cyclist David Tutty killed on Governor's road last thursday,- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 79 of 79
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605

    cyclist David Tutty killed on Governor's road last thursday,

    I didn't know David, he lives one street over, but many people I know, know him. Father, husband and avid roadie. I can't grasp how this happened. I ride that area a lot, but look at the picture.
    Hamilton cyclist killed in St. George crash
    Was the rider doing 35 or 40 kmh and did that car hit him and throw him against the windshield and over the car?
    Report says, "the driver was upset".

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    170
    Very sad. They were heading Eastbound so low sun would not have been an issue as it would have been behind them.
    2015 Brodie Romax
    2011 Giant Trance X3 "Andre"
    2013 Rocky Mountain SoloCX "Han"

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    34
    I drive a lot for work and in my experiences people who drive Toyota corolla's are absolute **** drivers. I always keep an eye on them because they're just so unpredictable, I know it sounds silly but it's very true.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    I am hoping that there is a follow up report that explains how the driver hit the cyclist with the right front of the car unless it turns out the cyclist was somehow at fault, which I find hard to believe. If the driver is guilty of negligence, is it any different than accidently shooting someone with a gun.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thatshowiroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,639
    Quote Originally Posted by dhabartrider11 View Post
    I drive a lot for work and in my experiences people who drive Toyota corolla's are absolute **** drivers. I always keep an eye on them because they're just so unpredictable, I know it sounds silly but it's very true.
    I've been reading this post over and over, trying to make sense of it.
    I've come to the conclusion that this is the stupidest post I've ever read on the internet.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    I hope that doesn't detract from my upset about the death of this cyclist. Many of us on this board go out on these same roads, and we are endangered by drivers that come way too close, or make a quick right hand turn in front of us, or many other stupid moves. I am frustrated with the lack of training for drivers regarding cyclists and especially lack of punitive actions to set an example for drivers who put us in danger.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    792
    I always get the feeling that I am a barely tolerable nuisance to motorists and police whenever I am on the road. It seems to be the general attitude out there. I am completely guessing, but I suspect distracted driving as the cause. That someone is checking their social media or email while driving scared the hell out of me anytime I am on the road. This is just really sad.
    Burnt Norton

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,590
    Yep, this is really sad. My wife knew his father well through the school she teaches at. He had just received an award for 50 years of coaching the night before his son lost his life. Really terrible, and likely avoidable.

    It does look rather strange where the impact is when they were going the same direction. Unfortunately, she's now even more scared for my safety when I head out on the road. Makes you think many times over about distracted drivers with devices in hand. I am not perfect when it comes to that, but this is a reminder to make a more conscious effort even it it wasn't in fact the cause of the accident.
    A bad day on the bike is better than a good day doing anything else...

    http://www.apexracephotography.com

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    124
    It's pretty safe to assume the following scenario:

    1) Established facts: was daylight, no sun in eyes, no alcohol, cyclist was travelling same direction as motorist, cyclist hit front right side of windshield.

    2) No charges were laid.

    3) Speculation based on experience: Had one motorist hit another motorist from behind, witnesses or not, there would almost certainly be charges laid. Had a motorist killed another motorist by unsafe passing, charges would almost certainly be laid.

    4) I repeat, no charges were laid in this case. There is no mention of witnesses, so we can assume no witnesses.

    5) The only conclusion possible is that the police have assumed the cyclist committed suicide by "swerving into my lane at the last minute". Probably on the word of the motorist, who knew there were no witnesses.

    6) Driver was given credit for not leaving the scene of the collision. Have you ever heard of a driver getting credit for not leaving the scene of a car collision or pedestrian collision?

    7) From this we can conclude that it is effectively legal to kill cyclists, so long as nobody sees you do it, you are in a car and the victim is on a bike.

    8) If there was a 3 ft. passing law, with appropriate penalties, this motorist, who killed another person, would face a penalty besides having to deal with being a killer the rest of his life.

  10. #10
    mtbr Decade+
    Reputation: Biggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,543
    They may be waiting until his cellphone records are received. I don't know what the legalities are here, but I think they would be of interest.

    But other than that, Sputnik nailed it.
    "I love being on a bike. It helps me feel free. I get it from my dad", by Guillaume Blanchet

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Biggie View Post
    They may be waiting until his cellphone records are received. I don't know what the legalities are here, but I think they would be of interest.

    But other than that, Sputnik nailed it.
    that was my first hope, that the exact time of the collision and the cell records showing time of messaging might explain if in fact the driver was distracted. I did hear that there was other traffic on the road at the time so maybe there will be a witness to the time of the accident. Here's hoping.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    792
    it's not just cyclists. Pedestrians are a free for all as well. There was an article about this last summer. One of the people hit was an older lady that lived on my parent's floor and I had met several times. She was hit while crossing the road legally. She was not hit hard but hit her head and really never came out of it. This was right across Square One. There were a couple of other incidents reported, but I remember the article only because of the person we knew. I all the incidents, the drivers were charged with driving infractions and not more serious charges.
    Burnt Norton

  13. #13
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Warning....Sarcasm On..


    Clearly he had it coming as he was riding a bike. If he didn't want to get hit he should not be riding a bike.

    Sarcasm off.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    Warning....Sarcasm On..


    Clearly he had it coming as he was riding a bike. If he didn't want to get hit he should not be riding a bike.

    Sarcasm off.
    maybe the driver was from the "they don't pay for a license which would help pay for the roads" so I'm not giving them an inch, club.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    34
    That's because you drive a corolla isn't it. sorry if i've offended you

  16. #16
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: cyclist David Tutty killed on Governor's road last thursday,

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnikcdn View Post
    It's pretty safe to assume the following scenario:...
    7) From this we can conclude that it is effectively legal to kill cyclists, so long as nobody sees you do it, you are in a car and the victim is on a bike....
    ^ This is the very reason that I gave my road bike to a friend. In NoVA the bad joke is - if you want to legally kill your spouse,
    give them a road bike.



    (tapa)

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ghettocruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by dhabartrider11 View Post
    That's because you drive a corolla isn't it. sorry if i've offended you
    Or it could be because, like me, he's ridden tens of thousands of miles in southern Ontario, and never noticed any sort of correlation between that model of car and particularly bad drivers.

    Now, to set an example, I'll bite my tongue regarding black BMWs....
    The above statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by dhabartrider11 View Post
    That's because you drive a corolla isn't it. sorry if i've offended you
    Common man, stop that. It was a stupid thing to say and doubling down on it only makes it worse. And no, I don't drive a Toyota.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SS
    RM Suzi Q 90 RSL
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    would it make sense to have a whole chapter in the driver's handbook on how to drive on highways without killing or injuring cyclists? Or maybe the student drivers instructor take a course on teaching younger, (and immigrant) drivers how not to run over a cyclist, and then lastly, take the police officers that look the other way, and show them some videos of the results of guys like you and me after we were cut off or hit by a driver that just doesn't like cyclists.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by sputnikcdn View Post
    It's pretty safe to assume the following scenario:


    8) If there was a 3 ft. passing law, with appropriate penalties, this motorist, who killed another person, would face a penalty besides having to deal with being a killer the rest of his life.
    A 3 foot law doesn't preclude the suicide swerve scenario that authorities concoct when witnesses are scarce. Go pro?

  21. #21
    Lemmy Rules!
    Reputation: Unglued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,772
    "Immigrant drivers"??????? Would you care to please explain that comment because frankly, on its face, it comes across as racist and offensive. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is not how it was intended. Others might not.
    Strava made me do it....

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Kay. View Post
    A 3 foot law doesn't preclude the suicide swerve scenario that authorities concoct when witnesses are scarce. Go pro?
    True, but at least there would be at least one tool available for the authorities to press some kind of charge.

  23. #23
    Lemmy Rules!
    Reputation: Unglued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by sputnikcdn View Post
    It's pretty safe to assume the following scenario:

    1) Established facts: was daylight, no sun in eyes, no alcohol, cyclist was travelling same direction as motorist, cyclist hit front right side of windshield.

    2) No charges were laid.

    3) Speculation based on experience: Had one motorist hit another motorist from behind, witnesses or not, there would almost certainly be charges laid. Had a motorist killed another motorist by unsafe passing, charges would almost certainly be laid.

    4) I repeat, no charges were laid in this case. There is no mention of witnesses, so we can assume no witnesses.

    5) The only conclusion possible is that the police have assumed the cyclist committed suicide by "swerving into my lane at the last minute". Probably on the word of the motorist, who knew there were no witnesses.

    6) Driver was given credit for not leaving the scene of the collision. Have you ever heard of a driver getting credit for not leaving the scene of a car collision or pedestrian collision?

    7) From this we can conclude that it is effectively legal to kill cyclists, so long as nobody sees you do it, you are in a car and the victim is on a bike.

    8) If there was a 3 ft. passing law, with appropriate penalties, this motorist, who killed another person, would face a penalty besides having to deal with being a killer the rest of his life.


    As I am not completely inexperienced in motor vehicle accidents, given my line of work, I will weigh in here. Any death that happens in a motor vehicle accident is tragic and senseless. I have seen the results and aftermath up close so I know of what I speak. My condolences go out to the cyclist's family.

    That said, to sputnik's point, I think the fact that charges were not laid has more to do with the fact that there were no witnesses than it was to do with the fact than it was an cyclist that was injured.

    Whenever there is a fatality or a serious injury, the police close down the road, send in their forensic examination team, and carry out an accident reconstruction. Once the scene measurements are taken, a statement is taken from the driver (and any witnesses) and the damage to the vehicles is examined, it is typically a matter of weeks before the police accident report is completed. It is usually at that point that charges are laid in accidents of this kind. Just because no-one was charged at the scene does not mean it won't happen at some point in the future.

    In my experience, the police take car vs bike and car vs pedestrian collisions very seriously. HOwever, any charges laid will be criminal or quasi-criminal in nature. That means that the Crown must be able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's hard to do without inculpatory witnesses or pretty conclusion physical evidence. If that evidence does not exist, charges will not be laid because there will be no reasonable chance of prosecution. ANd that's probably not a bad thing - a society where folks can be charged and convicted of any crime on the basis of an investigator's hunch is not one I particularly want to live in.

    Even if there was a 3' passing way (which is something I agree with) without witnesses, there would be no evidence that this law was broken.


    I would expect that there will be a civil lawsuit brought by the family. With respect to civil liability, in an accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian, it is assumed at law that the motorist is at fault and they bear the onus to prove that they were not negligent whereas with accidents between two motorists, the defendant motorist is assumed to be not liable and the plaintiff has to prove that they are.

    Point no. 6 is well made.
    Strava made me do it....

  24. #24
    Lemmy Rules!
    Reputation: Unglued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by ghettocruiser View Post

    Now, to set an example, I'll bite my tongue regarding black BMWs....
    Mine was silver. And I traded it in. So no offence taken...
    Strava made me do it....

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Unglued View Post
    "Immigrant drivers"??????? Would you care to please explain that comment because frankly, on its face, it comes across as racist and offensive. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that this is not how it was intended. Others might not.
    do you happen to notice a relationship between students (new to driving) and immigrants (new to our country) specifically that it would be a great place to start teaching new drivers about our future cycling culture. I do think that you would agree that the government spending millions of dollars on patchwork bike lanes, and such misses the opportunity to tell new drivers, (sorry existing drivers might be beyond reach) that we plan to accommodate cyclists on the highways.

  26. #26
    Lemmy Rules!
    Reputation: Unglued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,772
    As an immigrant, I have never noticed a correlation.
    Strava made me do it....

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Unglued View Post
    As an immigrant, I have never noticed a correlation.
    I won't apologize as there was no intent to make a comment that , as you suggest, could be considered racist, however if I change the language and say that ALL new drivers should be given lessons on sharing the road with cyclists, it is a start of a hopeful change in the behaviour of drivers and their lack of regard and respect for cyclists.

  28. #28
    Lemmy Rules!
    Reputation: Unglued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by ol-crank View Post
    I won't apologize as there was no intent to make a comment that , as you suggest, could be considered racist, however if I change the language and say that ALL new drivers should be given lessons on sharing the road with cyclists, it is a start of a hopeful change in the behaviour of drivers and their lack of regard and respect for cyclists.
    That I agree with.

    And FWIW I didn't ask for an apology, just an explanation of what you meant.
    Strava made me do it....

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    perhaps you could explain the difference, if any, between a driver in a collision, where the driver crashes into the rear of a vehicle (car) in front, and the charges are careless driving, "driving without due care" and the case we are looking at here where the vehicle is a bicycle. I am probably wrong but I believe it used to be that you had almost automatic charges if the vehicle is struck from behind and there is an injury in the front car.

  30. #30
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Unglued View Post
    As an immigrant, I have never noticed a correlation.
    Unglued...I believe what he is really referring to is the lack of understanding of driving in Canada by newcomers. My wife for example when she went with the national team to FISU Games in China got to see how they drive there. She see's a lot of the same habits in the older generation Chinese Canadians who learned to drive in China will do some of those things that are acceptable there. Yet are not here. This has been confirmed by a acquaintance who has been living there teaching over the last 6 years.

    This issue is not surprising when you consider that a lot of countries driving standards are lax. Did you know in China it is considered acceptable driving behaviour on a hot day. If you would like to get some shade to stop pretty much wherever it is. Regardless if that doing that is unsafe?

    Plus it doesn't help now days with our lax traffic rules enforcement these days.

  31. #31
    Lemmy Rules!
    Reputation: Unglued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,772
    There is no difference in the negligence/inadvertence of the at-fault driver. The difference is that there may not be as much evidence available to support the laying of charges.

    In your example, the driver in front survives the impact and says to the police who arrive "that guy rear-ended me". The property damage to the car in front is consistent with this. And those two things provide sufficient evidence for charges to be laid. And the charge that is laid is a provincial offence under the Highway Traffic Act which involves a modest fine and some demerit points.

    When a car hits a bicycle from behind the consequences are far more serious, and so are the charges. In a case like this you are likely looking at, if the driver is at fault, criminal charges and jail time. So there is a higher burden of proof, and less evidence unless there is an independent witness. As I stated above, there will be a fairly careful investigation by the police of the accident scene and physical evidence, and charges will almost certainly not be laid until that investigation is complete.

    I'm not saying it is right. It's just the way it is.
    Strava made me do it....

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    thank you, I cannot disagree with your comments. It is early and best not to rush to some incorrect conclusion so the police have to do their work. We wait and hope that we learn what happened.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    511
    I was possibly a more careless cyclist when I was younger. At this time, I'd say the ratio of insults to my right of way versus my bonehead moves is running 50:1 or higher. Any of the older cyclists here care to weigh in with their personal ratio? Was Mr. Tuttle an older experienced cyclist? If so, it's beyond reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605

    david was 49 years old and an experienced cyclist. He was signed up

    Quote Originally Posted by Kay. View Post
    I was possibly a more careless cyclist when I was younger. At this time, I'd say the ratio of insults to my right of way versus my bonehead moves is running 50:1 or higher. Any of the older cyclists here care to weigh in with their personal ratio? Was Mr. Tuttle an older experienced cyclist? If so, it's beyond reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned.
    for the Enbridge ride for the cure last Saturday I understand. As an almost 73 year old I qualify I guess as an older rider, and "the insults to my right of way" by far outnumber my mistakes as a cyclist. The real insult is the driver that actually hates me because I ride a bike. The driver that comes through a stop sign and drives right into my lane and then one block later, at a stoplight wants to get out of his car and beat the crap out of me. These drivers are certainly a minority but still create dangerous times for cyclists.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: omnivore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    18
    I went for my first roadie ride in 25+ yrs last night. Ilive 5 minutes from this accident, and work 1 minute away from it. The fellow who I work for is the volunteer fireman who was 1st on scene.
    RIP David....sad story for sure.

    I was so taken back by the fireman's storytelling, I mounted my bikerack, and took my roadiebike out to the HAriisburg Hills and Apollo Valley, and rode each road both directions back and forth rather than go onto Governors Rd and Hwy 5 to loop them together. I don't think I am comfortable sharing roads with drivers on cell phones etc. I never considered it when I was young, but now with a family, I think about it. At least in the woods on my MTB, it's just trees and rocks trying to kill me.

    And this only becomes more clear when I realize as a driver that hasn't cycled intil a week ago, in the last 25 yrs, that I too can't stand many cyclists. There was a huge "Tour De Grand" rally here last Sunday, and I was driving to the HydroCut from Brantford, thru Grand Valley- all I can say is that ride drew a HUGE number of douchbag cyclists, riding 4 and 5 abreast chit-chatting and blocking traffic both directions, for 2 miles in every direction...It was bad...and behaviour like that only proves to make more and more driver's hate cyclists. Its a wicked cycle (pardon the pun)

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    54
    I got away from road biking about 10 years ago and started MTB-ing almost exclusively. My reason was the number of close calls and a-hole drivers that I dealt with on almost every ride. This year, I bought a road bike to get into the sport again because, frankly, I really missed it. When road biking is great, it's really great! What I notice now is that drivers are much more courteous than they were 10 years ago, especially in the Waterloo region. I think the popularity of the sport and the number of cyclists that drivers see on the roads now has helped in this regard. My biggest worry is drunk drivers (especially Sunday morning drunk drivers) and the texting and driving crap. I use 1800-lumen flashing lights (front and rear) even during the day so hopefully I'm seen. In fact my biggest complaint now is drivers commenting on how my lights are too bright.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    124
    This is why we need a reverse onus of proof to the more vulnerable road users.

    If a motorist hits a pedestrian or cyclist, they should be assumed to be at fault until they prove they are not guilty. Similar if a cyclist hits a pedestrian.

    This is done now in many jurisdictions, particularly in northern Europe. We do this in Ontario for impaired driving. Refusing a breathalyzer test has the same penalties as driving impaired.

    Cyclelicious Freakonomics on murder by car

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    792
    I don't like the reverse onus situation either as a solution. Though it may seem unfair, I think you have to let investigators look at the evidence and come to a conclusion. If there is not enough proof as to what happened, then it is really regrettable and unfortunate, but you can't just assume guilt or innocence. It has to be established. What if the cyclist actually messed up and turned in front of you or did something wrong? How do you prove he did not? The police have investigators and a lot of resources at their disposal including prosecutors and call call on expert witnesses. You would have to get a lawyer and a slew of people to prove your case, or would the police be expected to work toward an investigation to exonerate you? What would be their motivation to dig up evidence to prove any other thing except that you are guilty? I just don't see how it would work.
    Having read the article, I see that the solutions are more about providing infrastructure and keeping car/bikes/pedestrians separated rather than through punishment.
    Burnt Norton

  39. #39
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by secret agent View Post
    I don't like the reverse onus situation either as a solution. Though it may seem unfair, I think you have to let investigators look at the evidence and come to a conclusion. If there is not enough proof as to what happened, then it is really regrettable and unfortunate, but you can't just assume guilt or innocence. It has to be established. What if the cyclist actually messed up and turned in front of you or did something wrong? How do you prove he did not? The police have investigators and a lot of resources at their disposal including prosecutors and call call on expert witnesses. You would have to get a lawyer and a slew of people to prove your case, or would the police be expected to work toward an investigation to exonerate you? What would be their motivation to dig up evidence to prove any other thing except that you are guilty? I just don't see how it would work.
    Having read the article, I see that the solutions are more about providing infrastructure and keeping car/bikes/pedestrians separated rather than through punishment.
    Regardless of the article. The reality in Ontario and Canada somewhere it has become some twisted point of view that owning and driving a car has become a right. And last I checked in Canada driving and owning a car is a privilege not a right protected by our Charter if Rights and Freedoms. Unglued has there been a change?

    And I am sorry but the level of responisibility should increase based on the ability of the motor vehicle to kill people. It is funny to me how if this had been a pistol or shotgun instead used to kill Tutty the reaction towards the perpatrator would be far more severe. NAd much moaning about how ineffective the laws are.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by secret agent View Post
    I don't like the reverse onus situation either as a solution. Though it may seem unfair, I think you have to let investigators look at the evidence and come to a conclusion. If there is not enough proof as to what happened, then it is really regrettable and unfortunate, but you can't just assume guilt or innocence. It has to be established. What if the cyclist actually messed up and turned in front of you or did something wrong? How do you prove he did not? The police have investigators and a lot of resources at their disposal including prosecutors and call call on expert witnesses. You would have to get a lawyer and a slew of people to prove your case, or would the police be expected to work toward an investigation to exonerate you? What would be their motivation to dig up evidence to prove any other thing except that you are guilty? I just don't see how it would work.
    Having read the article, I see that the solutions are more about providing infrastructure and keeping car/bikes/pedestrians separated rather than through punishment.
    In my case, 12 years of riding (~36000 km) has proven that the motorist will be over 98% likely to have been at fault if I manage to get myself killed out there. For example, in my accounting an insult to my right of way is any event where I have to brake to avoid a knockdown, plus all knockdowns. In contrast, the standard for tallying a bonehead move on my part is merely whether I'd feel comfortable having made the move as a motorist, not whether the motorist actually had to brake. A lower standard in other words.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    792
    That's rather an unfair analogy and inaccurate as a gun is necessarily manufactured to kill people and cars are transportation, and millions of people take daily car trips without incident. Drivers in cars kill each other all the time on the road and they are considered accidents and not homicide. I am sure there was no intent to kill the cyclist in this case or in most other cases like this. No matter what you do, if you have cyclists and cars sharing the same space, accidents will just happen no matter what punishments you impose. I share your concerns, but really strict punishments will not improve the relationship with drivers nor ensure the safety of cyclists. Honestly, roads are simply not designed to handle the amount of traffic on them these days, never mind adding cyclists to them. I don't know how busy this road gets. When I was on it last week, the portion I was on was not heavy with traffic, but it was moving fast. I am pretty sure that if you kill a cyclist now and it can be proven that you were totally at fault, the penalties are pretty severe. The problem is proving exactly what happened at the time of the accident. It would be unfair to always assume that an accident involving a bike or pedestrian is always the drivers fault. An investigation always has to take place and the evidence weighed. I am not sure how you would phrase this legislation in a way that protects cyclists and is fair to motorists.
    Burnt Norton

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    792
    I agree with most of you that it looks as though the police do not take these incidents seriously enough, but would you personally send some person, who presumably has a family and so on, to jail for an extended period without being able to determine exactly what happened? Would the rule be that if you hit a cyclist, it is jail no matter what? What would be the due process?
    Burnt Norton

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by secret agent View Post
    I agree with most of you that it looks as though the police do not take these incidents seriously enough, but would you personally send some person, who presumably has a family and so on, to jail for an extended period without being able to determine exactly what happened? Would the rule be that if you hit a cyclist, it is jail no matter what? What would be the due process?
    Yes!

    There is no excuse for hitting and killing a fellow road user in broad daylight from behind.

    This was not an "accident". How could it possible be anything but negligence?

    Even if the cyclist was trying to commit suicide by car, had the motorist passed with a safe clearance, they could not have hit the cyclist.

    If this driver had been paying attention, in other words, not been negligent, the cyclist would still be alive.

    We do exactly this for impaired driving. We, as a society, have decided that it is acceptable to have this reverse onus of proof because too many people were being hurt and killed on our streets.

    Now I believe we need to add this concept to road collisions. We have a higher duty of care towards our more vulnerable road users and the law should reflect that.

    Due process would be to ascertain that it was indeed daylight, that the cyclist was hit from behind etc. Were there any skid marks? Signs of evasive maneuvers?

  44. #44
    Workin for the weekend!
    Reputation: -Todd-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,332
    The debate of right & wrong here goes on forever. The debate of winner vs loser when it comes to cars and bikes is a little easier to understand. Ride the road and you're putting your life into the hands of someone else, plain and simple. For me, Trees and rocks are a lot less intimidating and a heck of a lot more foregiving.
    Todd :thumbsup:

  45. #45
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by secret agent View Post
    That's rather an unfair analogy and inaccurate as a gun is necessarily manufactured to kill people and cars are transportation, and millions of people take daily car trips without incident. Drivers in cars kill each other all the time on the road and they are considered accidents and not homicide. I am sure there was no intent to kill the cyclist in this case or in most other cases like this. No matter what you do, if you have cyclists and cars sharing the same space, accidents will just happen no matter what punishments you impose. I share your concerns, but really strict punishments will not improve the relationship with drivers nor ensure the safety of cyclists. Honestly, roads are simply not designed to handle the amount of traffic on them these days, never mind adding cyclists to them. I don't know how busy this road gets. When I was on it last week, the portion I was on was not heavy with traffic, but it was moving fast. I am pretty sure that if you kill a cyclist now and it can be proven that you were totally at fault, the penalties are pretty severe. The problem is proving exactly what happened at the time of the accident. It would be unfair to always assume that an accident involving a bike or pedestrian is always the drivers fault. An investigation always has to take place and the evidence weighed. I am not sure how you would phrase this legislation in a way that protects cyclists and is fair to motorists.
    Thank you for being a motor vehicle apologist.

    And nothing you say will not convince me that are car is not as deadly to a human as a gun. And sorry but I have fire arms experience and understand that it is far easier for one to get access to a motor vehicle that a fire arm.

    And just to reiterate a point I keep making. In 12 years of living in theis province there is something messed up withy drivers here. Never in 30 years of riding in Vancouver have I had the quantity of aggressive, hostile drivers as here. It seems like you all think that once you have a drivers license it becomes a free pass to treat other humans not in cars as some kind of hit and win points game.

    And no amount of cycling infrastructure will fix this. This is a problem that comes from this mentality of Ontario that driving is some kind of Human Right that is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Am I being paranoid? I think not...

  46. #46
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    Am I being paranoid? I think not...
    Hopefully someone had the courtesy as you were leaving the restaurant to tell you that you had ketchup running down your arm.

  47. #47
    Lemmy Rules!
    Reputation: Unglued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,772
    You're talking about overturning "innocent until proven guilty" for a tragic incident caused more often than not by inadvertence.

    Where would you draw the line? Cyclists? Pedestrians? Other motorists? You are standing at the top of a very slippery slope and it is a long way down.
    Strava made me do it....

  48. #48
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by secret agent View Post
    I agree with most of you that it looks as though the police do not take these incidents seriously enough, but would you personally send some person, who presumably has a family and so on, to jail for an extended period without being able to determine exactly what happened? Would the rule be that if you hit a cyclist, it is jail no matter what? What would be the due process?
    Based on the police reaction the 2 times they where called after I was hit deliberately by distracted drivers. Cops really don't care about cyclists in this process...no point in calling them unless you want to get tickets.

    And for the record...both times I was taken out by cars..2007 and 2011 was by males busy flirting with their girl in the car. Second time was the worst hut by car and sent completely from passenger door of parked car over hood of said car and add in about another 4 feet. If it wasn't for the muscle memory from 10 years of high performance ski racing I would have got much worse.

    All I hear these days is endless manure grinding about who is at fault. Reality is people in the province overall are lousy to each other when it comes to motor vehicles. But we don't want to discuss that because then we would all have to look at ourselves and how we operate a motor vehicle.

  49. #49
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302

  50. #50
    Finally!
    Reputation: Terranaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by dhabartrider11 View Post
    I drive a lot for work and in my experiences people who drive Toyota corolla's are absolute **** drivers. I always keep an eye on them because they're just so unpredictable, I know it sounds silly but it's very true.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thatshowiroll View Post
    I've been reading this post over and over, trying to make sense of it.
    I've come to the conclusion that this is the stupidest post I've ever read on the internet.
    I have to agree. Top 10 on the stupid post list for sure.

    As a newer cyclist I have to admit I am surprised at the lack of consideration motorists have for cyclists. I had a guy a week ago turn right about 10-12' in front of me even after making ng eye contact as he passed me. I had no choice but to turn with him and use my foot to keep from crashing into him. I left a huge dent behind the back door and he didn't even stop.
    Maybe he knew I planned to test his dental insurance coverage.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    792
    "And no amount of cycling infrastructure will fix this. This is a problem that comes from this mentality of Ontario that driving is some kind of Human Right that is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

    what if you had separated bike lanes away from cars and a set of multi-use paths that kept you away from traffic? That would work fairly well and does to in Europe.
    That is what we should be asking to get.
    A weapon is some kind of instrument intrinsically designed to cause harm and a car is not that. Using that language is not only incorrect, but harmful to the discussion. It sets the conversation in a negative and confrontational way. Drivers out there are not out to get cyclists. I admit there are some A*holes, but those people would be like that no matter the situation.
    We have a situation where the very structure is an intrinsically dangerous place to be for a cyclist. There are reasons that sidewalks are raised and put away from cars. We need ways to get around that are safe by their very nature and not depend on the attention and care of drivers. It is simply dangerous to ride a bike on a road shared by large vehicles no matter what you do.
    The only solution is safer infrastructure. I am no apologist for cars or drivers, but I look at what is going on in our roads and assess the risks. You have to realize that if anything at all goes wrong, you will be at a huge risk on a bike. Also to put in perspective as to cars being killing machines of cyclists:

    In 2011 there were 2006 fatalities by road users . 52 of them were cyclists. There were 315 pedestrians killed. Cars will hit whatever is on the road is my point, no matter what the laws you have.

    http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/...sitcs_2011.pdf
    Burnt Norton

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    tonight I'll drive down to Ellicottville and in the morning get on my road bike. There is an endless black asphalt ribbon that runs through the hills forever, lots of streams and not one angry driver. The cars slow down, the drivers pass carefully, often going into the oncoming lane, and on a lot of the highway there is a ten foot paved shoulder that drivers do not drive over. The drivers all seem to enjoy that I am on a bike and they smile, wave, acknowledge me, and in all the years I have never had an argument with a driver.
    We don't know what that is like up here because a lot of the drivers that have a hate on for cyclists, are unrepentant, aggressive, and angry towards us. They hate us being on the road, they hardly notice us so they put us in danger over and over again. The change of this attitude has to start somewhere and I agree that handing them a ticket would only make them more angry at cyclist. It has to start with education and it starts with insisting that all drivers accept cyclist on the highway. Cyclist in turn have to behave and stop doing stupid stuff like riding 3 abreast and passing cars at a red light only to come up in front insisting on taking their lane in front of drivers they have just passed.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    792
    The statistics above tend to minimize the incidence of fatalities in a way by pointing at the absolute numbers. If you were to compare the number of vehicles and vehicle hours vs. fatality to those of cyclists, I bet the ratio would be somewhat disturbing. What I am saying is that there would most likely be a high ratio of fatality/hours on the road as compared to vehicles.
    Burnt Norton

  54. #54
    Workin for the weekend!
    Reputation: -Todd-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    Am I being paranoid? I think not...
    The Bicycling Martyr strikes again...
    Todd :thumbsup:

  55. #55
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Friendly recommendation for all here who have cars.

    Please have your vehicles lug nuts checked. I say this as yesterday as. I headed out for a quick spin heard screeching tires ahead and saw lots of dust further up the road. Also thought I heard the faint sound of something hitting the river hard. Came upon the scene of a car partially in the bike lane and the rest on the gravel. 4 cars stopped to help very quick. Well...the sploosh I heard was the driver side front wheel and the screeching was the cars avoiding the free range wheel.

    From what I over heard the driver had recently had the wheels changed and hadn't had them re tightened. If I had been on time to leave would have been the when it happened or thankful no one on a bike was going through the area.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Unglued View Post
    You're talking about overturning "innocent until proven guilty" for a tragic incident caused more often than not by inadvertence.

    Where would you draw the line? Cyclists? Pedestrians? Other motorists? You are standing at the top of a very slippery slope and it is a long way down.
    I'm not sure what your point is. What line?

    "a tragic incident caused more often than not by inadvertence."

    NO! HELL, NO! We are responsible for what happens to our vehicles. The law reflects this, but the justice system does not. Now, we call this "temporary negligence" an "accident", pity the poor driver who must live with the consequences, bury the victims and then move on. Unacceptable...

    Hitting another road user from behind in broad daylight can only be called one thing. Negligence. (Especially if we have a 3ft passing law for legislative teeth.) If someone is killed, it should be called criminal negligence causing death.

    Right now, if a cop thinks you're drunk and driving and you refuse a breathalyzer test, you can be charged and convicted with impaired driving.

    The line has already been crossed. We, as a society, have decided that the problem of drunk driving is severe enough that we would reverse the onus of proof.

    Now, I'm saying we should do the same to protect road users. The burden of protection and the onus of proof should be placed on the less vulnerable road users. (and, by the way, this is exactly how the law works on our waterways).

    You Can Kill Anyone with Your Car, as Long as You Don't Really Mean It | VICE United States

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    [QUOTE=sputnikcdn;11275490]I'm not sure what your point is. What line?

    "a tragic incident caused more often than not by inadvertence."

    NO! HELL, NO! We are responsible for what happens to our vehicles. The law reflects this, but the justice system does not. Now, we call this "temporary negligence" an "accident", pity the poor driver who must live with the consequences, bury the victims and then move on. Unacceptable...

    It really is hard to accept the word inadventure, mishap, accident or misadventure applies in this case. Very few accidents are anything less than negligence. The tornado that ripped through Angus is inadventure or accidental if you wish, but driving into the back of a cyclist no. It was either negligence on the part of the driver, or the cyclist. I know there is an investigation going on with over a 100 pages of report from the reconstruction team with OPP and the case will likely be referred to the crown in a couple of months for a decision whether or not to press charges, but this is not an accident.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    124
    No charges in deaths of 3 Que. cyclists - Montreal - CBC News

    Again, broad daylight, 3 killed, 3 more injured (meaning at least 3 witnesses), no charges...

    I could go on and on...

  59. #59
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by secret agent View Post
    A weapon is some kind of instrument intrinsically designed to cause harm and a car is not that. Using that language is not only incorrect,
    Weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Actually you are partially correct. However any device can be used as a weapon against another human. While it is easy to focus on guns and bows with arrows as weapons. Reality is that one can use a knife, a baseball bat, or even a car as a weapon to harm others. You don't see people using the argument that a baseball bat was not intrinsically designed to hurt others as a excuse to not call it a weapon when a husband nearly kills his wife with it.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    it is hard to believe that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the driver was not driving with due care in this case. He had to see the cyclist if the weather was clear. How would they decide if I drove into the back of a Police on a bicycle here in Hamilton and killed him, witness or no witness.

  61. #61
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,175
    Quote Originally Posted by ol-crank View Post
    it is hard to believe that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the driver was not driving with due care in this case. He had to see the cyclist if the weather was clear. How would they decide if I drove into the back of a Police on a bicycle here in Hamilton and killed him, witness or no witness.
    How do you know for certain (meaning certain enough to send someone to jail) that the cyclist didn't drift or swerve into the path of the oncoming car suddenly for any number of possible reasons that we're not aware of? I mean swerve or drift by as much or more than the 3' standard for clearance by an overtaking car? You can't tell me that cyclists don't sometimes swerve or drift by more than 3', because I have seen it many many times, and I've done it myself for various reasons both intentional and unintentional, although fortunately never causing an accident so far and the vast majority of times occurring when there isn't a vehicle overtaking me.

    As has been pointed out already in this thread, it's likely going to be a difficult task for a reconstruction team to state anything with any level of confidence in a case like this with single motorist and single rider, unless there is some evidence like skid marks, damage between the vehicle and other roadway elements or the bike that would lead to some conclusion, etc. The motorist may very well have been at fault, but it's very possible that we just may never really know, and of course the deceased cyclist can't provide any information.

    Much as I sympathize with the victim and their loved ones, the concept of guilty until proven innocent is one of the underpinnings of our society that I value highly, even though it may not work out well in 100% of cases. The alternative is both frightening and unacceptable to me, and a quick trip down a very dark path of societal standards as far as I am concerned.

    Lynch mob justice sounds very convenient, until it's one of your family members who ends up in jail for something like a cyclist or pedestrian suddenly coming into the path of their vehicle through no fault of their own. Sorry, no thanks.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Much as I sympathize with the victim and their loved ones, the concept of guilty until proven innocent is one of the underpinnings of our society that I value highly, even though it may not work out well in 100% of cases. The alternative is both frightening and unacceptable to me, and a quick trip down a very dark path of societal standards as far as I am concerned.
    How do you reconcile this statement with our existing legal framework for impaired driving? What about the reverse onus legislation that already exists in several northern European countries?

    The fact remains that roughly 35 000 people in the US and 2000 in Canada are killed by motorists EVERY YEAR!! If a new disease appeared that killed that many people our entire society would shut down in panic. We'd be screaming, running, waving our hands in the air doing such ineffective things as removing our shoes at security check points...

    As far as our legal system being fair? Pffft, when innocent people are being killed by the legal system every year we have a very long way to go to create a "fair" legal system. The best we can do is create a legal system that is "fair enough" to create a safe society.

    If motorists think they could be jailed for hitting a cyclist, you can bet your life they will give us a safe passing distance...

    As it stands, we, as a society, have decided that this carnage is acceptable.

  63. #63
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,175
    Quote Originally Posted by sputnikcdn View Post
    How do you reconcile this statement with our existing legal framework for impaired driving?
    Do you mean the potential for being charged with impaired driving for failing to participate in a breathaylzer test? That's not even remotely relevant to this case, as that is refusal to provide evidence that is readily available versus what might be a situation of evidence that doesn't exist. I'm all for enforcement of the minimum standard for clearance, but making the leap to presume that is the cause of this specific accident is knowledge you don't have at this time. Maybe the cause, maybe not.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  64. #64
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post

    Lynch mob justice sounds very convenient
    Problem here is that to form a lynch mob there has to be a leader. And since there doesn't appear to be one to guide the large Simpson like crowd of torch and pitchfork carriers it looks more like a large herd.

    Unless of course someone would care to run for the office of Lynch Mob leader.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    Lynch mob justice sounds very convenient, until it's one of your family members who ends up in jail for something like a cyclist or pedestrian suddenly coming into the path of their vehicle through no fault of their own. Sorry, no thanks.[/QUOTE]

    Wow so I'm racist and am now leading a lynch mob. I do respect that we are entitled to our opinion, I only hope that people who hang around a cycling board, will somehow push for laws, and education that make it safer for all of us out on our bikes.
    No, I am not sure how we are going to do that, but it has to be a priority.

  66. #66
    Perpetual Hack
    Reputation: mykel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,113
    I have been hit from behind by an inattentive driver.
    Luckily, it was a nicely bruised leg ( reaally cool colours ) and a broken bike, nothing worse.
    Damage to the car was a scuff on his bumper.

    This happened in my home town of Carlisle - Courtcliffe Park had a yearly concert weekend that brought a huge amount of bikers in full colours. They had a suitably large police presence as well as you may imagine. Buddy was checking out a bike, and drifted into me. It was seen by my friends and "Fortunately" a police officer on patrol - or so I thought.

    Now a little background - My father was a career police officer, and I was SCHOOLED on bike and road safety - actually had my own copy of the HTA for a while. When I was hit I was riding with a friend and about to meet with a third a few yards up the road in his driveway, Dave was ahead, and already at Seans driveway (we were 10-12 years old.) We were on the road, about a foot from the shoulder which had just been graded and was very soft. My friends saw the accident, one stayed, the other went for my parents.

    I was chewed out by the cop for causing the accident by riding on into the road from the gravel shoulder - where I should be as i am not supposed to be on the paved road surface. - I argued he was wrong according to the hiway traffic act. I am allowed on the paved surface and do not have to ride on the shoulder. That just got me threatened with arrest and charges. I had to apologize to the driver, and he was let go on his way.

    This was when my Dad arrived. After seeing how I was, he went to talk to the cop - who tried to bull-shiat him as to the situation. He came back to me and asked me my side, I told him about "it being my fault" the apology and the threats. He then went to speak with my friends separately.

    He then identified himself to the cop, as a superior, asked to see his notes, with the Drivers info etc....Guess what, no info on the driver, and no notes taken from anybody present. Just a note about a careless cyclist riding onto the road and hitting a car. Didn't ask my friends what happened or anybody else that may have been around.

    Dad went back to where the accident happened, and noted the scrapes on the road, length, direction etc, the soft shoulder with no bike tracks bla bla bla

    Dad went ballistic on this fool. I ended up getting an apology from the d-bag and confirmation that i was correct an he was wrong regarding where on the road I was allowed to be. Don't know what happened to the guy, but dad was really pizzed for quite a while.

    So nothing new about the cops blaming the cyclist - we just don't count. - this was in 1975

    One of the reasons that the only road i ride is to the trail-head if required.
    Hatched in '64
    A Dirtbag since '69
    A Knomer since '07

    Knolly Fugitive
    Knolly Podium
    Knolly Endorphin
    Knolly Delirium

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    511
    I always thought of mountain biking as the side of the sport where you really ought to ride with a buddy. In the event of a solo accident, when you might be on a trail a bit out of the way. Whereas, on the highway, a solo accident being comparatively rare combined with the frequency of passing motorists, the need for a buddy seemed almost totally unnecessary. Now it sounds like we're in the process of establishing here that you really do need a buddy when you ride out on the highway.

  68. #68
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Kay. View Post
    I always thought of mountain biking as the side of the sport where you really ought to ride with a buddy. In the event of a solo accident, when you might be on a trail a bit out of the way. Whereas, on the highway, a solo accident being comparatively rare combined with the frequency of passing motorists, the need for a buddy seemed almost totally unnecessary. Now it sounds like we're in the process of establishing here that you really do need a buddy when you ride out on the highway.
    I always think it is funny how people will say they won't mountain bike because of all the trees, roots, rocks, and such they say will hurt them. Some how people think that it is more dangerous in the woods surrounded by things that won't move.

  69. #69
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by -Todd- View Post
    The Bicycling Martyr strikes again...
    Yes...because getting side swiped by car and sent over another car touching down a few feet past it. Going to the ER to make sure no nerve damage and nothing major like a artery was nicked. Then explaining to a 3 year old daughter that everything will be okay later yet still has bad dreams for 2 nights is fun.

    See rule #43

    Quote Originally Posted by ol-crank View Post

    and am now leading a lynch
    Since have stepped forward to accept this lofty position. The Mob members would like to know if there will be beer and chips at the next meeting.

    Quote Originally Posted by mykel View Post
    I have been hit from behind by an inattentive driver.
    Luckily, it was a nicely bruised leg ( reaally cool colours ) and a broken bike, nothing worse.
    Damage to the car was a scuff on his bumper.

    This happened in my home town of Carlisle - Courtcliffe Park had a yearly concert weekend that brought a huge amount of bikers in full colours. They had a suitably large police presence as well as you may imagine. Buddy was checking out a bike, and drifted into me. It was seen by my friends and "Fortunately" a police officer on patrol - or so I thought.

    Now a little background - My father was a career police officer, and I was SCHOOLED on bike and road safety - actually had my own copy of the HTA for a while. When I was hit I was riding with a friend and about to meet with a third a few yards up the road in his driveway, Dave was ahead, and already at Seans driveway (we were 10-12 years old.) We were on the road, about a foot from the shoulder which had just been graded and was very soft. My friends saw the accident, one stayed, the other went for my parents.

    I was chewed out by the cop for causing the accident by riding on into the road from the gravel shoulder - where I should be as i am not supposed to be on the paved road surface. - I argued he was wrong according to the hiway traffic act. I am allowed on the paved surface and do not have to ride on the shoulder. That just got me threatened with arrest and charges. I had to apologize to the driver, and he was let go on his way.

    This was when my Dad arrived. After seeing how I was, he went to talk to the cop - who tried to bull-shiat him as to the situation. He came back to me and asked me my side, I told him about "it being my fault" the apology and the threats. He then went to speak with my friends separately.

    He then identified himself to the cop, as a superior, asked to see his notes, with the Drivers info etc....Guess what, no info on the driver, and no notes taken from anybody present. Just a note about a careless cyclist riding onto the road and hitting a car. Didn't ask my friends what happened or anybody else that may have been around.

    Dad went back to where the accident happened, and noted the scrapes on the road, length, direction etc, the soft shoulder with no bike tracks bla bla bla

    Dad went ballistic on this fool. I ended up getting an apology from the d-bag and confirmation that i was correct an he was wrong regarding where on the road I was allowed to be. Don't know what happened to the guy, but dad was really pizzed for quite a while.

    So nothing new about the cops blaming the cyclist - we just don't count. - this was in 1975

    One of the reasons that the only road i ride is to the trail-head if required.
    Sounds similar to my fun with Toronto Police in 2007 for getting TBoned by a driver. That was the incident when I look back that helped drive my encouraging my wife to take the Queen's job and get away from Toronto drivers.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    Sounds similar to my fun with Toronto Police in 2007 for getting TBoned by a driver. That was the incident when I look back that helped drive my encouraging my wife to take the Queen's job and get away from Toronto drivers.
    I was left hooked by a cabbie on Queen's Quay crossing Bathurst. When I got up, I walked into a nearby corner store and asked for witnesses. A woman about a decade younger than me piped up and said she saw the incident and would be willing to wait for the cops. She waited an hour, we didn't talk at all, on my prompting. The cop came, heard the cabbie's story, which was totally different than mine. I told the truth, the witness told her side (which I didn't hear). The cop believed the cabbie, threatened to charge me and said, about the witness, "why should I believe her? how do I know she's not your girlfriend?"

    I'm sure we've all got stories about pitiful policing and favouritism towards motorists...

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    170
    This is what drives more and more people to record their trips - whether by bike or car - with a video camera.
    2015 Brodie Romax
    2011 Giant Trance X3 "Andre"
    2013 Rocky Mountain SoloCX "Han"

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    202

    Relax

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnikcdn View Post
    It's pretty safe to assume the following scenario:

    4) I repeat, no charges were laid in this case. There is no mention of witnesses, so we can assume no witnesses.

    5) The only conclusion possible is that the police have assumed the cyclist committed suicide by "swerving into my lane at the last minute". Probably on the word of the motorist, who knew there were no witnesses.
    Relax and recall the black helicopters. In the case of a fatality or even serious bodily harm, unless there are independent witnesses, charges are NEVER immediate.

    Police must be seen to be independent and therefore may not make assumptions of guilt on either the part of the driver or the cyclist. Investigations such as this can take anywhere from days to weeks before they are concluded.

    While this can be extremely frustrating to both families, and lesser so for other interested parties, it is crucial that an investigation be done properly and correctly the first time.

    Sit back, be patient and a little less judgmental.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by bishskate View Post
    This is what drives more and more people to record their trips - whether by bike or car - with a video camera.
    Here's another angle on the ride logging idea which is new to me:

    Vanhawks Valour | First ever connected carbon fibre bicycle

    Short of wearing a camera, this type of idea might have interesting implications. I'm particularly intrigued by the onboard accelerometer and gyro, as I can imagine that such instruments could reveal both the extent of a suicide swerve as well as the impact force. As far as a camera idea goes, I'm stuck on the choice: front view, or rear view?? You really need two to be protected. Again, instrumentation might be the better way.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    792
    Sorry, but recording your death for posterity to help convict or not is not my idea of a better way. Sorry to sound harsh, but it seems people are just looking for some kind of payback. Road riding is inherently dangerous. The better way would be to have separated or safer riding options. We need to use these incidents to to move forward that kind of agenda rather than pursuing people involved in accidents. That's what they are. I believe than in most of these cases, drivers are not out to kill cyclists.
    Burnt Norton

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by secret agent View Post
    Sorry, but recording your death for posterity to help convict or not is not my idea of a better way. Sorry to sound harsh, but it seems people are just looking for some kind of payback. Road riding is inherently dangerous. The better way would be to have separated or safer riding options. We need to use these incidents to to move forward that kind of agenda rather than pursuing people involved in accidents. That's what they are. I believe than in most of these cases, drivers are not out to kill cyclists.
    I don't think it's a better way, but I would hate for something like this to happen to me and someone to be having a debate on whether I caused the accident or the driver caused it. Having some evidence of what happened can only help investigators. I have a Fly6 for this purpose - built right into the rear light and gives me excellent video.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by secret agent View Post
    Sorry, but recording your death for posterity to help convict or not is not my idea of a better way. Sorry to sound harsh, but it seems people are just looking for some kind of payback. Road riding is inherently dangerous. The better way would be to have separated or safer riding options. We need to use these incidents to to move forward that kind of agenda rather than pursuing people involved in accidents. That's what they are. I believe than in most of these cases, drivers are not out to kill cyclists.
    I don't see road riding as being inherently dangerous so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I've fallen off a bike on pavement precisely once, on a patch of ice, in mid-winter. I can't remember how many times I've hit the ground on dirt. The last time however was the worst, as I picked up a nasty concussion and haven't ridden off-road since. So in my experience, road riding has been inherently safe. Now, if we were talking about a scenario in which a certain feature, or features, inherent to the road/pavement, say potholes for the sake of argument, were the cause of many cyclist crashes, with the unfortunate side effect of the cyclist inadvertently falling directly under the wheels of an otherwise legally and safely passing automobile, I'd agree with you that road biking was inherently dangerous.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    792
    I too have certainly picked up more injuries on the MTB, but that's not what I am referring to. Being in the same space with cars is really dangerous in a way that MTB riding is not. My example still stands as to sidewalks. They build them separated and raised and not on the shoulder of the road with a painted line. Why is it ok for a bike to be there? I guess it depends where you ride. I am in Mississauga, and ride downtown Toronto quite a bit. while it is busier in Toronto, the traffic in Mississauga moves much faster, roads are wider and there are way more turning lanes both on the middle and right hand side of the road. While I can often keep up with traffic downtown, no way in Mississauga. There simply is a lot to deal with on our streets and any mistake can lead to catastrophic consequences.
    Burnt Norton

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    605
    I think we can talk about the conditions of our roads, and our riding habits but it is the drivers that decide our fate. Let me ride on all the streets, highways, without cars and no problem. Add the cars and it becomes dangerous. More dangerous when the ability and attitude of the driver is considered. In Canada we have too many unskilled, and irresponsible drivers and we either accept that road cycling is too dangerous and stay off the roads or we attempt to change this. A long way to go maybe, but if drivers were competent, careful and respected cyclists, it would a least be a lot safer. If more drivers were charged with offences against cyclists maybe they would be more afraid of putting cyclists in danger.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    792
    Well of course there would be no issues if cars were not around. Roads are designed and intended for cars. My point is that no matter how well drivers would treat us, accidents will happen. They happen between cars all the time. I most cases those are fender benders or don't involve serious injury. Sometimes they do, but any tangle with a car is horrible to a cyclist. I am on the side of safety for cyclists and I am not trying to push them off the roads, but get better infrastructure so we are safer. When you manage to do that, then you have to address the behavior of cyclists in those lanes. The stuff you see downtown is incredible. On 50 km of road on the Lakeshore alone on part of my ride on Monday, 3 cars stopped on the bike lane waiting for parking, waiting to turn and one just parked. Two incidents of cars coming too close to me (I was in the bike lane). As for cyclists, two groups of cyclists running lights and one solo rider running lights. He was way slower than me and I kept catching up to him even though I waited for lights only to see him run more lights. All the way from Parklawn to Dixie. One group of riders bunched up in a group though there is a bike lane beginning at Browns Line. Honestly I avoid the bike lanes in Toronto specially when it is busy. The crazy nuttiness of car drivers seems to go to cyclists once you bunch them up in lanes.
    Lots of cars together= Bad, Lots of bikes together= Bad. Lots of bikes and cars together= catastrophic at some point.
    Burnt Norton

Similar Threads

  1. Cyclist Killed in Floodwaters
    By mtbxplorer in forum Commuting
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-08-2014, 07:27 PM
  2. Pedestrian Killed By Cyclist
    By amishscum in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08-19-2013, 08:58 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-25-2013, 10:08 AM
  4. Cyclist Killed - Fullerton, CA 7.11.12
    By El Salt in forum California - Socal
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-28-2012, 03:46 PM
  5. Cyclist Scott Lane Killed
    By tavinotrub in forum New Mexico
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-03-2012, 05:05 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.