Mississauga hit and run video

I've looked at this a lot and I'd say the blame on the accident happening is more on the cyclist than the driver. FWIW I am a cyclist with tens of thousands of km under my belt so I obviously don't have a bias against them.

The cyclist didn't cross at the appropriate place, you can see in the street views that the grass is worn out around the gate thing on the sidewalk and towards crossing the ramp so a lot of cyclists do it. I wouldn't say this is a bad thing necessarily. Where he crossed was right next to the sidewalk crossing and the angle the cyclist was cutting across would afford him better visibility and a better chance to react. On the flip side since the cyclist wasn't crossing at the proper crossing, the driver would have no idea that the cyclist was going to cut in front of him until he actually did. The cyclist wasn't going very fast and doesn't look like he was even pedaling when he crossed so it doesn't seem like he was trying to beat the car, and there's at least 30m from when the car was finished making the corner to where the impact happened, he had lots of time to react to the car.

The car had his signal light around the corner and didn't make any sudden lane changes. The car did have to tighten up it's turn a bit so maybe was carrying a little too much speed through the corner. However, at that point there was still ~50m between the car and the cyclist so lots of time for both to see each other and react so I can't explain why either didn't other than the driver thought the cyclist was going to continue down the sidewalk instead of turn right in front of him. I think the cyclist is at fault here. This is still no excuse for the hit an run!

Sort of off topic but I have never understood why they tell cyclist to dismount and walk their bikes across an intersection. The only thing I can think of is if the cyclist spontaneously falls over in front of a car, but then if you are that uncoordinated then you'll probably trip over your bike trying to push it to. Also trying to walk in cycling shoes and support a bike beside you is pretty awkward, I can't see any way this being safer.

oldjones said:

Intersections without signs or signals are called Uncontrolled Intersections...

Click to expand...

Describing it as an unsigned intersection is a stretch. It is an on ramp with a side-walk and there is no indication there is a bike lane. They even have barriers to slow down cyclists which this person seemed to avoid.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5676...4!1s0PWQePx_ltCSzie9fsdRjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I seen no indication opposing the view cars have right of way on the ramp. Even if Mississauga by-laws allow bikes on sidewalks, the cyclist should have stopped (or at least slowed down) before crossing. The car's unpredictability didn't help and there is no excuse for leaving the scene but the cyclist contributed to the accident.

basketcase said:

Describing it as an unsigned intersection is a stretch. It is an on ramp with a side-walk and there is no indication there is a bike lane. They even have barriers to slow down cyclists which this person seemed to avoid.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5676...4!1s0PWQePx_ltCSzie9fsdRjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I seen no indication opposing the view cars have right of way on the ramp. Even if Mississauga by-laws allow bikes on sidewalks, the cyclist should have stopped (or at least slowed down) before crossing. The car's unpredictability didn't help and there is no excuse for leaving the scene but the cyclist contributed to the accident.

Click to expand...

IT is a combined pedestrian and cycle path, not a side walk. The barriers force cyclists and walkers on that paved path to the direct right-angle crossing clearly provided, and there is a yellow pedestrian crossing warning sign early on the ramp to alert drivers.

The descriptor is 'uncontrolled', which covers not just unsigned intersections, but also unsignalled ones, those without traffic-lights or Stop signs. The requirement is the same: As you and your vehicle approach the intersection, you must determine if there is another vehicle already there, or which is likely to arrive there before you, and if there is, you must give way. The cyclist got their first, unfortunately for them.

Your view might well apply IF you are saying a cyclist is a pedestrian, and is legally required to stop before crossing a roadway, and to give way to traffic on it. But ieaving it there ignores the driver's stated legal responsibility under the Act to do everything possible to avoid striking a pedestrian, such as signalling their turn onto the ramp, observing the posted speed, and actively heeding the warning sign. Not to mention braking or swerving to avoid impact at the last second. None of that can be seen on the video, and under the law, the onus is on the driver to show they did not neglect (as in negligent) their duty to actively avoid hitting the cyclist — but that's if we are saying the cyclist was a pedestrian.

Given the obvious, that the driver was the sort to abandon a person they injured and drive away to avoid personal obligation and legal consequences, nothing I can see, or have read excuses their negligent driving and entire responsibility for what happened.

After looking again, I see the cyclist did indeed cross where the grass patch trail is, not the actual sidewalk crossing, so my bad on that.

Jessica Rain said:

After looking again, I see the cyclist did indeed cross where the grass patch trail is, not the actual sidewalk crossing, so my bad on that.

Click to expand...

The cyclist was on a two way bike path and had to pass a barrier meant to slow them down or get cyclists to dismount and walk across.
The driver had just turned right on the intersection and made a last minute lane change to catch the onramp.

Its likely both of their faults, as both should have seen the other coming, but also the cities fault as there appears to be no signage on the onramp to warn you're crossing a bike path.

Frankfooter said:

The cyclist was on a two way bike path and had to pass a barrier meant to slow them down or get cyclists to dismount and walk across.
The driver had just turned right on the intersection and made a last minute lane change to catch the onramp.

Its likely both of their faults, as both should have seen the other coming, but also the cities fault as there appears to be no signage on the onramp to warn you're crossing a bike path.

Click to expand...

I saw thanks. I didn't need the explanation. I made a post earlier that was incorrect. Instead of just letting it go, I felt the need to clarify my change of opinion based on my incorrect assumptions. Most people don't do that. Own up to their mistakes, but I do. So that is all my post was about.

oldjones said:

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.

Click to expand...

However, Oldjones, that goes back to what I posted in # 13, Many moons ago there was a traffic safety campaign with the motto: "Don't be right, dead right." We all know that in in collisions the heavier vehicle always "wins."

As said I'm totally unfamiliar with the on ramp.

Looking at it on Google Streetview, it is clear that the bicylist must have cut around the gates which seen (to me at least) designed to get you off your bicycle to cross the intersection. But it looks busy enough that likely an underpass needs to be put in for the path.

This of course has nothing to do with the hit and run.

oldjones said:

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.

Click to expand...

Except it isn't a marked bicycle crossing by your own admission. It's an uncontrolled intersection. In this case, it'd also be very unclear as to where the "intersection" starts, and therefore difficult to tell who entered it first. Who T-boned who doesn't dictate who entered first, as it's dependent on both location within the intersection and speed.

oldjones said:

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?

Click to expand...

If the cyclist has the right-of-way (which I still believe isn't true), I'd say the crossing arrangement was terrible; a disaster waiting to happen. If, as I believe is correct, the cyclist was required to stop and yield to traffic on the road, I'd say the arrangement is adequate. The reason why is because there is adequate signage for the cyclist, but pretty much nothing for drivers to notify them of the crossing. It looks like a plain sidewalk from a driver's perspective.

rhuarc29 said:

Except it isn't a marked bicycle crossing by your own admission. It's an uncontrolled intersection. In this case, it'd also be very unclear as to where the "intersection" starts, and therefore difficult to tell who entered it first. Who T-boned who doesn't dictate who entered first, as it's dependent on both location within the intersection and speed.



If the cyclist has the right-of-way (which I still believe isn't true), I'd say the crossing arrangement was terrible; a disaster waiting to happen. If, as I believe is correct, the cyclist was required to stop and yield to traffic on the road, I'd say the arrangement is adequate. The reason why is because there is adequate signage for the cyclist, but pretty much nothing for drivers to notify them of the crossing. It looks like a plain sidewalk from a driver's perspective.

Click to expand...

Actually StreetView shows there are no warning or instruction signs for those using the path, such as a "Stop", or the 'Cyclists dismount to cross' signs Toronto uses frequently. If policy/prudence/rule/law is that cyclists must stop and assess then I'd say neither the signage nor the arrangement for them is adequate at all. Streetview clearly shows Cars are warned about people crossing on foot and about excessive speed. In this instance it wouldn't have helped, but obviously a cycle path should signalled by a Bicycle sign to alert drivers.

I believe I covered how drivers are supposed to deal with uncontrolled intersections; they are not supposed to plow into others using them, no matter what. You are right that a T-bone impact doesn't tell us who entered first. but it certainly does reveal who first arrived at the impact point. Given relative speeds, it's very unlikely the car was closer to the intersection than the cyclist when they left the curb and began their crossing, because we know who got T-boned. At such intersections — detectable by the crossing traffic, even if you can't see the pavement — the one arriving first gets to continue.

I quite agree the entire intersection is terribly designed, not just this one crossing and all the missing and bad signage makes it worse. The City of Mississauga deserves a good deal of blame for accepting such a low standard of safety for its citizens. I think the Service Road could be realigned through the parking lot to the south to separate its entry onto Hurontario from the later exit onto the QEW ramp off Hurontario. The extra 'ramp room' would allow for cars to wait for a flashing crosswalk signal for the path, which could also be reconfigured together with the bottom end of the ramp, because the OPP station on the NE would now have extra property.

too many assholes on the road, it only takes 1 to ruin it for everybody. got off an early traffic in the 407 this morning with a collision that blocked 2 lanes the entire morning. as soon as I got past the accident...1 car just hit it and zigged and zagged everyone running like crazy...

Aardvark154 said:

However, Oldjones, that goes back to what I posted in # 13, Many moons ago there was a traffic safety campaign with the motto: "Don't be right, dead right." We all know that in in collisions the heavier vehicle always "wins."

Click to expand...

As a cyclist, if I did something like that, I would only have myself to blame. Who rides across an on ramp into the path of a vehicle, with the expectation the vehicle will stop for them? Cyclist 100% at fault for the collision. Driver was 100% at fault for leaving the scene.

Remember the other old saying, look both ways before you cross the street? Maybe she will next time...

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. 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 for the driver 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.

Frankfooter said:

The driver had just turned right on the intersection and made a last minute lane change to catch the onramp. .

Click to expand...

Technically no. That right hand turn goes directly onto the ramp. To go straight (north on Hurontario) requires you to move one lane to the left.

Aardvark154 said:

..... But it looks busy enough that likely an underpass needs to be put in for the path.

This of course has nothing to do with the hit and run.

Click to expand...

There is an underpass approximately 100 yards to the East, on the other side of the OPP building. Yu can see it in this picture: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5686688,-79.5984463,114m/data=!3m1!1e3

Directly above the OPP station and to the left of the 8 white thingies

rhuarc29 said:

Except it isn't a marked bicycle crossing by your own admission. It's an uncontrolled intersection. In this case, it'd also be very unclear as to where the "intersection" starts, and therefore difficult to tell who entered it first. Who T-boned who doesn't dictate who entered first, as it's dependent on both location within the intersection and speed.

Click to expand...

There is a crossing sign just where the ramp starts.

Promo said:

There is a crossing sign just where the ramp starts.

Click to expand...

You're right, I just saw that. I wasn't backed up enough.

I also think I have a better idea of what happened. The city installed gates there I believe to slow cyclists down before crossing, but judging by the dirt trails beside the gates, the cyclists are bypassing them. One of these dirt bypasses is 8 - 12 feet further up the ramp. I wonder if the cyclist used it? Hard to tell, because that truck crosses at the most inopportune time possible.

oldjones said:

I... pedestrian crossing warning sign....

Click to expand...

Exactly. If it was a bike lane, how come there was no warning about cyclists?

And the onus is on both. No way that the cyclist could have maintained that speed if he passed through the speed control gates. Both had time to see each other and as there is no indication about cyclists or pedestrians having right of way, it is reasonable for the driver to assume the bike would stop.

And yes, the video clearly shows the car was on the ramp before the cyclist chose to cross.

rhuarc29 said:

You're right, I just saw that. I wasn't backed up enough.

I also think I have a better idea of what happened. The city installed gates there I believe to slow cyclists down before crossing, but judging by the dirt trails beside the gates, the cyclists are bypassing them. One of these dirt bypasses is 8 - 12 feet further up the ramp. I wonder if the cyclist used it ? Hard to tell, because that truck crosses at the most inopportune time possible.

Click to expand...

That's my theory also.

rhuarc29 said:

I also think I have a better idea of what happened. The city installed gates there I believe to slow cyclists down before crossing, but judging by the dirt trails beside the gates, the cyclists are bypassing them. One of these dirt bypasses is 8 - 12 feet further up the ramp. I wonder if the cyclist used it? Hard to tell, because that truck crosses at the most inopportune time possible.

Click to expand...

When I look at the OPP video ---as someone completely ignorant of the intersection -- the speed of the bicycle the angle it approaches the ramp, the nature of the gates as shown on Streetview, and the collision as shown, lead me (possibly incorrectly) to believe that the bicyclist went around a structure designed to force bicyclists to stop before crossing the entrance ramp to the QEW.

basketcase said:

No way that the cyclist could have maintained that speed if he passed through the speed control gates.

Click to expand...

I don't think the biker did go through the gates. If you look at the google earth picture I provided, there is a dirty path bypassing the gates and crossing the ramp about 25 feet before the concrete crossing
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5677...4!1sN9tsmYrUlsa1Y0mICw7S8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

basketcase said:

Both had time to see each other and as there is no indication about cyclists or pedestrians having right of way, it is reasonable for the driver to assume the bike would stop.

Click to expand...

Since the car was making a right turn, I'd estimate they would have had 3-5 seconds to see each other (even at speed approaching each other). Except the car looked like it took a wide right turn so the driver might have been focused on their driving correction. Also the road is slightly down hill under the bridge in that area, so it's possible the biker was really flying (but I don't know that for sure).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't cyclists or pedestrians always have the right of way unless marked otherwise (i.e. a don't walk at a traffic light or a specific sign). I tried to look this up, but didn't find anything black and white.

basketcase said:

And yes, the video clearly shows the car was on the ramp before the cyclist chose to cross.

Click to expand...

Please keep in mind that the car driver just complete a right hand turn and the ramp speed in 30kph. Looks like the driver may have executed the turn on the fast side (explaining the wide right turn) and was accelerating faster than 30 up the ramp.