Admiral Beez
Superstar
Had the sidewalk cyclist instead struck and killed a pedestrian, would the operator's use of the sidewalk then be a relevant point of discussion?
|
|
|
- Thread starter rp07
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Superstar
That's one cyclist behaviour that bugs me. The law says walk your bike if you're on the crosswalk, not ride across it. Cyclists seem to morph between wanting the rights and access of a pedestrian and that of an automobile.
One has to conclude that Toronto is bike friendly, at least in the sense that cyclist get away with HTA infractions that would land a motorcyclist or car driver in jail.
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...onto-bike-friendly.4842/page-109#post-1101872
ADRM
Senior Member
Every statement in this post is frankly laughable. You have zero capacity for perspective, zero compassion, or a mix of both.
Is that you, Denzil?
ADRM
Senior Member
If pigs flew and the sky was yellow, then wheeeee!
steveintoronto
Superstar
I saw two cyclists smack into each other just a few days back at corner of Concord and Hepburn. Both went flying full speed through a stop sign. Neither was seriously hurt, so I couldn't stop from berating them both as '%&*%&*()" who both got a lesson deserved. It represents not just breaking the law, or breaking protocol of the road, it represents being fffing stupid, and putting my health and safety and that of other road users and pedestrians in danger. I can no longer hold my anger with some of them, idiotic cycling behaviour has become rampant. Afternoon rush-hour seems to be the worst, and normally sensible people (I presume) go flying up between stopped cars and in the curb when they haven't even checked mirrors to see if the driver is aware of them doing it. Breaking or stretching the law is one thing, being an idiot is quite another. And the biggest joke of it all? They wear helmets, and lecture others on the need to do it.
By far the biggest problem is cyclists being totally void of what's around them. Because to those, the world revolves around them. As on cars, mirrors don't do what's necessary and required by the HTA. You must look behind you before making any turn, lane change or sudden stop.
Is it any wonder polls consistently favour licensing cyclists? It's an unworkable idea, but I can understand the sentiment. I don't know if awareness in general is slipping, I see more and more pedestrians stepping out into the road without looking. WTF are they thinking? The answer is that they aren't, and that same behaviour is showing in cyclists and motorists too.
There's really no alternative but to build separated cycling infrastructure if for no other reason than the majority of cyclists are unable of following sensible protocol, let alone the law of the road.
In my times in Europe, unfortunately I didn't get to Holland or Denmark (I have an EU passport, I'm a dual). In the UK, some regions were quite safe, London not. In southern France, it wasn't the law so much as *mutual respect* that made the dance work. The Dutch/Danish vids mostly show incredibly sensible behaviour of cyclists. And the stats back it up. I lament that such social grace will continue to be absent in this part of the world, and the blame game will continue, and at this rate, get worse.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
You're kinda losing it ADRM.
I've now triple checked for any details on Sims highly unfortunate fate. Only Metro Media have print stories on it that I can find Googling. And each one indicates riding on the sidewalk.
If you can produce a story that states otherwise, please supply.
ADRM
Senior Member
There are a whole bunch of instances in a cycling infrastructure-poor city as hostile to cyclists as Toronto is that make "riding" on a sidewalk an entirely reasonable and plausible endeavour.
It's just far too black and white to say "cyclist > sidewalk > cyclist completely at fault > screw the guy who got killed and, while we're at it, let's condemn all cyclists in Toronto for bad behaviour and continue to let drivers off the hook."
steveintoronto
Superstar
No it doesn't. It puts pedestrians in danger in many cases, unless it's in a more rural setting where the jurisdiction allows *careful* riding on the sidewalk, and the sidewalks have been designed for that. I can think of a number of arterial roads where that's the case.
When a cyclist needs to use the sidewalk in busy areas of Toronto, they should walk the bike on them, not ride. Or does that not fit in your 'pecking order' of re-assigned risks?
As for Sim, every story I read states "riding westbound on the north sidewalk of Alliance". This doesn't detract one iota from the shared culpability of the driver charged if he failed to make a turn in the prescribed manner, but Sim appears to also have had a lapse of judgement, and paid a very dear price for it.
You're ranting...and the Admiral or anyone else has not stated that.
Edit to Add: In most recent scour of the web for more info, this shows:
"The van failed to remain"
https://www.facebook.com/events/1708948966076521/
That has not been reported in the news media, driver was charged (IIRC) with 'making unsafe turn'. "Failing to remain" is a valid point of discussion.
Last edited:
ADRM
Senior Member
Respectfully, I think you're too comfortable in your interpretation of what "riding westbound on the sidewalk" means in this case, in the absence of more direct knowledge of the specific instance.
Was the deceased standing on his bike on the sidewalk texting a friend? Had he just unlocked his bike from a bike ring and then "ridden" along 18 inches of sidewalk towards a curb cut? What does that specific piece of infrastructure look like? Is it obviously inadequate infrastructure for cyclists' safety? Did it look like this?
I don't know the answers to any of those questions, and I don't think it's possible to glean them from any of the reporting we've seen thus far.
What I'm taking exception to, in the frame of a city whose attitudes towards cycling are badly misaligned, is the automatic assumption that the cyclist must have done something wrong.
Attachments
ADRM
Senior Member
That is precisely what I'm interpreting from what he posted, such as:
"Why would he be riding on the sidewalk? Can I drive my motorcycle on the sidewalk?"
And:
"Had the sidewalk cyclist instead struck and killed a pedestrian, would the operator's use of the sidewalk then be a relevant point of discussion?"
And:
"That's one cyclist behaviour that bugs me. The law says walk your bike if you're on the crosswalk, not ride across it. Cyclists seem to morph between wanting the rights and access of a pedestrian and that of an automobile."
And:
"One has to conclude that Toronto is bike friendly, at least in the sense that cyclist get away with HTA infractions that would land a motorcyclist or car driver in jail."
So, sorry, who, again, is ranting?
steveintoronto
Superstar
Then you walk the bike. You promote this attitude of "Since it's not to my liking, I can do what I want, because I have to".
I've walked many miles along-side highways or major arterial roads I've become stuck on, because *it's the safest choice*! It's just not safe to ride on them...*even with the law on my side*!
You are.
Then post the details since you claim those being published aren't accurate.
ADRM
Senior Member
I mean, my personal opinion is that that's a heartless and harmful view of how cities work, so we're obviously going to disagree on that. There's a difference between a guy flying along a sidewalk at 40 km/h on his $10,000 road bike and a 70-year-old or a 7-year-old bypassing criminally inadequate infrastructure.
My view is that uncompromising slavishness to unsafe infrastructure isn't the way to promote better city-building.
steveintoronto
Superstar
If you want to bring age into it, he, like myself, two years younger, was in incredible shape. I have no excuse to cycle on a sidewalk. If I'm infirm, then it's time to get a three wheeler or a motorized wheelchair, and legally cycle on the sidewalk. Sim had a top-notch machine from what I can gather. Been years since I've jammed with him.
In the event, I can and weather and location permitting, do over 100 kms in a day.
The HTA is ambiguous on this, just as the term "crossover" v "crosswalk" is, even though the Act defines the former. Intersections "with lights" in one clause allows it, in another, it doesn't...unless the Act has been clarified since I last studied it intently. In the event, perhaps because of the awareness of that ambiguity (And Toronto's use of the term "crosswalk"), Toronto and some other jurisdictions now use "bike lights" at some crossings, albeit their point is questionable. What is a huge plus is that the cycle crossing is delineated separately from pedestrian. An example is at Queen's Park and Hoskin, though they're at least in ten or more spots in town now.
I'll dig the clauses and post them later.
"morph between wanting the rights and access of a pedestrian and that of an automobile.". The behaviour I see rampant is *failing to stop* before changing direction, *even in crossings where riding a bike is permitted*...let alone the fact that very few even look or signal before doing it. They're idiots.
Edit to Add: Just trying to do quick scan of the HTA, my 'find the right tag' Zen isn't working right now, but did trip across this in related literature:
[...]
Frequently Asked Questions
New Cycling Changes
Q1: What new changes do cyclists need to know about?
Beginning January 1, 2017:
- New bicycle traffic signals can be used to direct bicycle traffic at intersections
- Cyclists must obey bicycle traffic signals where they are installed
- Cyclists who do not obey bicycle traffic signals can face a set fine of $85; and, $120 in community safety zones
- Where both a regular traffic signal and a bicycle traffic signal apply to the same lane, cyclists must obey the bicycle signal
- If no bicycle traffic signals are present, cyclists must obey standard traffic signals
Bicycle traffic signals are expected to improve safety at intersections and help reduce collisions with pedestrians and drivers.
[...]
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/bicycle-safety.shtml
More comment on this and the ambiguous clause for 'cyclists crossing at lights' later.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Just scanning the HTA, finding some surprising results, still haven't found what I want, will continue, but meantime:
“pedestrian crossover” means any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs on the highway and lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway as prescribed by the regulations; (“passage pour piétons”)
“crosswalk” means,
(a) that part of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or
(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface; (“passage protégé pour piétons”)
Duties of pedestrian when walking along highway
179 (1) Where sidewalks are not provided on a highway, a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side thereof facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, shall walk as close to the left edge thereof as possible. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (1).
Idem
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a pedestrian walking a bicycle in circumstances where crossing to the left side of the highway would be unsafe. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (2).
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08
OK, found the ambiguous clause I was seeking:
Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals
144
[...]
Riding in crosswalks prohibited
(29) No person shall ride or operate a bicycle across a roadway within a crosswalk at an intersection or at a location, other than an intersection, which is controlled by a traffic control signal system. 2015, c. 14, s. 40 (2).
[...]
The problem? That comma between "intersection" and "which" and the comma between "location" and "other". In fact, the more I read that, "other than an intersection" must have been inserted at a later time than the original clause was written. It's nonsense grammatically. Its reference is dangling, and the more I read it, a lot of reference is dangling. That was revised in 2015. What the hell were they thinking?
I'm amazed that hasn't been clarified in the many re-writes of the Act...much of which lacks clarity.
“pedestrian crossover” means any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs on the highway and lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway as prescribed by the regulations; (“passage pour piétons”)
“crosswalk” means,
(a) that part of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or
(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface; (“passage protégé pour piétons”)
Duties of pedestrian when walking along highway
179 (1) Where sidewalks are not provided on a highway, a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side thereof facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, shall walk as close to the left edge thereof as possible. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (1).
Idem
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a pedestrian walking a bicycle in circumstances where crossing to the left side of the highway would be unsafe. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (2).
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08
OK, found the ambiguous clause I was seeking:
Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals
144
[...]
Riding in crosswalks prohibited
(29) No person shall ride or operate a bicycle across a roadway within a crosswalk at an intersection or at a location, other than an intersection, which is controlled by a traffic control signal system. 2015, c. 14, s. 40 (2).
[...]
The problem? That comma between "intersection" and "which" and the comma between "location" and "other". In fact, the more I read that, "other than an intersection" must have been inserted at a later time than the original clause was written. It's nonsense grammatically. Its reference is dangling, and the more I read it, a lot of reference is dangling. That was revised in 2015. What the hell were they thinking?
I'm amazed that hasn't been clarified in the many re-writes of the Act...much of which lacks clarity.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I've always preferred "that" over "which", though I don't know which is grammar.