Yes the driver should have stopped but WTF was the cyclist thinking.....
https://twitter.com/i/status/1009910043813302272
https://twitter.com/i/status/1009910043813302272
It also looks like 3 cars ran a red light
The last minute change is a problem, but that ramp is to be crossed with caution. Any idea is they can image enhance that plate?That is a busy on-ramp with a two-way cycle path and no signage at all.
In the cyclist's defence, the driver did make a last minute, accelerated lane change that the cyclist could not have stopped in time.
By the same poster. Guess he wasn't getting enough attention there.Just so folks are aware, there's an earlier thread in Politics on this same topic....
Someone who doesn't like cyclists as well I assume. Maybe wants more backing on his opinion.By the same poster. Guess he wasn't getting enough attention there.
Some are too busy staring at their phones a bunch of idiotsI don't believe this 100 % on the car - although they clearly are in the wrong.
Fact is though that is not a proper place to cross whether it's a pedestrian or a cyclist.
Fact also - I've noticed for years now that NO ONE looks before they cross a street anymore.
Some pedestrians get hit because they have NO common sense and failed Elmer safety class in school .
I don't believe that's accurate. I just found the ramp on google maps to get a clear idea of what exactly is going on. That's an unsignalized crossing. Isn't the cyclist legally obligated to stop and ensure it's safe to cross?The car was wrong. 100%. It is a crossing and he didn't yield to the cyclist who had the right of way. Then the Asshole drives off. Because they knew it was their fault.
If the victim is partially or fully at fault, it's completely fine to assign blame to the victim. Obviously it would be in bad taste to do so in front of the family, especially at the loved one's funeral. But that's not the case here. We're on an anonymous board debating the legality of the situation.I truly hope none of you lose a person to an accident like this. I am sure at the loved ones funeral you will be sure to tell everyone how the loved one was at fault. The cyclist had the right of way. EOD.
I love victim blaming on a rain Sunday. Shows how society has not grown but at least my flowers will today.
I would have to look at the ramp but from my understanding of what I read, the cyclist had the right of way.I don't believe that's accurate. I just found the ramp on google maps to get a clear idea of what exactly is going on. That's an unsignalized crossing. Isn't the cyclist legally obligated to stop and ensure it's safe to cross?
I imagine the asshole driver drove off because they panicked.
If the victim is partially or fully at fault, it's completely fine to assign blame to the victim. Obviously it would be in bad taste to do so in front of the family, especially at the loved one's funeral. But that's not the case here. We're on an anonymous board debating the legality of the situation.
Intersections without signs or signals are called Uncontrolled Intersections and are covered in the HTA and the Driver's Handbook that we all studied for our Licenses: The vehicle that arrives at, and enters the intersection first has the right of way, the later vehicle must slow or stop for the earlier vehicle. No one is required to stop before entering. If the cyclist arrived later than the car, they would have T-boned the driver's side, not been struck by the front of the car and thrown over the hood. Isn't a cyclist a vehicle?I don't believe that's accurate. I just found the ramp on google maps to get a clear idea of what exactly is going on. That's an unsignalized crossing. Isn't the cyclist legally obligated to stop and ensure it's safe to cross?…
I didn't study any handbook for my license. Mind you, I failed the test at least twice. To this day I have no idea what's in the handbook but it sounds like an interesting read.Intersections without signs or signals are called Uncontrolled Intersections and are covered in the HTA and the Driver's Handbook that we all studied for our Licenses: The vehicle that arrives at, and enters the intersection first has the right of way, the later vehicle must slow or stop for the earlier vehicle. No one is required to stop before entering. If the cyclist arrived later than the car, they would have T-boned the driver's side, not been struck by the front of the car and thrown over the hood. Isn't a cyclist a vehicle?
The City of Mississauga puts out a Cyclist's Handbook, which does list cyclists legal obligations, but the one you mention is only offered as advice[my emphasis]: "When
riding along trails, cyclists should dismount and walk across intersections, except where a marked bicycle crossing is provided. As in this instance.
Since you checked the Google Maps view, what's your opinion of the overall road/bike-path/pedestrian crossing arrangement the City of Mississauga stuck its citizens with at that busy place?