability case. The lawyers that represent insurance companies are a whole different kind of evil...
Trikester
@Robb Agreed
Sat, 04/04/2009 - 12:16I agree we need to focus on getting European style law around cycling.
I have a friend who is permanently disabled, and will never work again due to spinal cord injuries. She's been fighting for years with the insurance companies to get a proper settlement. Meanwhile, the taxpayers have to shell out for ODSP and from that limited amount she has to pay for physio because it is so limited by OHIP.
What those lawyers put her through at every turn is just increasing her inability to live her life with any dignity.
That driver is still driving. His license was not removed. He was fined and a few points. Why should the taxpayers and those who pay insurance be paying for HIM to stay on the road?
As far as I'm concerned, he was at fault [proven] and like a drunk driver, why does this idiot still have a license? If he hit a pedestrian, he wouldn't. Yet he smashed a ton of steel into an unprotected human being.
It would certainly wake up drivers to where the cyclists are, if they knew they could lose their license for a few years, for hitting one, regardless of circumstance unless the cyclist did something incredibly stupid.
I'd like to see how quickly this motorized intimidation by cars riding up one's butt, shoving cyclists into curbs etc. would STOP if they knew they could be in serious trouble for their actions.
HONKA! HONKA!
http://trikester.wordpress.com/
Darren_S
Careful what you wish for.
Sat, 04/04/2009 - 16:44If s.218 also applied to HTA charges you would be going down a slippery slope of 'guilty until proven innocent'. Something that would be open to a lot of abuse.
Yes insurance companies are tough but you can also find lawyers that will advocate for you. Was involved in an insurance case when my father-in-law died, it was quite the fight over a small sum of money. If we did not have good representation we would have lost.
If legal awards in Canada were more in-line with our American cousins we might see some change.
Trikester
Checks and Balances
Sun, 04/05/2009 - 12:14There's an initial problem with motorists pointed out in my blog.
That problem is that they are sitting in a weapon.
Now, we don't "play nice" legally speaking, with people who walk around with loaded rifles for hunting purposes then claim they "didn't mean to shoot anyone."
Although a car is a form of transportation, it is a deadly form of transportation to anyone else who is not shielded by a ton of steel.
In over 50 years of driving, my father had 2 minor collisions. In one he was illegally hit from behind. In the other, he gently backed out of the driveway and hit an oncoming vehicle in a residential neighbourhood that caused a dint.
No one was ever hurt. Yet he drove every day through cities for work-related purposes. He lived in a neighbourhood where children frequently play right on the street without looking and where there are almost no stop signs and nary a speed bump to be seen.
Driving a motor vehicle is a privelege not a right.
Public transportation, walking and cycling are rights because people have the right to transportation.
The sooner we look at the "communal good" on this subject, the sooner we can begin to embrace the democratic process around everyone's safety
HONKA! HONKA!
http://trikester.wordpress.com/
Darren_S
Is this...
Sun, 04/05/2009 - 13:58...opinion or fact?
*
"...Public transportation, walking and cycling are rights because people have the right to transportation..."*
Trikester
@Darren
Mon, 04/06/2009 - 09:33Some form of transport must be a right because people have to work and eat. Where they are housed, doesn't always mean those two other needs can be met by walking.
That does not however entitle them to the privilege of driving a motor vehicle.
Does that clarify?
HONKA! HONKA!
http://trikester.wordpress.com/
Darren_S
Sorry Trikerster do not follow.
Mon, 04/06/2009 - 18:01Sorry Trikester I do not follow what you are saying. As far as I can tell there is no right to transportation. There are "rights" to the necessities of life but I do not follow how that can be interpreted as a right to transportation.
If what you suggest is true, the right would be quite discriminatory. Might work well for someone living downtown but disastrous for someone living in Burleigh Falls, Ontario where there is no public transportation, taxis and everything is miles away from anything.
geoffrey
Community Resources set aside for use by forms of Transit
Mon, 04/06/2009 - 21:14Well before the advent of the internal combustion engine, the bicycle, the horse drawn carriage and even the wheel communities set aside resources for parties seeking transit through them. IN some instances these are referred to as "right of ways".
On an elemental level all have or should have use of them. The fly in the ointment is restricted access roadways which often serve to break local transportation.
By "on an elemental level" all are free to walk or bicycle on these unrestricted right of ways. As driving is a regulated activity requiring licencing it is considered a "privilege" and this is reiterated in the Drivers Handbook:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/handbook/
"Driving is a privilege — not a right".
Discriminatory? No. Requiring a greater level of education and regulation for licenced activities? Yes. If Burleigh Falls discriminates against pedestrians and bicyclists by building transportation infrastructure that puts these at risk that is another matter. And yet that is what we have right here in Toronto on the south side of the Queensway west of South Kingsway where there is no sidewalk despite this is access to the Humber Loop. This is a real problem and becomes all the more evident with new housing being built along this stretch of the Queensway.
Darren_S
Easement does not make a right.
Tue, 04/07/2009 - 20:06IN some instances these are referred to as "right of ways".
A "right of way" is an easement. Allowing one to use someone else's property. Roads are good examples, typically crown/municipal land. The Bruce Trail is an easement where the property owners can and do ban cyclists. So does the crown, cyclists are banned from 400-series of roads.
An easement does not infer to anyone that they have a right to transportation.
Requiring one to be licenced to do something does not create or eliminate any right. Licencing is a reasonable restriction. Government is essentially forced to licence people in order to fulfil its duty of preventing harm to its citizens.
This string originally started by suggesting that their is a right to transportation. There is none. A further question is that do we really need one? Cyclists already enjoy the right of the government not being allowed to harm its citizens and the right to protect themselves from harm. How well all this is applied is another question entirely.
Trikester
So, if someone lives in
Wed, 04/08/2009 - 15:42So, if someone lives in Burleigh--how many innocents do they get to kill before they lose their license?
One has a right to "transportation"--that transportation does not mean "automobile" if they must use some form of transportation to survive.
That means, walking, cycles, horses, hitchhiking, riding with neighbours or donkeys for all I care. Be creative. What it means is that no citizen is entitled to a ton of steel at the danger of others.
Otherwise the opposite can occur. Example being Aboriginal folk being required to have "travel papers" [and yes, this happened in THIS country until if I recall correctly the 1950's in some places] to leave their reserve.
Instead of "transportation" would you be more comfortable with "the right to go wherever they'd like"? Of course, that would put a hole in the "restricted neighbourhood access" laws around stalkers.
Darren_S
Transportation rights
Wed, 04/08/2009 - 18:27Example being Aboriginal folk being required to have "travel papers" [and yes, this happened in THIS country until if I recall correctly the 1950's in some places] to leave their reserve.
Still exists today through poverty and the lack of self government, you do not need to build a fence around people to control them.
Trikester, I do not disagree with you about accountability. What exists today is downright negligent and criminal.
There is no right to transportation. We are allowed to leave, enter, and remain in Canada and move in between provinces. Nowhere does it say that we have the right to any sort of transportation of any kind. Citizens do not have the right to endanger others. They do have a right to own property provided they use it within the confines of the law. Yes cars do kill if used improperly, as do cyclists on sidewalks who run over pedestrians and people who cannot control their donkeys.
There is no restriction on people buying and using cars within the confines of the law. They do not have any more or less rights than someone who decides to walk or ride. Now we can only depend on their good sense to use their cars less and consider using their bikes instead.
Tom Flaherty
Bad Motor Finger
Sun, 04/05/2009 - 20:33I use my car for all kinds of things that my bike can't do - like drive to Montreal on a family trip or bring lumber home from the hardware store, and I have not injured anyone or myself in the 25 years that I have had a driver’s license. Although I recognize that there are obvious risks associated with cycling around cars, they are not "weapons" unless there is some sort of combative thing going on.
Question - Aren't most of the fatalities resulting from auto collisions, occupants of vehicles and not cyclists?
I do want to see drivers held to a higher standard (running red lights, speeding, changing lanes without signaling, etc…) and I am optimistic that our legal system can adopt best practices like those currently used in Europe that deal with driver education and accountability, but the only way to truly eliminate the risks that cars pose to cyclists is to separate them.
Some places in Europe have dedicated roadways for cyclists, which are set far apart from cars and trucks; this not only keeps bikes and cars from colliding, but it also addresses the issue of relative air quality for cyclists.
For the meantime, I am comfortable sharing the roads responsibly whether I'm on 2 wheels or 4, but I hope one day we can create systems that celebrate cycling instead of just tolerating it.
Trikester
@Tom Car Combat
Mon, 04/06/2009 - 09:28There is a car combat/aggression thing going on out there with too many drivers who get away with it. I can't tell you how many times on my old cycles I have been run up the butt to intimidate me, when I needed the lane, how many ran me skidding into sewer grates and potholes, how many ran me up onto the sidewalk into the crosswalk or risk a crash.
I once was cycling behind my ex and a taxi not only ran him into the curb...when he jumped the sidewalk to avoid being hit the cabbie went right up on the sidewalk TWICE. The taxi was finally nailed, jumping the curb for the second time at Yonge and Dundas nearly hitting dozens of pedestrians on the sidewalk as he exercised his fit of pique.
It was terrifying.
You share the road, however, there are some road raged drivers out there that are using their vehicles to intimidate cyclists because they can.
In the above post, the cop is refusing to lay charges because a bike was in the crosswalk. Well what if a pedestrian was in the crosswalk? The eejit STILL drove into the crosswalk without looking.
Like you, my ex, when driving was cautious of cyclists because he cycled as well. The only accident he was in was when someone else failed to stop behind him at a red, because the driver was yapping on a cell phone.
There are cautious drivers out there. They aren't the problem. The problem is those that believe their vehicle gives them the right to hog the road.
If there's a big media hullabaloo when drivers are charged and convicted seriously when they hit cyclists--they're going to be a dern site more careful.
Good drivers will still be good drivers.
HONKA! HONKA!
http://trikester.wordpress.com/
AnnieD
The issue with bikes in crosswalks
Mon, 04/06/2009 - 10:18Other than the fact that bikes shouldn't be mixing with pedestrians, the only other issue I can think of with bikes in crosswalks has to do with the speed approaching the intersection if the bike is coming from the sidewalk.
When my dad was visiting Toronto last year, I was in the car with him as he approached a busy intersection with no lights. He looked to the right for pedestrians and then, looking to the left for oncoming cars, started inching forward to see past the obstacles on the sidewalk (mailboxes). He nearly bumped a cyclist coming from the right, off the sidewalk and cutting in front of him while heading against the traffic (no crosswalk involved, though). The cyclist had a hissy fit and slammed the hood of the car, despite being in the wrong on many counts: sidewalk cycling, cycling against the direction of traffic (which might not matter on the sidewalk but does matter in the intersection), and moving in front of a car that is pulling into an intersection and where the driver is clearly looking in the other direction (might not be illegal, but sure is stupid).
My dad had looked to the right before starting to pull forward, but he was only looking for people nearby, expecting anyone approaching from the sidewalk to be moving at pedestrian speeds. The cyclist, moving at cyclist speed on the sidewalk, came from much further away than my dad (or I, from the passenger seat) had looked. A great object lesson into why so many accidents occur when sidewalk cyclists enter intersections, and a prime example of the type of behaviour that gives cyclists a bad name.
I'm not saying that this is what happened in the example above, nor that all cases of cyclists in crosswalks are bad. But this might shed some light into why, as a general rule, cyclists shouldn't be riding in crosswalks.
Trikester
Eejits
Wed, 04/08/2009 - 14:58I'm not saying some cyclists aren't eejits.
I just watched some numbskull turn off Jameson right through the crosswalk and ride her bike the wrong way on Queen to pull into the little mall because she was too lazy to get off and walk past one bank and a store. If another cyclist had been coming the other way, they would have crashed into the oncoming traffic.
That's an eejit looking at a death sentence in the near future.
The only time I've "jumped" sidewalks or crosswalks is because some motorist has forced me over without enough time to brake safely. I then stopped the bike, and went back onto the road after I finishing shaking.
Where I do concern myself is that the danger factor for a cyclist doing stupid things is that they aren't going to cause a great deal of damage. A car can.
Tom Flaherty
Auto Adversary
Mon, 04/06/2009 - 10:40I understand that conflicts between drivers & riders happen - and if a driver ever used their vehicle to attack a cyclist that should be treated accordingly.
Although a car has the potential to be a weapon, it is not a weapon until it is used as such; otherwise everyone at a dinner party or banquet could be considered "armed & dangerous".
Trikester
The same can be said...
Wed, 04/08/2009 - 15:02The same can be said for those with hunting weapons.
The fact is, they are using something deadly potential and there's nothing inherently wrong in that--it becomes a problem with the person with the rifle or the car is not a responsible user. And they should be treated accordingly by the law as "dangerous" and not allowed to have those articles in their possession.
In other words, pull their licenses and jail them if they don't comply.
Seymore Bikes
Good Will Hunting
Wed, 04/08/2009 - 23:57I sense your discomfort Trikester
Maybe you should just wear an orange hat when you go out on your bike.
Trikester
Orange
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 13:22I actually have a blinding sweatshirt and the trike is unmissable since it's about half a car size--although I'm sure some twit at some point will claim "I didn't see ya!"
When I had a glow-in-the-dark neon lime bike with matching jacket [and I'm almost 6 feet] some drivers claimed "didn't see ya" and my answer was "And how many HONDAS did you hit today?"
geoffrey
Weapons
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 23:09http://bikeportland.org/2009/04/09/eschweiler-found-guilty-except-for-in...
"Judge McShane outlined the conditions clearly, which also included having no contact with victims and at no time possessing any weapons, “including a vehicle. A vehicle is a weapon. You are not to have control of a motor vehicle.”
The judge says its a weapon. Go tell it to the judge.
Seymore Bikes
Weapons of Mass Deduction
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 23:59A Car is not a weapon unless it is used as one.
A weapon could be any of the following:
A Tooth Brush
A piece of Lumber
or......
A Hedge Hog, yes that's right a Hedge Hog!
http://www.gadling.com/2008/04/07/man-used-hedgehog-as-weapon/
Our streets will never be safe again!
Tom Flaherty
The Road to Recovery
Sun, 04/05/2009 - 21:00Here are some major changes that I would like to see implemented in the coming years:
geoffrey
More Road ..
Mon, 04/06/2009 - 09:00Yeah, I left out a lot.
Trikester
@ geoffrey--A few additions
Mon, 04/06/2009 - 09:13@easy to find roads (like BLOOR, YONGE, EGLINTON, LAWRENCE etc) not requiring the aid of seeing eye dogs and sherpa guides to locate and follow.
With proper, unified signs that let one know where the bike paths are without GPS or a map.
Toronto and communities north, east and west. These would be cleared of snow in winter. These would also encourage cycling in smaller communities.
Also, research into safety and e-assist for those who can't travel that far without help. As well, larger battery length-of-time allowance under the law [although the speed allowance could remain the same or only slightly higher].
A 1 m + passing law as is presently required in 12 states. Bicyclists need to be granted a safe buffer by passing motorists. 1 m seems about the recognised minimum.
Amen.
When are you and Tom getting together to run a mayoral campaign. I'd vote!
HONKA! HONKA!
http://trikester.wordpress.com/
geoffrey
More Road .. (reprise)
Mon, 04/06/2009 - 13:45Good point on the paths. Initial introduction can be confusing, time consuming and stressful. More directional aids would be of benefit though these have improved over the years. Better maintenance of surfaces is needed as well. Some degraded sections are bike paths in name only. The section north from Neilson Park comes to mind. Likewise north from Heathrow, then the eternal mudpit at the entrance to Downsview Dells from Langhorn. The Don trail between Leslie and Finch is beautiful one minute and a white knuckle ride the next. The south part of the Don is in a remarkably poor state of repair. This is all the more tragic considering the amount of bicycle traffic it serves.
My point was that all major streets need to include bike facilities of some sort and bicycling needs to be encouraged on these rather than present policy which appears to favour shunting bicyclists onto side streets and discourage them from using thoroughfares. Anyone visiting Toronto on a bicycle would be of the impression we have no bike lanes. Although maps can be had from the city website this isn't necessarily helpful to the weary traveller.
I have no simple solutions for e-assist. I suspect battery technology is the limiting factor. Continued price reductions in Li and NiMH may be of benefit though I don't know what type of batteries these use presently so may be totally off base.
I'd like to see the city provide preferential hiring to persons local to Toronto. This would be extended to Police, Fire, TTC, Emergency Services et al. I understand this issue was raised in the past and great objections were raised but it should only affect new hires. Furthermore the city should require bicycle and pedestrian friendly training to any who will use motor vehicles as employees. I can understand emergency vehicles on emergency calls need to be granted some latitude here but aggressive driving around pedestrians and bicyclists in a vehicle that belongs to the city or its agencies can not be tolerated.
The city and police need to be role models here. I think to a large extent they are but there are those who through ignorance or intent use city vehicles with malice directed at vulnerable road users.
Trikester
Odds N Sods response @ Tom
Tue, 04/07/2009 - 10:58My point was that all major streets need to include bike facilities of some sort and bicycling needs to be encouraged on these rather than present policy which appears to favour shunting bicyclists onto side streets and discourage them from using thoroughfares
I think we can all pretty much agree with this one Tom!
I have no simple solutions for e-assist. I suspect battery technology is the limiting factor. Continued price reductions in Li and NiMH may be of benefit though I don't know what type of batteries these use presently so may be totally off base.
Actually it's not the battery makers or bike maker's fault. It's the present government policy that restricts not only speed but actual wattage meaning that longer-lasting batteries are not allowed. Europe and some places in the USA have no such restrictions although the law states in some places that battery powered cycles may not go more than 30-40 mph. The technology is there, the political willpower is not.
*Furthermore the city should require bicycle and pedestrian friendly training to any who will use motor vehicles as employees. *
Great idea! Perhaps more emphasis on it during licensing tests, taxi and truck licensing and such as well. Also, driving courses could comply with training sessions around dealing with cycles.
[I think we're on to something here. I feel a video shaping up for later]
It's easy for police to be less of a target because most drivers don't want to mess with an obvious cop/s on a bike. Maybe they could start an "undercover" bike squad that keeps track of license numbers and issue fines and tickets the same way cameras do that at intersections? Then advertise or get media coverage saying there are undercover cops on bikes nailing drivers for being dangerous to cyclists?
Kevin Love
I don't understand, please explain
Mon, 04/06/2009 - 17:20"...larger battery length-of-time allowance under the law..."
I don't understand this. I am not aware of any such legal limitation. Please explain.
Trikester
E-Law
Tue, 04/07/2009 - 11:02The basic laws for Ontario can be found HERE:
http://www.blueavenue.ca/WebRLaw.html
vic
E-Law...
Tue, 04/07/2009 - 11:36Right, but there's no limitation for "...larger battery length-of-time allowance under the law..." as you said.
There are limitations on wattage and speed, but you're free to carry a thousand pounds of batteries around and ride without pedaling all day long. As long as the batteries can't put out more than 500W.
Actually, looking back at your post...I think you're confusing wattage with how how much power a battery can store. You said, "It's the present government policy that restricts not only speed but actual wattage meaning that longer-lasting batteries are not allowed."
Watt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt
vic
E-clarification...
Tue, 04/07/2009 - 11:57Sorry, I should probably clarify again... The Watt rating is the amount of power that the motor can use, not the battery.
A higher watt motor would drain your batteries faster, but of course you could zoom around faster too.
Pages