Hit and run kills cyclist
 

Happened recently over the Easter weekend not too far from me:

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/suspect-i...lice-1.4388874

Here's the stretch of highway where it happened:
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0031...7i16384!8i8192

Posted speed limit here is 80 km/h, but traffic routinely moves at close to 100 km/h. Cyclist was found at around 10 pm, so it appears that the incident took place after sun down.

Sad story, really. A road like this with virtually no shoulder, high speed limit, partial darkness is no place to ride your bike. Don't accuse me of victim blaming. I've just learned over the years that there are some roads that you should never ride on. Condolences to his family.

If you're doing it right you should be much more visible/eye catching after dark and from a greater distance.

I'd reluctantly ride that in the daytime if I had no other choice. At night, no way. I wouldn't feel remotely safe with all the lights in the world. If more than one car is passing you, it's too easy for one of the following cars not to see you because you were screened from their view until the car in front of them passed you. And I'm not taking the lane in front of cars speeding at 60 mph.

Why does that road have a double yellow? Traffic level?

That is a much nicer than many roads that I regularly ride (depending on traffic, of course).

One might ask why use road X, but for a bike commuter, there is often absolutely zero choice.

Good lights, reflectors, light colored clothing, etc, and a cyclist should be visible a mile ahead. Few drivers even doze off that long.

The article does say the cyclist was riding on the shoulder. Not a wide shoulder, but adequate for a bike. And, most vehicles just need to scoot over slightly to pass safely.

I'm a huge fan of flashing rear lights. You want the cars to know that a bike is on the road.

You know you are victim blaming when you add that to your post. I have cycle commuted at all hours day and night on roads worse than that. With lights, I found I was safer at night. Lower traffic than rush hour, lights visible from farther away, these days texting is as reckless as drunk driving.

They have the car on video, I assume they also have he cyclist on video.

Lights?

Clothing?

So much is left out of these articles.

You see it as victim blaming, and of course that's the easy and intellectually dishonest route. I see his comments as advocating for risk mitigation through avoidance when practicable.

The double solid yellow means no passing either direction. There are actual signs that tell you no passing.

Excellent point. There really aren't alternative routes for the bike commuter in a rural area like this one, and if the distance is too great for walking, car is not an option, and definitely no public transit, riding a bike is the only option for the victim.

It looks like from the video that the bike had a small rear light, but whether it was on or not, who knows. Very few details indeed.

No, I added that to my post because there are some here who are quick to accuse others of blaming the victim. :rolleyes: You just proved my point.:thumb:

Exactly what my intent was.

It's an unfortunate incident. And I do feel for the victim. Perhaps the cyclist had no other choice than to ride during that time and on that particular road. Maybe a better light or brighter/reflective clothing might have given the driver more warning. But maybe not, because if the driver was distracted it wouldn't have made any difference.

Every time I hear/read about a cyclist fatality I want to know the circumstances and all the details under which the incident occurred, because I want to know how the outcome could have been different if he had done some thing different. Learning from what others have done will hopefully make me safer in the long run. It's the reason I posted the incident in the first place, and not to say that it was the cyclist's fault for getting hit and that if he'd done this or that he wouldn't have been hit, though I know that's how some of you will interpret it. So whatever...:rolleyes:

Most people saw your post for just what it was. There are those who can't help but try to find conflict. I hope they catch and punish the POS driver. Unfortunately we rarely learn enough details in bike accidents to take anything of value away from them.

The media coverage of the incident, and probably a healthy dose of guilt, did somehow convince the driver to turn himself in to police. No news of whether or not charges are being laid, but I would think that at the very least he'd be charged with leaving the scene, but I think it should be much more severe.

If he was not victim blaming he would have suggested the use of lights (better lights) or a possible different route if available as risk mitigation. But when he jumps right in "is no place to ride your bike" moves him into the victim blaming.

Your demand that you are not victim blaming when you have no idea what options the cyclist had and making a flat statement "is no place to ride your bike", rather than 'I would not ride my bike there' proves my point.👍

That's a typical stupid Ontario gravel shoulder. F that. Looks like maybe 13 feet pave, counting the 2 outside the line.

0:21-0:24 in the video. His light was on.

-mr. bill

That would be those roads that are marked NO BICYCLES?

Dude, if you're going to use quotes, then quote verbatim. My exact words were "I've just learned over the years that there are some roads that you should never ride on." But you seem hell-bent on accusing me of blaming the victim regardless of context, which again, proves my point. Consider yourself ignored.

I've ridden on roads with NO BICYCLE signs, but only briefly, and perfectly safe.

If I had to on a stretch of road such as the one where the cyclist was hit I might even ride the gravel shoulder as an alternative. It'd certainly give me a bit more margin of safety. Victim did appear to have an older style 10-speed road bike, so perhaps not the most ideal tires for riding on gravel.

Those would be rather easy to figure out--my list of no goes is a little longer than that, especially at night. With a combination of high car speeds, no shoulder and/or bad pavement, I don't feel like lights are enough protection. YMMV.

Yes, normally true. But from the map above, it looks like the road would hardly justify a double line.

Straight as an arrow, flat as a pancake. Nothing obstructing visibility, and not a lot of driveways.

In the video clips, there does, however, appear to be a fair amount of traffic.

Thanks,

I didn't see the video initially.

It does appear to be a rather small and dim light.

We really need some new Federal standards for lighting.

Perhaps there has been the idea for some time has been that anything is better than nothing. But, really, there are some quite good lights for not too much.

I also prefer rechargeable. So there is no temptation to let the battery run dry.

Nope. The government does quite enough, thank you. if a rider chooses to run a cheezy and nearly useless light ... what, cops should issue tickets? Jail riders who don't meet the standard? Police forces should all buy new detectors to measure actual on-site lumens?

There are so many really good and fairly cheap lights out there ... anyone who doesn't have one isn't trying. And if the law required lights of a certain brightness ... then people too poor to buy them would get busted and fined. Considering how many lights are made overseas and imported by small businesses (likely some guy with a big garage and a little initiative) or sold on EBay, etc., by overseas vendors ... enforcement would be a nightmare.

No doubt enforcement would be a nightmare.

But, a 1 lumen taillight and a 1000 lumen taillight are both equally inappropriate.

And, when that battery drains on that 1 lumen taillight, down to 1/4 lumen?

Or the battery drains on that 1000 lumen taillight, and so it suddenly blinks OFF. :eek:

In theory DOT is supposed to inspect vehicle lighting, tires, trailers, etc. And, at least reputable dealers will sell DOT approved equipment.

At the moment, we lack anything for manufacturers or consumers to decide what is acceptable.

Actually, the regulation are already in place, and you don't need a tail light (not in CA anyway). A red reflector is all that is required (or light), but its measured by visibility (500 ft.).

So you see, all new bikes sold will meet the state requirements for after dark riding -- except for the headlight.

So long as the Car has headlights, there is no excuse to hit anything in front of the car.

At least, not on a straight, flat road.