Daniel4

The first road fatality of 2022 in Toronto is-you guessed it- by a driver- against a pedestrian crossing at an intersection.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/01/07/torontos-first-traffic-fatality-of-the-year-follows-a-tragically-familiar-pattern.html

The 2020 fatalities took a 27% dip with a 46% drop in serious injuries when so many cars stayed off the road due to work from home and lockdowns.

2021 when restrictions were lifted, fatalities and injuries rose back to pre-pandemic levels.

livedarklions

I'm sorry a pedestrian got killed, but this is a forum for bicycle safety and advocacy, not "cars are bad". This incident doesn't illustrate anything we don't already know about cars in cities.

​​​​​​

Daniel4

Road safety is directly related to bad driving.
And that has an impact on cycling and the type of policy, enforcement or infrastructure required.

livedarklions

Any purpose served by this preaching to the choir? What's the limit on it? Are we going to start a thread every time someone somewhere publishes a news story about someone getting hit by a car?


Hopefully, this won't turn into a "debate" with someone trying to torture the news story to indicate that the pedestrian was at fault for not being "situationally aware" or whatever. That kind of unpleasantness is way too frequent in this forum.

I think your intentions are good, but you know what they say about the road to hell. These threads just get dark and ugly because they always follow the same pattern:
A. Story about person getting killed.
B. Argument about what the driver was or wasn't doing.
C. Someone claiming "this wouldn't happen to me because" I do something so much better than the victim.
D. Someone pointing out that they have no idea whether what they do is actually better or even different from what the victim was doing.
E. Person claiming it wouldn't have happened to them making accusations right and left about how bad we all are and how bad most pedestrians are and how we're all asking to get hit by a car.
F. Back to B-E.

work4bike

This video is a little over 5-years old and I don't know how representative it is of cycling in Toronto, but it does not look good just from what's shown on the video. There were many cases I saw where I know I would have taken the lane.

I-Like-To-Bike

Most of the near collisions were examples of very dangerous and foolish cycling technique - especially overtaking on the right of numerous cars, buses, and taxis that are already signalling right turns, even passing a stopped taxi while it was discharging a passenger; lane splitting, and numerous other Jackass style reckless cycling. The close approach to vehicles that were already clearly making left turns in intersections and driveways are some more dopey maneuvers by the hot shot cyclist.

I wonder if that video represents the cycling technique of the Canadian posters always commenting on the danger to cyclists of bad driving.

ntvu02

Somewhat still relevant today but that cyclist seemed to be a bit aggressive.

twistgrip

I agree that this cyclist's video does not raise much sympathy from me . If a vehicle driver does me the favor of using right turn signals, I'll move over and pass on the left.

Lostin76

We’ve just hit 12 in NYC for the year - one freaking month! Cars can do what they want and the NYPD doesn’t care. Be careful out there.

Riveting

It's not mentioned in the linked article "who" was at fault, the ped who was possibly jaywalking or crossing without a signal, or the driver possibly running a yellow/red light?

Some day when ALL vehicles are REQUIRED BY LAW to have sensors that detect cyclists, peds, and other cars ahead, the death counts will drop significantly, possibly close to zero. Until then, trust NO vehicle coming towards you.

livedarklions

​​​​​​Who was at fault in that incident has absolutely nothing to do with the purposes of this forum. It informs absolutely nothing about bicycling safety or advocacy.

Please don't bump this thread again, it never should've been started.

work4bike

This Toronto cop must have really pissed off one of his superiors

Daniel4

We're glad you're keeping it active.


Update: 2 pedestrians now. 0 cyclists.

Daniel4

Nowadays, he's probably occupied with another bunch of motorist, Trucker Protestors disrupting and causing road blockages for everybody.

UniChris

If we're going to complain when drivers intrude in cycling spaces, then it's only fair to take restrictions on cycling in pedestrian spaces seriously, too.

This was (emphasis on the past tense) a spot where the waterfront path was squeezed between the road an an inlet ("slip") such that there wasn't room for both walking and cycling routes. So they made it a very brief dismount zone - not ideal, but fairly logical thinking.

The thing is, that the issue has already been resolved by building a new section of walking path over the water. There is no longer a dismount zone there today.

At present, if you get onto streetview earlier on the path you can follow it through a set of 2017 imagery taken on the path itself which shows the the old configuration, while if you try to jump directly in at Dan Leckie you get road-based imagery that shows the current solution with a cycling path and a walking path continuing side by side.

(As for the report at the top of the thread, details soon emerged - the pedestrian is seen on video crossing a busy road in between two intersections with pedestrian lights that are about 500 feet apart, the driver was identified, arrested three days later and charged - not with the collision, but with failing to stop at the scene)

work4bike

No complaints here, just sharing a funny video...those crazy Torontoites or is it Torontonians...

Daniel4

There are never any signs telling motorists to get out and push their cars through pedestrian crosswalks. And we all know, there are way more driver/pedestrians collisions than cyclist/ pedestrian collisions.

And thanks for the update to the story.

UniChris

Nor are there any signs telling cyclists to dismount for crosswalks.

This wasn't a crosswalk, it was 50 meters of sidewalk - emphasis on the "-walk"

We don't let drivers drive on sidewalks, either.

When scaled by bike vs car miles that's certainly false.

What is true is that most bike/ped crashes are survived with minor, if any injury, only those with serious injuries getting reported.

But intimidating, illegal behavior is a serious human rights issue even in the majority of cases where it doesn't result in any physical injury or even contact. No one should ever have to experience fear in a pedestrian-only space.

There were plenty of reports of cyclist barreling through this pedestrian-only space and demanding that the pedestrians - the only mode actually allowed there - get out of the way of the scofflaw cyclists.

Daniel4

The same is true of motorists racing their left or right turns just as pedestrians get their lights and step off the curb.

UniChris

But what about... cars?

One wrong doesn't excuse another. All issues are issues, individually, and in the total experience

twistgrip

Every once-in-a-while I get visions of a possibly better future with self-driving cars. I hope for, at least, a general return of the turn signal.

Daniel4

Correct.

But this thread is about a pedestrian killed by a motorist.

I just returned from a month and a half visit with my 86 year old mother in Vancouver. As a pedestrian, I can tell you ( but probably don't to get into details) about a few incidences with both ebikes and motorists. Ebikes are just annoying but motorists are dangerous.

It was many years ago in another debate in another forum, I searched and searched for pedestrian death statistics due to collisions with cyclists. Maybe it's changed now but what I found back then, there's like one pedestrian death in five years. Compare that to pedestrian deaths due to motorists. In Toronto, we're looking at an average of 33 per year average pre-pandemic (range from 24 to 44). In 2020, it dropped to 21. In 2019 it was 39. In 2021, when restrictions started lifting, it went back up to 27. So far for 2022, it's 2 in two months. That's a good rate but I doubt it'll be held low.

UniChris

It's unfortunate that you've made this false claim, as it means that something it would be nicer not to have to say, now has to be said to correct that falsehood.

This thread is about a situation where a pedestrian was seen on video crossing a major roadway in an unsafe and illegal manner in between the designated, signal protected crosswalks at intersections, and also offered mid-block east of the collision site. Contrary to the false media claim repeated in your original posting, the collision did not occur at "an intersection"

Society has laws to prevent this type of death, and the person who violated them was not the "motorist".

You could perhaps say they were killed by the "motor vehicle" (vs its driver), but just as in the usual criticism that such a statement ignores the human element, saying so ignores who's decision actually lead to the collision.

That the motorist then fled was an illegal action, for which they can be and were charged. But they were not charged with the crash, because they are not the party who caused it.

If you don't want to end up reading the facts about what actually happened, don't create posts based on preliminary, incorrect claims, and don't attempt to assign blame on the basis of political bias at odds with the facts.

Daniel4

You have also made the statement that the controlled intersections were 500 feet apart. To some people, that's a really far distance to walk to and then turn to get to a destination just in front from where he started. That's bad road design and progressive urban planners take into account "lines of desire" where people define where they should walk instead of being forced by faulty design.

Regardless, a driver with a valid licence should have been taught to expect the unexpected. I certainly remember that film footage showing little kids running into the road chasing after his ball and the motorist stopping for him. A good school would still teach that and just because these things happen, does not or should not absolve the driver from any responsibility. Because, the bottom line is, with the acceptance of the driver's licence comes the accepted responsibility of handling a deadly machine.

Have a look at vintage videos on youtube of some major cities around 1910. On major roads, we see tram cars, horse and buggies, cars on the road but also pedestrians walking all over the place. I looked but could not find any kind of pedestrian fatality statistics for that time. My guess is that fatalities jumped when pedestrians were moved off the roads and motor vehicles were allowed to go faster. Humans had been walking all over the roads for several thousand years. And now it's illegal because cars want to go fast and straight turning drivers into zombies.

It's a shame the driver was not charged with the collision. Failure to pay attention ( if that's a thing). Another indiction that bad driving is an acceptable norm.

When self-driving cars get on the road, we expect this kind of situation to reduce because where drivers don't pay attention, sensors and detectors should.

UniChris

There are limitations to such expectation. Someone illegally crossing a major 6-lane roadway long after dark on a winter's night is not really within the realm of ordinary expectation.

Certainly, a driver is expected to do their best to avoid a collision.

But when one party does something off the wall reckless, it's not a given that others are going to be able to sufficiently react.

Indeed, have a look at the collision location on streetview, and tell us you believe it's a reasonable decision to try to cross the six lanes of traffic outside of the designated, signal protected crosswalks.

There is this concept called the "rule of law" which includes some basics like not charging one person for an entirely unconnected persons' failure to follow the law.

The driver was charged for their own illegal action, leaving the scene.