[Jonny5]

I'm only aware of one pedestrian death caused by a bike in the last five years.

However, to get a proper measure of risk, you'd have to divide the total number of pedestrian deaths (or injuries) caused by bikes divided by "total bikes hours" and compare that to the total number of pedestrian deaths (or injuries) caused by cars divided by total car hours. that would give you a better sense of the relative riskiness of the two means of transportation. contrasting the gross numbers is misleading.

"total bike hours" is the sum of all the hours of all the people that ride a bike within Toronto.

Also you would need to weight it by pedestrian vs. cyclist interactions against pedestrian vs. vehicle interactions. An interaction being a situation where one crosses path with another, like crossing a street. I suspect car interactions are far higher in most, though not all of the city.

 

[pstogios]

Notwithstanding a proper treatment of the data as suggested in the last two messages, if pedestrians deaths caused by cyclists are far less frequent than those caused by vehicles, does this means they cyclists shouldn't be subject to rules governing proper cycling?

If cyclists' behaviour doesn't matter, and it's only vehicles we should be concerned about, why have any laws on the books about cycling at all?

Yet there obviously are rules, meaning cyclist behaviour must be regulated.

Or are you questioning the law?

And if there are laws, like stopping at stop signs (the red sign we learn in grade 1 yet is nearly impossible for cyclists to obey), it is the cyclist's responsibility to obey them.

 

[bobbob911]

I'm only aware of one pedestrian death caused by a bike in the last five years.

However, to get a proper measure of risk, you'd have to divide the total number of pedestrian deaths (or injuries) caused by bikes divided by "total bikes hours" and compare that to the total number of pedestrian deaths (or injuries) caused by cars divided by total car hours. that would give you a better sense of the relative riskiness of the two means of transportation. contrasting the gross numbers is misleading.

"total bike hours" is the sum of all the hours of all the people that ride a bike within Toronto.

You could do that, but you would end up with an answer that everyone knows already - that Cars are more lethal than Bikes. Lethality is proportionate to speed and mass, and cars have more of both. Also, the fact of the matter is that *today* there are more cars on the road than bikes, and it's *today's* problem that needs solving.

 

[bobbob911]

Notwithstanding a proper treatment of the data as suggested in the last two messages, if pedestrians deaths caused by cyclists are far less frequent than those caused by vehicles, does this means they cyclists shouldn't be subject to rules governing proper cycling?

If cyclists' behaviour doesn't matter, and it's only vehicles we should be concerned about, why have any laws on the books about cycling at all?

Yet there obviously are rules, meaning cyclist behaviour must be regulated.

Or are you questioning the law?

And if there are laws, like stopping at stop signs (the red sign we learn in grade 1 yet is nearly impossible for cyclists to obey), it is the cyclist's responsibility to obey them.

Quite a straw man you have constructed there. I don't think anyone suggested anything of the sort. But you can't paper over the number of car/pedestrian deaths by pointing to cyclists and saying "look, they are bad drivers too!"

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

Obey the law. Simple as that. It doesn't matter if you drive, cycle, or walk, problems are caused by people who don't obey the rules.

 

[bobbob911]

So that's the way to solve these problems - just tell people to follow the law, and throw your hands up in the air when they don't?

 

[smably]

Glad we got that figured out. Looks like we've also solved world peace: just don't start wars. Simple!!

 

[pstogios]

I'm pretty sure that Waterloo_Guy wasn't implying all that should be done is "throw our hands up in the air" and tell people to follow the law.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

So that's the way to solve these problems - just tell people to follow the law, and throw your hands up in the air when they don't?

That's not what I said. Read carefully.

 

[rbt]

Glad we got that figured out. Looks like we've also solved world peace: just don't start wars. Simple!!

He said to follow the law. While there are numerous treaties around how war is conducted, war itself isn't actually illegal in most countries and, in the rare case it is illegal, war can be made legal in most cases by the same people who send the troops to war.

But yeah, follow the law is a poor argument for motivating people to follow the law.

 

[Kitsune]

It was only a matter of time.

View attachment 81457

This is almost now fixed - they have relaid the concrete and were re-setting up the stones.

 

[Zeiss]

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

So much for THAT moratorium. Honestly it's ridiculous - I wonder what it is that they've neglected to plan for considering the project just wrapped up last year,

AoD

 

[Kitsune]

... they are removing it as hydro progresses.

 

[pstogios]

Who/how can I contact the TTC to talk about the regular issues with the 510 crossing at Lake Shore (vehicles coming down Gardiner exit ramp regularly blocking the tracks)?

Drivers just don't get it. There is a major major design flaw here.

The tracks at this intersection should be painted so at least there is a visual indication.