Toronto Escorts

hit and run of cyclist.... in mississauga

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,076
58
48
hornyville
The cyclist was probably stoned.

The street view shows two barriers for bicycles on both sides of the path. They are there to make a cyclist slow down to navigate this area. After the barrier, the cyclist is only going about 10 km/hr, not fast at all.

The distance to cross that on ramp is only 1 second on a bicycle when going slow. Yet in the video the cyclist lingered on the on ramp for 2 or 3 seconds.

What is bizarre is the cyclist was heading in the direction towards the car, head to head. How did the cycle did not the see the car is strange. The car had right of way.

1 car. 1 cyclist. If there is an accident, then they suck! Here the cyclist probably sucked on one to many joints before heading out.

:pizza:
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
First off, the video shows the car on the ramp before the cyclist and second, as a cyclist, I sure as hell expect cars to do stupid things and am prepared for it.

The street view should help the discussion.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5675...4!1sOtxCQSrYmQOk3VdPJWdQFQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I checked StreetView some time ago. Move the camera and you'll see the yellow sign warning drivers there is a crossing ahead, and the 30kph sign — that's school zone speed. The driver entered the ramp abruptly at full speed, without signalling, ignored both signs, and failed to take any action that can be seen on the video to avoid the collision.

When I drive and when I bike, I expect anyone and everyone I share the road with may do something stupid at any moment. I try to pay even more attention to those who are not yet in my roadway, entering is the stupidest time of all (it's when people calmly drive out of parking spaces without signalling f'rinstance). Every driver is explicitly required to be that alert under the law, because they are required to do everything possible not to hit stupid cyclists and pedestrians, who are not protected in steel boxes with airbags and retaining straps as they are.

This driver did none of the above, hit their victim, then drove away. No excuses.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
?????????

You do get that bike lanes make a place for cyclists to be instead of sharing the lanes with cars right?
Explaining the obvious, again.

Bike lanes have increased bike traffic on busy roads which previously most cyclists recognized were not safe to cycle on. In some cases, unfamiliar and counterintuitive right of way rules have been created which are confusing for motorists, particularly those who don't regularly travel on such roads. Add to that the fact that MANY cyclists don't follow the rules of the road (cross against red lights, ride between traffic lanes, etc.), and it's a recipe for disaster.

I personally witness a vehicle/bike collision on average once per week during the summer months at a particular intersection of a bike path and a roadway, and it's all because of: a) poor visibility for vehicle drivers of bike path traffic in one direction from one of the roads at the intersection, b) a lack of awareness by drivers that cars turning right onto the connecting road (it's a "T" intersection) have to yield to cyclists who are travelling across the road to continue on the bike bath (a rather stupid traffic rule, but it is marked with minimal signage), and c) cyclists that ride carelessly (often overtaking other cyclists through the intersection) at high speed, oblivious to 1) and 2).
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
The cyclist was probably stoned.

The street view shows two barriers for bicycles on both sides of the path. They are there to make a cyclist slow down to navigate this area. After the barrier, the cyclist is only going about 10 km/hr, not fast at all.

The distance to cross that on ramp is only 1 second on a bicycle when going slow. Yet in the video the cyclist lingered on the on ramp for 2 or 3 seconds.

What is bizarre is the cyclist was heading in the direction towards the car, head to head. How did the cycle did not the see the car is strange. The car had right of way.

1 car. 1 cyclist. If there is an accident, then they suck! Here the cyclist probably sucked on one to many joints before heading out.

:pizza:
That doesn't describe what I saw, and which of the people involve was stoned will likely never be known.

However: If it was a head-on collision, the driver's fault and failure is unchanged; there's no sign they took any action to avoid the hit, which they should have seen coming at an even earlier distance, than if the cyclist suddenly darted onto the road from the side. The law puts the onus on them to establish they could not have braked or swerved as they are required to. The fact that they stopped after the hit, then drove rapidly away, suggest they weren't the type to care much what the law said about responsibility or proper driving.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,770
17,582
113
That doesn't describe what I saw, and which of the people involve was stoned will likely never be known.

However: If it was a head-on collision, the driver's fault and failure is unchanged; there's no sign they took any action to avoid the hit, which they should have seen coming at an even earlier distance, than if the cyclist suddenly darted onto the road from the side. The law puts the onus on them to establish they could not have braked or swerved as they are required to. The fact that they stopped after the hit, then drove rapidly away, suggest they weren't the type to care much what the law said about responsibility or proper driving.
And regardless of who's fault the initial accident was, and likely it was both and the city for poor signage, the driver is very much guilty of hit and run and should pay heavily for that.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Looking at the site of the collision on Streetview, it seems that the gates are placed such that it would be difficult to navigate them without slowing to a crawl or dismounting. The very speed that the bicyclist was traveling at the time of the collision indicates that he had swerved around the gate on his side of the ramp. I'm reminded of the traffic safety campaign of many moons ago, with the tag line "Don't be right, dead right."

That said the leaving the scene of a personal injury collision is an entirely different matter.
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
I checked StreetView some time ago. Move the camera and you'll see the yellow sign warning drivers there is a crossing ahead, and the 30kph sign — that's school zone speed. The driver entered the ramp abruptly at full speed, without signalling, ignored both signs, and failed to take any action that can be seen on the video to avoid the collision.

When I drive and when I bike, I expect anyone and everyone I share the road with may do something stupid at any moment. I try to pay even more attention to those who are not yet in my roadway, entering is the stupidest time of all (it's when people calmly drive out of parking spaces without signalling f'rinstance). Every driver is explicitly required to be that alert under the law, because they are required to do everything possible not to hit stupid cyclists and pedestrians, who are not protected in steel boxes with airbags and retaining straps as they are.

This driver did none of the above, hit their victim, then drove away. No excuses.
I live just south of that intersection. A lot of misinformation posted by several Terbites. There is indeed a yellow crossing warning, but the 30kph sign is the ramp speed. I don't know how you judged the driver was at "full speed" as I doubt they were moving all that quick, nor do I see how Polaris can judge someone was stoned. Technically you don't have to signal when using that ramp as it's a continuation of the right hand turn the driver was making (their signal may have turned off after executing the turn). How do you know they ignored both signs?

If you look at the street view you will notice no bushes, etc. to block views. The direction that the cyclists came from is not obscured in any way with sight lines of 200+ meters meaning the drive had 5+ seconds to notice the bicycler even if the biker was at full speed going down the slight hill under the bridge.

If you look closely in Street View you will notice there is a little path bypassing the barriers and crosses the street well before the proper crossing point - this could be a big contributing factor IMO - I wonder if the biker crossed the street not at the crossing (can't tell from that poor video). https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5677...4!1sN9tsmYrUlsa1Y0mICw7S8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Regardless the bicycler had the right of way and the driver should have stopped. There is OPP station 100 feet to the right of the intersection.

Now I'm going to say something very politically incorrect and do some of my own guessing: That area is affluent/expensive and a certain culture is buying into the neighbourhood big-time. As a result there is a lot of new-to-Canada inexperienced drivers and there is been a marked increase to accidents and other traffic-type problems in the area. Traffic has really increased and the traffic interchange is an old school design. I get cut-off all the time, people drive through yellow/reds .... it's crazy.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I live just south of that intersection. A lot of misinformation posted by several Terbites. There is indeed a yellow crossing warning, but the 30kph sign is the ramp speed. I don't know how you judged the driver was at "full speed" as I doubt they were moving all that quick, nor do I see how Polaris can judge someone was stoned. Technically you don't have to signal when using that ramp as it's a continuation of the right hand turn the driver was making (their signal may have turned off after executing the turn). How do you know they ignored both signs?

If you look at the street view you will notice no bushes, etc. to block views. The direction that the cyclists came from is not obscured in any way with sight lines of 200+ meters meaning the drive had 5+ seconds to notice the bicycler even if the biker was at full speed going down the slight hill under the bridge.

If you look closely in Street View you will notice there is a little path bypassing the barriers and crosses the street well before the proper crossing point - this could be a big contributing factor IMO - I wonder if the biker crossed the street not at the crossing (can't tell from that poor video). https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5677...4!1sN9tsmYrUlsa1Y0mICw7S8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Regardless the bicycler had the right of way and the driver should have stopped. There is OPP station 100 feet to the right of the intersection.

Now I'm going to say something very politically incorrect and do some of my own guessing: That area is affluent/expensive and a certain culture is buying into the neighbourhood big-time. As a result there is a lot of new-to-Canada inexperienced drivers and there is been a marked increase to accidents and other traffic-type problems in the area. Traffic has really increased and the traffic interchange is an old school design. I get cut-off all the time, people drive through yellow/reds .... it's crazy.
Thanks for all that detail, and your own on-site info. It confirms much that's been said and makes it more clear and apparent.

Responding to the bits addressed to me, about speed, signalling and ignoring the signage: I judged the speed of the VW as more than the posted ramp speed because I saw no sign of any slowing or braking anywhere from the Service road until the impact, and because the change of direction onto the ramp from Hurontario seemed a clear and clumsy swerve. If anything, the car accelerated afterwards. So I assumed a standard 50kph from what I saw. We could do time and distance calculation as it passed landmarks, but I don't think it merits the effort.

Nor is there evidence that they heeded the Pedestrian Crossing sign any better than the ramp speed sign. And, the legal onus is on drivers to actually establish how they did heeding and such if they are asked, following an accident for instance. The accident is taken as prima facie evidence they did not, as the more accurate term is avoidable collision.

I saw no sign the VW ever signalled the turn off the Service Road entering Hurontario, where they definitely were required to signal. Used properly their turn signal should have stayed on until they straightened their steering wheel, a little before they swerved jerkily to the right to go up the ramp. Again without signalling. If they never straightened, making one long turn as you suggest, the signal should have stayed on all the way until the car left frame. Whether that is one long left, or two as I think doesn't change a driver's legal responsibility to see that every change of direction is properly signalled, and there's no evidence of that anywhere.

The Satellite pix make it abundantly clear that the awful bike/pedestrian crossing is just one part of a terribly designed intersection, partly because as you noted the turn out of the Service Road to go north, is the same as the turn onto the ramp if you are already going north. Cars exiting Hurontario to use the QEW use the same short lane as those entering Hurontario and trying not to be forced onto the QEW instead. All the more reason to shift the Service Rd. to the South and separate Exit and Entrance by enough room to manage safe crossovers, but that's a different issue, for Mrs. Sauga's people to take up.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
I checked StreetView some time ago. Move the camera and you'll see the yellow sign warning drivers there is a crossing ahead,....
A pedestrian crossing and bikes are legally considered vehicles. There is absolutely no indication anywhere up and down the street that the sidewalk is meant for anything other than just pedestrians so it is highly likely that the cyclist was violating Mississauga bylaws.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
Explaining the obvious, again.

Bike lanes have increased bike traffic on busy roads which previously most cyclists recognized were not safe to cycle on. In some cases, unfamiliar and counterintuitive right of way rules have been created which are confusing for motorists, particularly those who don't regularly travel on such roads. Add to that the fact that MANY cyclists don't follow the rules of the road (cross against red lights, ride between traffic lanes, etc.), and it's a recipe for disaster.
...
None of which have anything to do with bike lanes. I agree that bikes and cars sharing the road (as under the HTA) present a problem. Bike lanes reduce that problem because it gives each type of vehicle a place to be where the other isn't. Yes intersections are still a place where both will interact but bike lanes, especially separated ones reduce the amount of interaction.

And yes, cyclists tend to violate the HTA more often than drivers but the solution is for police to enforce the laws, not to eliminate the thing that reduces contact between the two.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Why are you unable to admit the same applies to the cyclist?
Really? No one else has asked me that, so I haven't said. I will now: If it was a head on collision, the cyclist would have been travelling in a prohibited direction on a ramp with signs prohibiting that type of vehicle. Although the onus would still be on the driver to prove they weren't negligent (that's in the HTA), and there is no sign they took any action to avoid impact, the cyclists clear fault would weigh in any determination of blame.

However there is no evidence it was head-on. As I have said earlier, it is my opinion that the cyclist arrived at the uncontrolled intersection before the car, which the HTA says entitles them to proceed before the car, and requires the car to yield. That's the case when any two vehicles arrive at an intersection without stop signs or traffic signals. I based my opinion on what appears in the video to be the car-front striking the cyclist broadside, throwing them up and over the hood onto the road. To me that is evidence the cyclist arrived at the intersection and began to cross before the car got there.

I'll certainly admit the cyclist has the same overall responsibility as the motorist to avoid collision even if they are proceeding lawfully. But with the car blocking our view and nothing like brakelights on a bike we armchair-types can't say whether they did or didn't. In any case, with a clear RoW, the cyclist had nothing to avoid, until it became apparent the car intended to ignore the intersection. Split seconds. In the video, the car is in clear view, and its brake-lights never came on, nor did it slow for the intersection or swerve to avoid the impact.

So whether or not the cyclist did or didn't dodge in the last split seconds, there is no evidence the car did, and the driver's fault and failure is unchanged.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
Really? No one else has asked me that, so I haven't said. I will now: If it was a head on collision, ...
According to the video, the driver was in the ramp lane while the cyclist was travelling south on the sidewalk (before avoiding the speed control barriers and not using the pedestrian crossing). The cyclist also had time to see the car, was travelling faster than they should have and did not enter the 'intersection' where they should have. The cyclist was as much a cause of the crash as the driver.

And your "uncontrolled intersection" argument has absolutely no basis. There is no indication that the sidewalk is anything other than a sidewalk (mississauga by-laws prohibit adult bikes on the sidewalk) and the ramp having a PEDESTRIAN crossing. To add, there is no signage saying that cars are to yield to pedestrians.

The cyclist put themselves at risk and the cyclist is responsible for that. The car is responsible for possibly speeding and more importantly leaving the scene.

Having been a frequent city cyclist (occasional now), it bothers me how many reckless or ignorant cyclists there are as it gives drivers an excuse to pretend we're all the same.
 

Promo

Active member
Jan 10, 2009
2,480
0
36
According to the video, the driver was in the ramp lane while the cyclist was travelling south on the sidewalk (before avoiding the speed control barriers and not using the pedestrian crossing). The cyclist also had time to see the car, was travelling faster than they should have and did not enter the 'intersection' where they should have. The cyclist was as much a cause of the crash as the driver.

And your "uncontrolled intersection" argument has absolutely no basis. There is no indication that the sidewalk is anything other than a sidewalk (mississauga by-laws prohibit adult bikes on the sidewalk) and the ramp having a PEDESTRIAN crossing. To add, there is no signage saying that cars are to yield to pedestrians.

The cyclist put themselves at risk and the cyclist is responsible for that. The car is responsible for possibly speeding and more importantly leaving the scene.

Having been a frequent city cyclist (occasional now), it bothers me how many reckless or ignorant cyclists there are as it gives drivers an excuse to pretend we're all the same.
There is a pedestrian crossing sign ~15m before the crossing, you can see it in this view https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5674...4!1syyGOaCQIsqj1qH6O9eXvMA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Why would the city install speed control barriers, pedestrians don't need them and they are ~3-4m before the actual crossing. What function do they serve?

I verified basketcase is correct, it's illegal to ride adult-sized bikes on sidewalks and crosswalks. Although on really busy sections in this area, I'd guess 80% of bikers shift to the sidewalks anyway.

You'd have to get out of your car and watch that intersection to see for yourself, but that area is crazy. Lots of cars and bad drivers, always busy, people speed-up on that ramp even though there is a tight right turn onto the highway, many people don't signal, people illegally drive down the middle lane and cut into the right ramp lane in the middle of the intersection (aggressive driving or if people are turning right at S. Service Road), lots of kids on bikes (there is a school right there and another one 2 blocks south). Lots of distracted drivers (amazing me how many people think it's okay to use their phone at an intersection) and lots of new drivers in the area (many young kids and recent immigrants).

My cop friend still says the onus is on the car driver if he could have reasonably foreseen and avoided the accident, but this doesn't guarantee the driver a ticket/blame. Doesn't mean the biker isn't also at fault. He hasn't seen the video so he's only talking generalities.

No updates in the news.

So .... other than the hit and run part ...... I'm starting to think that both are at fault.
 
Last edited:

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
According to the video, the driver was in the ramp lane while the cyclist was travelling south on the sidewalk (before avoiding the speed control barriers and not using the pedestrian crossing). The cyclist also had time to see the car, was travelling faster than they should have and did not enter the 'intersection' where they should have. The cyclist was as much a cause of the crash as the driver.

And your "uncontrolled intersection" argument has absolutely no basis. There is no indication that the sidewalk is anything other than a sidewalk (mississauga by-laws prohibit adult bikes on the sidewalk) and the ramp having a PEDESTRIAN crossing. To add, there is no signage saying that cars are to yield to pedestrians.

The cyclist put themselves at risk and the cyclist is responsible for that. The car is responsible for possibly speeding and more importantly leaving the scene.

Having been a frequent city cyclist (occasional now), it bothers me how many reckless or ignorant cyclists there are as it gives drivers an excuse to pretend we're all the same.
I'm sorry we've been through each of those points earlier in this thread and the similar one in the lounge. Most are matters of judgment and open to debate, but you are factually wrong about the pedestrian only path; The City specifically designates it as a combined bicycle pedestrian path, which makes it legal for the cyclist to ride on it and to cross intersections riding, absent any rules or signs saying otherwise. Sadly that entirely political point was addressed by several posters in the apolitical Lounge, not here.

There is indeed a yellow sign warning of pedestrians crossing. Cars are always required to 'yield' to pedestrians rather than strike them, and there is no reasonable excuse for not heeding a prominent yellow sign and preparing yourself to do that as you move (improperly, without signalling and at too high a speed) the impeded vision area of your turn. That's why there's a sign.

I have no hesitation granting you that "The cyclist put themselves at risk and the cyclist is responsible for that". Cyclists do that every time they mount up to share the road with cars, the few that are driven competently and with concern for safety, and the many more that are driven as carelessly as this one.

But the cyclists assumption of risk doen't make this driver any less responsible for the accident they did everything to cause and nothing to avoid.

Scramming afterwards was entirely in character.
 
Toronto Escorts