Cycling in Waterloo Region

[jamincan]

For people who aren't cyclist, and who aren't engaged in the subject of active transportation infrastructure, this might seem like a strange debate, but it's in response to a pattern that's been observed in reporting on collisions between drivers and pedestrians and in particular drivers and cyclists. Reporters go out of their way to avoid describing the driver's behavior in any way that might imply culpability on their part to the absurd point where the driver might as well as be a passive observer in the incident. Reporters (and police in their accident report), however, don't offer the cyclist or pedestrian the same benefit of doubt. The pedestrian was on their phone, or was wearing dark clothing, or the cyclist didn't have lights on their bikes, or they weren't wearing a helmet. Nevermind that none of these actions would be breaking any laws, they tend to be reported on anyway. Any news about charges etc. usually gets overlooked as it's after the news story (if it makes the news at all).

I don't think this is malicious on the part of reporters and police, or part of some grand conspiracy, but the outcome is a sort of narrative in the public discourse of irresponsible behaviour on the part of cyclists and pedestrians instead of focusing on the drivers who ought to be held to a greater standard due to the danger they pose with heavy vehicles, and the fact that typically collisions happen due to negligence on their part, not the victim. This is very much analogous to the discussion that has happened around rape, as ijmorlan pointed out.

Helmets are a sore spot, in particular, because research does not seem to support that they significantly improve cycling safety and incidents of head injury amongst normal cyclists, they are not designed to protect a cyclist from collisions with vehicles, and research does seem to show that helmet laws actually drive people away from cycling and therefore indirectly make cycling less safe for those who continue to use their bikes. In a motor vehicle collision, whether the victim was wearing a helmet may seem relevant, but current research would point to that not being the case.

Reporting on whether the driver had a cellphone in their possession would be irresponsible reporting in that it implies the driver was negligent and using the phone. I would argue that reporting on whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet is equally irresponsible in that it implies to most readers that the lack of a helmet was a relevant in the injuries of the victim and that therefore they were irresponsible and negligent in not wearing it.

[panamaniac]

That seems to read too much into it.  In initial media reports, the reporter will often have no confirmed information as to possible culpability and, pending charges, is limited in what can be reported even if culpability seems obvious.  Those constraints seemed obvious in the initial reports on this accident, which happened "in the vicinity of the IHT" (the reporter likely had no confirmation that the cyclist was riding the trail).  He or she will, on the other hand, know whether the bicyclist was wearing a helmet, because that information can be shared immediately (and in a case of head injury it is pertinent information, although some may disagree).  I doubt there's anything more to it than that.  It is true that subsequent reports about charges, and the outcome of those charges, often do not seem to have the same prominence as the initial collision reports.

[tomh009]

Helmets (...) are not designed to protect a cyclist from collisions with vehicles

If I understand correctly, they do protect the cyclist's head in the case of an impact with the ground. And an impact with the ground could be the secondary result of a collision wit a motor vehicle, could it not?

The pedestrian was on their phone, or was wearing dark clothing, or the cyclist didn't have lights on their bikes, or they weren't wearing a helmet. Nevermind that none of these actions would be breaking any laws, (...)

This is really an aside ... but is it really true that bicycle lights/reflectors are not required (when riding in the dark) in Ontario? If so, that really is shocking to me. Where I grew up, this was mandatory, and no one complained about it, in spite of the super-inefficient generators for the headlights.

[Bob_McBob]

This is really an aside ... but is it really true that bicycle lights/reflectors are not required (when riding in the dark) in Ontario? If so, that really is shocking to me. Where I grew up, this was mandatory, and no one complained about it, in spite of the super-inefficient generators for the headlights.

The Highway Traffic Act requires a working bell or horn, a white or amber front light, a red rear light (which may flash intermittently) or reflector, white reflective material on the front forks, and red reflective material on the rear forks. The set fine for not having a light is $85.

[danbrotherston]

This is really an aside ... but is it really true that bicycle lights/reflectors are not required (when riding in the dark) in Ontario? If so, that really is shocking to me. Where I grew up, this was mandatory, and no one complained about it, in spite of the super-inefficient generators for the headlights.

The Highway Traffic Act requires a working bell or horn, a white or amber front light, a red rear light (which may flash intermittently) or reflector, white reflective material on the front forks, and red reflective material on the rear forks. The set fine for not having a light is $85.

The HTA permits reflectors in place of lights. It is our city bylaws which require lights.

[jamincan]

It's my understanding that lights are only required 30 minutes after dawn and before dusk.

[plam]

Good piece in the New Yorker about cycling culture in the Netherlands (where they benefit from safety in numbers) vs North America.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/person...a-dutchman

[creative]

I was turning left onto my street one time late at night. It is not a particularly well lit corner. I came so close to hitting a cyclist with no light on his bike. The only reason I braked in time was because he happened to be taking a draw on his cigarette and I spotted the bright red glow.

[tomh009]

I was turning left onto my street one time late at night. It is not a particularly well lit corner. I came so close to hitting a cyclist with no light on his bike. The only reason I braked in time was because he happened to be taking a draw on his cigarette and I spotted the bright red glow.

This now confirms that smoking tobacco really does save lives!

[ijmorlan]

I was turning left onto my street one time late at night. It is not a particularly well lit corner. I came so close to hitting a cyclist with no light on his bike. The only reason I braked in time was because he happened to be taking a draw on his cigarette and I spotted the bright red glow.

This now confirms that smoking tobacco really does save lives!

I wonder if it’s the same person I saw? He was coming the other way on the Spur Line trail, smoking a cigarette.

Needless to say, I don’t normally associate smoking with bicycling, so it felt like a very strange thing to see.

On the other hand, if bicycling is becoming just a way of getting around that is done by all sorts of people, including smokers and other mostly-unhealthy people, that’s actually a good thing.

[Bob_McBob]

The HTA permits reflectors in place of lights. It is our city bylaws which require lights.

It's in s. 61 of the HTA. You're allowed to substitute a reflector for the rear light, but not the front one. And yes, it only applies from 30 minutes before sunset to 30 minutes after sunrise, but also any other time the lighting is poor, so in practice all bikes should probably have lights and reflectors. You don't need them if you're riding a unicycle though 

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK123

Lights and reflectors on bicycles, etc.
(17) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor assisted bicycle and bicycle (other than a unicycle) shall carry a lighted lamp displaying a white or amber light on its front and a lighted lamp displaying a red light or a reflector on its rear, and in addition white reflective material shall be placed on its front forks, and red reflective material covering a surface of not less than 250 millimetres in length and 25 millimetres in width shall be placed on its rear. 2015, c. 14, s. 21 (2).

[megabytephreak]

Interesting. I wonder how many people comply with that last part, on white and red reflective materials. I know I don't, although I do have both reflectors and lights installed on both ends. My bike was even purchased after 2015, which is the last time that section was modified. Perhaps I need to hunt down some retroreflective tape.

[clasher]

MEC sells a little kit with the required reflective tape for the forks/stays. I also have an old bikes from the 50s or 60s that has some automotive reflective tape on it that is part of the paint now... a lot of the automotive tape isn't really removable.

[plam]

To bring it back to victim-shaming, I do think that biking at night without lights is a fact that is relevant in collision reporting. More than helmets to be sure. The reason is that lights actually do something.

[danbrotherston]

To bring it back to victim-shaming, I do think that biking at night without lights is a fact that is relevant in collision reporting. More than helmets to be sure. The reason is that lights actually do something.

I might agree, although it is still questionable.  For example, would clothing be valid to mention? There is no legal requirement, but a driver got away with killing a cyclist on the claim that the cyclist "wore dark clothing", even though by all accounts, they probably had a light. (this is absolutely true, no exaggeration, a driver killed a cyclist on King, the crown dropped charges when the driver made "the cyclist wore dark clothing" a defense, and folks here wonder why I'm sensitive about these issues).

Basically, every possible excuse is given to drivers who hit people, nobody ever asks "shouldn't that driver have been able to see the cyclist, with a light, on the well lit street, why were they unable to operate their vehicle safely...."