As I stated, there is no evidence that pedestrian-cycling injury collisions are frequent. Let anyone who thinks so provide evidence. It is simply false to say "we all know this is a serious problem". We don't know that. All the evidence we have suggests it is NOT a serious problem.
Where is the evidence we have that suggests that this is not a serious problem?
Yes, we should all work for greater safety in our own lives and behaviour. But, no, when it comes to discussing policy there is only so much money, time and attention. There IS a need to pick and choose.
This. Exactly this. This is one of the major impediments to cycling gaining more traction and support in this city. The mere suggestion that cyclists need to respect pedestrian safety at pedestrian crossings and there are people whose response effectively amounts to "Not a problem. Don't care. F*ck pedestrians. No time or energy for pedestrians to be safe. Sorry."
As I said above, "cars cause way more damage" is certainly true, but is not a legitimate reason for cyclists to ignore pedestrian safety.
We spend so much time and energy explaining that cyclists are citizens and taxpayers too, and that they are as entitled to occupy the road and to commute safely as any motorist. Then, somehow, we get people who endorse that position but then bizarrely seem to think that pedestrians are not entitled to that same safety.
Respect is not a pie. Respecting pedestrians and their infrastructure does not mean that by necessity there is less respect for cyclists (the whole "his pie slice is bigger, so mine has to be smaller" fallacy). There is absolutely no need to pick and choose who gets to have a safe commute and who doesn't.
And we should choose to focus on cars. Over the past 10 years while 2 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists,
You're just making up stats now? And who said fatalities were the issue? The issue is pedestrians being able to cross the street safely, without injury or threat of injury from other road users who refuse to pay heed to pedestrian crossings.
another 400+ have been killed by car crashes. (And a couple of thousand more by air pollution caused by cars. But that's another matter.)
Yes, it's horrendous. That doesn't in any way excuse injuries or threat of injuries to pedestrians. Not sure you're making the point that you think you are.
Cyclists are not an important threat to safety. If we spend so much time talking about this very small rare problem, we give people the wrong idea about the risks involved.
To someone who risks injury crossing the street because it's a toss up whether a cyclist can be bothered following the rules of the road to stop, yes that's an important threat. And, yes, we should be telling people that it is a risk - people are not stupid, talking about how cyclists can put pedestrians at risk by failing to pay attention to crossings will not undermine efforts to increase safety for cyclists vis-a-vis cars. Education about law and respect are a good way to get cyclists to give pedestrians the same respect that cyclists deserve themselves (and vice versa - pedestrians stepping blindly into bike lanes can put cyclists at risk). That's not to say that cyclists are by any means the only ones needing education about respect and the rules of the road, or even the ones most in need.
Put it another way. Would you agree that texting by motorists is a more important safety problem in Toronto right now? ("We all know this but the media won't report it."
![Smile :) :)]()
) Where is the UT thread dedicated to solving that problem? Where are the proposals to force the telcos to change their technology to deal with it?
You seem to have gone off on a tangent. I dunno, start a thread about telcos if you want, as someone did here with this cycling thread. My point is that cyclists need to adhere to the rules about pedestrian crossings, and that if they are going to use the so-called Idaho Stop (which I support) they need to adopt all aspects of it (i.e. yielding when someone else has the right of way).