• 01-27-2009
    rodar y rodar
    Run over cyclist = cycling ban
    More to it than that of course, but that`s the gist of it. The rest is in the article. I just saw this over on RBR and thought I`d crosspost it here.

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/techn...322/story.html
  • 01-28-2009
    Schmucker
    Sounds like Canadians have their heads planted firmly in their asses about pretty much everything.
  • 01-28-2009
    rodar y rodar
    It isn`t the whole country. In fact, at the end of the article it mentions that Quebec has a pilot program going to start plowing some of their bike paths. I gotta agree that there are some planted heads involved though.
  • 01-28-2009
    pop_martian
    From the article: "Rivard said ice or snow did not seem to have played a role in the incident."

    So because of this they are going to enforce their no winter cycling law?
  • 01-28-2009
    the munts
    Why don't they ban winter driving?
  • 01-28-2009
    jrm
    Dont most of those trucks have
    retracble or recessed hooks. Thats fricking grazy
    when a flatbed truck drove past him. The truck, designed to transport lumber, had hooks protruding from it. It moved over to give the cyclist room as it was passing but when it swerved back to regain the lane one of the hooks on the truck snagged the cyclist and pulled him under the truck's wheels,
  • 01-28-2009
    Gary the No-Trash Cougar
    "but he said bicycles are not well-adapted to winter conditions"

    and

    "weather conditions, such as freezing rain, can make winter cycling dangerous, and cyclists should use their judgment about when it's safe to ride."

    Both of these statements are completely asinine in that they have very little to do with the reason the accident occurred. From reading the article, I gather that the accident occurred because the driver misjudged the length of his trailer, his speed and/or possibly the speed of the cyclist and did not allow for sufficient distance when passing the cyclist before moving back over in the lane. The fact that the cyclist was on the road during the winter, the summer, a solar eclipse or whatever has almost nothing to do with the fact that the driver of the truck made an error in judgment that cost a life. And yet, once again cyclists take the blame when they have little or no control over the situation to begin with.

    We often attribute things like this to driver cluelessness, but I think that the problem is that people cannot simply judge distances. I see this often, whether I am driving, biking or walking. Ever see a curb or divider on the street that has obviously been hit more than once? How about the wall on a freeway on-ramp? Ever had your car side-swiped while parked on the street? How many times have you almost got clipped while riding because some one came too close when passing? Many motorists seem to be lacking in basic visual/spatial skills and it makes me wonder how they ever pass their driving test. They simply cannot grasp where their vehicle ends and the rest of the world begins.
  • 01-29-2009
    Cino
    I believe that it is more likely that the driver simply didn't give a rat's ass. I see that a lot. When hot heads like that finally kill somebody, they become the star witness, so their version of events prevails - the only other witness can't testify.
  • 01-29-2009
    r-johnson88
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cino
    I believe that it is more likely that the driver simply didn't give a rat's ass. I see that a lot. When hot heads like that finally kill somebody, they become the star witness, so their version of events prevails - the only other witness can't testify.

    Pretty much what is going through my head.
    He obviously wasn't very attentive, or doesn't have much experience.