Thursday's headlines - Spacing Toronto

In “Kill a cyclist, pay $110”, it gets better. The hard some motorists, TTC drivers and police have for lawfully riding cyclists is homicidal. Yes, I too have unendingly been reminded about lawless cyclists who blow stops and reds and fail to signal but not at a rate above that of the motorholic public. So what gives? Why do bus, streetcar, truck and other drivers insist on passing when there is no room? When I’m doing the speed of the vehicle in front of me and allow a healthy following space considering it will hurt more for me when I go splat? What justifies their gamble on MY life?
The drivers handbook is clear in stating one should give at least a meter.
The HTA is also clear in stating bicyclists have elective use of the lane:
147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a driver of a,

(a) vehicle while overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

(b) vehicle while preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or

I see no definition of “practicable” in the HTA so assume that to mean “where safe to do so”. Mr Mercedes droptop pudknocker who polished his fender on my leg last Sunday on Lakeshore then pointed at the sidewalk while hiking his britches back up can take a hike.

Unfortunately recruiting police support remains an issue. I was hit from behind July 27 2007. From the investigating officer’s memobook notes (PC Ali Rashid #9497) it is clear he was called to a situation where a “cyclist” was “struck”. That cyclist was unconscious at the time so could not have made the call unless he was faking it. Considering the injuries that is improbable. Considering the sites and nature of the injuries, the investigating officer’s conclusion the bicyclist “fell” is absurd unless one considers they fell on the provocation of a motor vehicle bumper.

Hello. Newton’s laws are pretty clear. If you hit a can in the road you would not fall on your back. Evidently investigation and physics aren’t strengths of member of traffic. WTF?

One comment

geoffrey

16 years ago

In “Kill a cyclist, pay $110”, it gets better. The hard some motorists, TTC drivers and police have for lawfully riding cyclists is homicidal. Yes, I too have unendingly been reminded about lawless cyclists who blow stops and reds and fail to signal but not at a rate above that of the motorholic public. So what gives? Why do bus, streetcar, truck and other drivers insist on passing when there is no room? When I’m doing the speed of the vehicle in front of me and allow a healthy following space considering it will hurt more for me when I go splat? What justifies their gamble on MY life?
The drivers handbook is clear in stating one should give at least a meter.
The HTA is also clear in stating bicyclists have elective use of the lane:
147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a driver of a,

(a) vehicle while overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

(b) vehicle while preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or

(c) road service vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (2).

I see no definition of “practicable” in the HTA so assume that to mean “where safe to do so”. Mr Mercedes droptop pudknocker who polished his fender on my leg last Sunday on Lakeshore then pointed at the sidewalk while hiking his britches back up can take a hike.

Unfortunately recruiting police support remains an issue. I was hit from behind July 27 2007. From the investigating officer’s memobook notes (PC Ali Rashid #9497) it is clear he was called to a situation where a “cyclist” was “struck”. That cyclist was unconscious at the time so could not have made the call unless he was faking it. Considering the injuries that is improbable. Considering the sites and nature of the injuries, the investigating officer’s conclusion the bicyclist “fell” is absurd unless one considers they fell on the provocation of a motor vehicle bumper.

Hello. Newton’s laws are pretty clear. If you hit a can in the road you would not fall on your back. Evidently investigation and physics aren’t strengths of member of traffic. WTF?