• Toronto cyclist dies after wheel gets trapped in unused streetcar track
    29 replies, posted
[img]http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/2d1/news/toronto/article4468768.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/streetcar.jpg[/img] [quote]Though the 41-year-old cyclist who was killed in Toronto on Monday has not been publicly identified, his death, on a seemingly cycling-friendly street, highlights one of the most common dangers to the urban cyclist, say advocates, and raises questions about who is liable when rubber meets rail. Police say the man was travelling southbound on Wychwood Avenue around 5:30 p.m., when his tire became lodged in a stretch of unused streetcar track. Remnants of a southbound streetcar lane run for around 200 metres in the southbound lane; the northbound stretch is slightly longer. The man was not wearing a helmet, and police say he was carrying a bag of food on his handlebars. In American and Canadian cities, similar incidents have sparked litigation against municipalities. Seattle lawyer Bob Anderton represented six cyclists who had been injured after falling along the city’s South Lake Union Streetcar line. In a complaint submitted in Washington State Superior Court in 2010, Mr. Anderton argued that the city had breached its duty to keep streets safe, by failing to provide adequate warnings for a streetcar route that it had acknowledged posed a danger to cyclists. “We spent all this money to create a danger knowingly,” Mr. Anderton said. A judge recently dismissed Mr. Anderton’s case, but others have been more successful, including two Montreal cases. Marnie Scanlan, a 33-year-old personal trainer was thrown more than two car lengths from her bike in 2003 after hitting an indentation in the road. She broke her shoulder and tore her rotator cuff, requiring several surgeries. The City of Montreal argued that cyclists were responsible for avoiding potholes, but testimony revealed that the indentation was not easily visible. Ms. Scanlan was awarded $113,193.10. Four years later, Juliet Wilson Davies crashed her bike after her wheel became trapped in the grates of a drain in a small viaduct. She suffered multiple injuries to her face, wrist and hand, and a skull fracture left her paralyzed. Again, the City of Montreal argued that the responsibility for spotting hazards lay with the cyclist. But after testimony showed that the grates covered the width of the road, Ms. Davies was awarded $868,820. Her husband and daughter were awarded $10,000. But Alf Kwinter, a personal injury lawyer in Toronto, argues that any litigation against the City of Toronto for stray streetcar tracks would be an uphill battle. Mr. Kwinter said a successful suit would require three things: proof of high bicycle traffic on the stretch of street in question, examples of previous accidents, and evidence “that these tracks have no business being there.” And the ubiquity of streetcar tracks in Toronto would complicate matters. “The problem is that there are tracks all over the city that are being used,” Mr. Kwinter said. “Why don’t used tracks constitute a danger as well? It’d be a tough case.” Mr. Kwinter cited the small gap between subway cars and platforms as a similar quandary. They might be dangerous to passengers, but building a successful legal case around a piece of necessary infrastructure is difficult. For cycling advocates, the short-term remedy to a common danger for cyclists is a mixture of education and infrastructural changes. “It’s just so easy to blame the cyclist, especially in this situation,” said Geoffrey Bercarich, an active volunteer in the Toronto cycling community. Some basic tips, Mr. Bercarich said, can mean cyclists won’t have to make the decision he faced when tracks at Queen and Spadina snagged his tire about four years ago: “It was either my face or my shoulder,” he recalled. Mr. Bercarich opted to break his fall with the latter, and suffered a dislocated shoulder. More caution on the road from both cyclists and drivers is necessary too, which is why Mr. Bercarich, along with the group Advocacy for Respect for Cyclists, marks the scenes of fatal cycling accidents with a ghost bike – an unrideable bicycle painted white, which serves as a makeshift memorial and beacon to other cyclists on the road. “The loss could be any one of us,” Mr. Bercarich says. “Helmet or no helmet, bell or no bell, light or no light.” Cycle Toronto, an advocacy group that has recently worked to prevent the removal of the Jarvis Street bike lanes, issued a statement on Monday calling for “a comprehensive study of the safety hazards posed to cyclists by streetcar tracks.” Jared Kolb, director of campaigns and membership for Cycle Toronto, said that most cyclists-- or at least someone they know -- have fallen on streetcar tracks before. “We’ve got to do some measurement here to understand the scope of the problem,” Mr. Kolb said in an interview. Daniel Egan, manger of Cycling Infrastructure and Programs, said in an e-mail that a city study of bicycle-motor vehicle collisions in 1997 and 1998 did not find streetcar tracks to be a significant factor. Mr. Egan added that bicycle collisions are not reportable unless a motor vehicle is involved. “We don’t have a way to track collisions that are not reported,” Mr. Egan said. Mr. Egan argued that tracking non-reported bicycle crashes would require surveying cyclists who attend emergency rooms with bicycle-related injuries. TTC spokesperson Brad Ross said the tracks on Wychwood would only be removed if the city undertook major construction on the road. Mr. Ross said the TTC maintains unused tracks in a state of good repair so that they stay flush with the roadway. Mr. Bercarich said a memorial ride is scheduled for August 13 and that a ghost bike would be locked at Wychwood and St. Clair avenues.[/quote] [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/toronto-cyclist-dies-after-wheel-gets-trapped-in-unused-streetcar-track/article4466970/]**SOURCE**[/url] [quote]Mr. Anderton argued that the city had breached its duty to keep streets safe, by failing to provide adequate warnings for a streetcar route that it had acknowledged posed a danger to cyclists.[/quote] Or you know, they could stop being fuckwads and actually LOOK and notice that there is sets of tracks flush to the ground. The only way you can jam a bike tire in the wheel flange groove is if you have those really expensive and narrow racing tires. Even then, why the fuck are you cycling near the middle of the street? You know why in Vancouver at least we don't like cyclists? You're all over the damn road. I would like to mention the South Lake Union Streetcar used to be named the South Lake Union Trolley, but they had to change it after they noticed the short name was SLUT. :v:
snip I don't even wanna argue
Rated dumb for OP.
[quote]The man was not wearing a helmet[/quote] :|
He was stupid for riding without a helmet AND carrying groceries over his handlebars. I presume he knew the area well enough if he was doing that. Fair enough to call for safety warnings around the tracks, but unless it's snowing, you're going to see them and should avoid them accordingly. Suits about grates and potholes in bike lanes are fair enough, but tram tracks are hard to alter for the benefit of cyclists. There'd have to be those plastic humps on either side and they would have to be at every intersection. Cycling in Melbourne you often have to make turns over tram tracks. Usually you just have to merge into the traffic that's crossing the road so you don't stack as you hit the tracks on an angle. It's a case of common sense before regulation.
[quote]The man was not wearing a helmet, and police say he was carrying a bag of food on his handlebars. [/quote] [quote]“It’s just so easy to blame the cyclist, especially in this situation,” said Geoffrey Bercarich, an active volunteer in the Toronto cycling community.[/quote] I'm sorry, what?
[QUOTE=Mlisen14;37132357]He was stupid for riding without a helmet AND carrying groceries over his handlebars. I presume he knew the area well enough if he was doing that. Fair enough to call for safety warnings around the tracks, but unless it's snowing, you're going to see them and should avoid them accordingly. Suits about grates and potholes in bike lanes are fair enough, but tram tracks are hard to alter for the benefit of cyclists. There'd have to be those plastic humps on either side and they would have to be at every intersection. Cycling in Melbourne you often have to make turns over tram tracks. Usually you just have to merge into the traffic that's crossing the road so you don't stack as you hit the tracks on an angle. It's a case of common sense before regulation.[/QUOTE] honestly bike helmets aren't nearly as effective as most people think they are
[QUOTE=Mon;37132392]honestly bike helmets aren't nearly as effective as most people think they are[/QUOTE] But they do help. I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it.
[QUOTE=Mon;37132392]honestly bike helmets aren't nearly as effective as most people think they are[/QUOTE] ...in higher-speed crashes, like getting hit by a speeding car. Bike helmets are built to protect your noggin when you fall off your bike at a normal speed like what happened here where his tire fell into a ditch and he flipped over. Although risk compensation makes their overall usage debatable, it probably would have helped in such an accident like this for him to have been wearing one.
[QUOTE=Mon;37132392]honestly bike helmets aren't nearly as effective as most people think they are[/QUOTE] I don't know, most of the studies I've read about that tend to agree that they're next to useless in a car crash, but when you skid out on a wet surface or you get car-doored, they work pretty well.
Helmets are like condoms: proven, effective, and necessary. Unless of course your cruising in your own neighborhood and you know the road doesn't have weird cracks or bumps in it.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;37132873]Helmets are like condoms: proven, effective, and necessary. Unless of course your cruising in your own neighborhood and you know the road doesn't have weird cracks or bumps in it.[/QUOTE] I think if the road I'm cruising has weird cracks and bumps not even a condom is going to help.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;37132873]Helmets are like condoms: proven, effective, and necessary. Unless of course your cruising in your own neighborhood and you know the road doesn't have weird cracks or bumps in it.[/QUOTE] Or if you awake and not riding a skimpy little cruiser bike with a load of groceries on the bars.
[QUOTE=MIPS;37132251]Or you know, they could stop being fuckwads and actually LOOK and notice that there is sets of tracks flush to the ground. The only way you can jam a bike tire in the wheel flange groove is if you have those really expensive and narrow racing tires. Even then, why the fuck are you cycling near the middle of the street? You know why in Vancouver at least we don't like cyclists? You're all over the damn road.[/QUOTE] I remember MIPS' last thread and he posted a video making fun of the people that died, I was hoping he would have learned from that and have some respect, but of course, he did not. 41 is too early, be nice.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;37132873]Helmets are like condoms: proven, effective, and necessary. Unless of course your cruising in your own neighborhood and you know the road doesn't have weird cracks or bumps in it.[/QUOTE] I now have the weirdest images in my head.
Most accidents happen close to home, knowledge of the area is no reason to forget about using a helmet. I'm for personal freedom, so don't wear one and I won't care. But if you get killed in an accident while not wearing one you won't get sympathy from me. I'll chalk it up to "he died doing something he loved, not wearing a helmet".
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;37133164]Most accidents happen close to home, knowledge of the area is no reason to forget about using a helmet. I'm for personal freedom, so don't wear one and I won't care. But if you get killed in an accident while not wearing one you won't get sympathy from me. I'll chalk it up to "he died doing something he loved, not wearing a helmet".[/QUOTE] The problem with that is if people get hurt biking without a helmet, instead of making helmets compulsory, they'd try to ban biking. Injuries were apparently the cause for the recent closure of a trail in my town.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;37133164]Most accidents happen close to home, knowledge of the area is no reason to forget about using a helmet. I'm for personal freedom, so don't wear one and I won't care. But if you get killed in an accident while not wearing one you won't get sympathy from me. I'll chalk it up to "he died doing something he loved, not wearing a helmet".[/QUOTE] it's not just about the dude with no helmet, though. the rest of his family might wear helmets at all times, and he still dies.
[QUOTE=MIPS;37132251]The only way you can jam a bike tire in the wheel flange groove is if you have those really expensive and narrow racing tires.[/QUOTE] Any standard road bike tire can fit in those grooves. That being said, I've gone down a couple of times due to trolley tracks, potholes, weird bumps in the road etc. and never once thought that it was the city's fault. Nine times out of ten these kind of obstacles can be avoided if your paying attention. Every once and a while someone might be double parked so you have to cross the tracks while running parallel to them,but these are the kinds of things you should expect if you're riding a bike in a big city.
I misread the title as Tornado Cyclist...was going WTF for a moment there.
[QUOTE=fishyfish777;37132445]...in higher-speed crashes, like getting hit by a speeding car. Bike helmets are built to protect your noggin when you fall off your bike at a normal speed like what happened here where his tire fell into a ditch and he flipped over. [/QUOTE] nah dude a predator helmet ($200-$600 price range depending on what one you get) are okay for a couple normal speed crashes but one gnarly crash will fuck the helmet up but you'll be fine, even if you did get hit by a car.
[quote]The man was not wearing a helmet, and police say he was carrying a bag of food on his handlebars.[/quote] That's just asking for trouble.
It's a sad thing but who else but the cyclist is there to blame? Unless the road was in state of obvious neglect, it's only up to him to keep himself safe. I cycle myself and love it, but I would never blame a third part for me harming myself while taking several fold risks and then fucking up a technicality nobody can help me with, anyway.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;37134523]That's just asking for trouble.[/QUOTE] Yet I do this weekly after shopping :v: Although in the Netherlands we have cycling lanes everywhere. You barely see anybody with a helmet.
[QUOTE=killover;37134211]nah dude a predator helmet ($200-$600 price range depending on what one you get) are okay for a couple normal speed crashes but one gnarly crash will fuck the helmet up but you'll be fine, even if you did get hit by a car.[/QUOTE] What about a rock to the face? That company doesn't even make fullface helmets. Those were invented for a reason.
The counter argument against helmets is that if you were to make them mandatory the amount of people cycling would drop dramatically. Which, in the long run, is worse than the occasional serious injury/death in the eyes of the government. I'm sure it was some astronomical number like there would be 40% less cycling, and in this day and age when everybody is trying to be more green... you cant afford to lose 40% of your cyclists. Not sure where I stand to be honest. I think the issue is tackling why people dont want to wear them, as opposed to forcing them to. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] I wear a helmet about 80% of the time. If I'm going on anything over 10 miles I always wear one.
I would simply make it so that if you get serious head injury of your head while riding a bike without a helmet, it's automatically your own fault and nobody else gets into a problem (unless somebody demonstrably broke the road rules or so). Make it a matter of personal risk.
I've never seen anyone riding a bike wearing a helmet :v: Is it like, forbidden to not wear one while on the bike in the US?
[QUOTE=Scotchair;37134720]The counter argument against helmets is that if you were to make them mandatory the amount of people cycling would drop dramatically. Which, in the long run, is worse than the occasional serious injury/death in the eyes of the government. I'm sure it was some astronomical number like there would be 40% less cycling, and in this day and age when everybody is trying to be more green... you cant afford to lose 40% of your cyclists. Not sure where I stand to be honest. I think the issue is tackling why people dont want to wear them, as opposed to forcing them to. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] I wear a helmet about 80% of the time. If I'm going on anything over 10 miles I always wear one.[/QUOTE] um what the fuck kind of logic is that most people either bike because it's cheaper than driving or they enjoy it, and forcing them to wear helmets wouldn't stop them from biking i really doubt 40% of cyclists are doing it simply to not wear a helmet
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.