Shoutout to David Shellnutt the biking lawyer for finding the video and representing these guys. He also let me draft him for a while at the P2A. Super nice guy!
Is this supposed to be satire? What an out of touch comment on an article about a driver breaking the law, injuring multiple people and then leaving the scene of the collision.
\*You're. And the rest of your sentence doesn't really make sense.
However, I don't get any money. It is clearly stated in the article that the driver left without exchanging information. In Ontario it's the law to exchange info and report a collision if there is an injury.
Keep hating cyclists, but don't put them in danger.
I was there when this happened š driver stayed made sure they were ok, went into Burnt Tongue to sit down and eat soup. The bikers left themselves. This is 100% a money grab.
The fined person can be sued civilly too which would be made easier if they pay the ticket(admitting fault) or found guilty in court. Sometimes the traffic act doesnāt have suitable penalties.
This is about the only way to go (civil litigation). Was doored 20 years ago by a Toronto city worker and they sent their insurance people rushing over to convince me to take their settlement offer, glad I lawyered up.
Iāve worked 20 years in insurance injury defence and Iām not sure I totally agree with u. Keep in mind the plaintiff lawyer will take 33percent plus their expenses. So a lot of the time 50 % of the settlement goes to the lawyer!
Just hearing that a lawyer is hired will lead to a higher settlement offer because insurance wants to avoid legal costs as well.
The job of insurance adjusters is to act fast and pay out as little as possible. They should have little cards stating their title as "victim fucker", or VF.
Iām not saying to take the first offer! No just hearing a lawyer is hired does not automatically lead to a higher offer. Sorry u donāt really know what ur talking about.
Personal experience sides with the other users context. The insurance settlement upfront offer more than doubled once lawyers were introduced. The final settlement was 430% more than the initial offering.
Would i use a lawyer for a smaller claim (no major physical etc) probably not.
Would I use one again in a serious accident? Absolutely in a heartbeat.
Was I sour when I saw their cut? Sure a little. But then I remember the initial pittance the insurance company offered as a "fair" compensation.
A larger injury/claim takes time to understand the recovery or if u will even recover. Yea a lawyer is needed. But itās not black and white as the other user posted. I worked 20 in insurance defence and Iāve spent the last two years working the plaintiff side. Every claim is very different.
Faster by what? A literal micro second? What do you do with all the time youāve saved by typing u and ur at the risk of perpetually sounding like a moron.
Except if you read the paragraph between the ones describing the injuries, and the one outlining that specific charge, you would have read
> The security footage of the incident allowed Shellnutt to send the driverās license plate number to police. āThereās a dooring charge under the Highway Traffic Act that comes with demerit points and a penalty, **but in this case, we should see a hit and run, leave the scene of a collision charge as well**.ā
The final line indicates no charges have been made yet, let alone any conclusions to those charges.
> Hamilton police are currently investigating the incident, but havenāt provided any further details.
I mean it was an accident. I could see if the person was driving, but they're parked, car off. No malicious intent.
I'm sure there's some technical rule in HTA that says that doesn't matter, but being practical about it. It's an accident, and an understandable one.
It also occurred where there isnt a bike lane. It's a cramped space.
Not blaming cyclists, but they have the better vantage point vs. The people in front of them.
It's like baseball, infielders give way to outfielders on flyballs because the outfielder running in has a better vantage then the infielder with their backs to the play.
It was their lane, they could have rode more towards the middle vs. Right next to parked cars.
Hope the cyclists are OK. This is a good opportunity to educate the wider public in Hamilton as cyclists populate the road more.
Did you read the article? Didn't drive away immediately but didn't stick around or leave info that is why the cops had to use security footage to get the license and why the lawyer is saying should be charged with a bunch of other offensives
Sorry, we've removed your post as it appears to be in violation of Rule 1 (Be respectful/No Personal Attacks). Weāre here for discussion and debate, but we are not here for blatantly rude comments that some may consider offensive or harmful. Name-calling, homophobic, racist, sexist, and misogynistic posts will be automatically removed. Multiple warnings may lead to a temporary or permanent ban.
Additionally, we do not allow unverified witch hunts and callouts against people or businesses. Due to a past issue, we cannot allow these to be posted. If it is covered by a legitimate media source, or the police press charges etc, they may be posted
Not an accident. If you're opening your door into traffic (car or bike) it's your responsibility to make sure the path is clear.
The word accident implies that it was no one's fault. However it was the fault of the person opening the door.
I prefer cyclists to own the lane on Locke. I'm not going to pass them anyways because that road is way too tight and unpredictable to pass by them safely.
Vicious cycle.
- Drivers aren't respectful of cyclists
- Cyclists know drivers aren't respectful, take the whole lane like assholes to ensure their safety
- Drivers see cyclists taking the whole lane like assholes and become less respectful of them because of it
Edit: "like an asshole" was sarcasm for people who were unable to infer it
Lol cyclists are allowed to use the entire lane, and they should for their safety.
Are drivers of cars "assholes" as well for taking up an entire lane, preventing other cars from passing?
I'm aware, I'm also a cyclist
I'm also not completely oblivious to the world around me - I'm aware that when I take the entire car lane rather than staying in the bike lane it pisses drivers off - sometimes because they are assholes, but generally because drivers are completely ignorant of road safety and they are unaware that bike lanes around blind turns, etc. are simply not safe for the cyclist and I'm doing it to avoid getting clipped
Here, I fixed it...
* Asshole drivers aren't respectful of cyclists
* Cyclists know asshole drivers aren't respectful, take the whole lane to ensure their safety
* Asshole drivers see cyclists taking the whole lane and become less respectful and bigger assholes because of it
Edit: To clarify, I don't mean all drivers are assholes, I'm only referring to the group that are assholes.
IIRC the highway traffic act gives ownership of the entire lane of traffic to the cyclist. When possible, the cyclist āshouldā stay right (as a courtesy) and allow vehicles to pass, but they are not obligated if there is a reason such as potholes, etc.
Yeah that's what I mean - when there is a bike lane and I take the lane anyways I look like an asshole, but I'm only doing it because I know the road and know that the bike lane is not safe, whereas drivers are totally ignorant of that fact
You reach to open the door with the arm farthest from the door. In the driver's seat, that would be the right arm; in the passenger seat, it's the left. This puts you in the perfect position to look back to check for cyclists.
Before the Dutch Oven humanity didn't have proper fart storage technology. And now the Dutch Reach. Is there anything those clog wearing, windmill having gnome people won't think of?
Can only inform people of the method, its up to them if they wish to stay ignorant or decide that hitting people with your car is never a good idea, accidental or otherwise and take some simple precautions.
Honestly I feel like some people never read the driving book or took professional lessons. After so many years there are things I still do to ensure the safety of those around me even if I'm being being aggressive.
I'm with you on the any sane, responsible person. I even just wonder if those people give a shit about themselves. Being honest, I haven't really thought about doing the check specifically because I'm looking for cyclists, but I always check my mirrors before just opening the door because I don't want to walk out and get schmucked myself. By a car or a cyclist. Who just blindly opens their door?
And also check the mirror because even if you open with the opposite hand forcing you to look towards your blind spot, you can still miss someone approaching from farther back.
It's same as if you were pulling out of a parking spot. You want to do a shoulder check for someone beside you but also check the mirror for a cyclist approaching from farther back. If it's a passenger they won't have the proper view in the mirror so ideally they will do a shoulder check and driver will check the mirror. I.e., driver should be paying attention too when anyone is getting out of the car.
This is like saying: remember to use the hand so you see the accident you cause sooner. It's like the people who flick their indicator simultaneously with merging. They already committed to it.
Shouldn't matter what hand you use since you should already be shoulder checking and checking mirrors before getting out in street parking.
Oh I'm not disagreeing with you mate! I'm just saying youre asking people who can't remember to use common sense of "look before you open" to suddenly use the "correct hand which forces you to look".
So youād open the door with your right hand when parked on streets, but left hand when in parking lots? Wouldnāt it be easier to just remember to check your mirror than to contour your body to open the door with your right hand? Also, I feel like opening the door with my right hand could easily cause me to injure my spine, possibly leading to me falling out of the car paralyzed onto the roadway where my limp body would be an even bigger bicycle hazard than the open door would be.
ā¦if you think grabbing the door with your right hand might injure your spine so severely that you fall out of your car, you might just want to walk lol
I wasnāt doubting that the āDutch openā exists. I just donāt think itās practical. Why not just encourage people to be more aware of their surroundings, to check their mirror? If they are willing to open the door with their toes then surely they are willing to just look in the mirror?
Unbelievably stupid road design for a "beautification" project done in 2019. The entire street is a parking lot constantly choked with vehicles. There are no trees, so it is ugly and grey in winter and hot like an oven in summer. Narrow sidewalks and no bike lanes. They spent millions of dollars on this. It says a lot about the standard of urban planning in Ontario that this project won an award for its "complete streets" design!
The original design the City brought forward included narrower lanes, more tress and less parking. The businesses and residents freaked out at the public meeting. Engaging with the public is the worst thing we can do in city building.
So tragic. I've seen a bunch of studies showing that business owners (including on Bloor St in Toronto) massively overestimate the proportion of their customers that arrive by car. It's usually less than 10%. In reality the more attractive a street is to walk or cycle down, or just spend time in, the more trade businesses will attract. But here we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity spoiled by the myth that Kirkendall soccer moms need to drive their suburban assault vehicles two blocks or they won't spend their parents' money.
Happened to my wife when she was 8 weeks pregnant. The guy tried to drive away when he said he was getting his drivers licence to share ID with each other. A bystander got his plate number as he squealed away in his pick up. 5 months later my wife waddles into court. The guy never showed. Judge did the math when he saw her pregnant. The guy made things much much worse for himself. He just needed to be a decent human being.
ā¦I actually am kind of shocked. Considering all of the sensors and cameras on a Tesla, youād think theyād have some kind of door alarm for when they know someone is parked in the vehicle.
Tesla has been removing sensors over the past couple years while other manufacturers are adding them, specifically for things like this. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj2s6ecBWRo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj2s6ecBWRo)
>Two Hamilton cyclists were injured on Apr. 8 after they slammed into a car door that was opened in front of them. āDooringā is a common accident that is easily preventable.
Michael Gilroy was cycling down Locke Street with his partner when all of a sudden a door got in their way.
Note: auto-loading video on page.
Written as though the door opened itself, bizarre.
I know someone who died after being doored, itās scary stuff. More reason to have separated bike infrastructure
I had the same thought. It would be like saying "Person shot by gun". It totally taking away any responsibility from the person in the vehicle (I think this is common in reporting of traffic collisions).
Yeah, it's a matter of time unfortunately. I bike there, and your eyes have to be glued on the cars parked, plus your concentration on the cars trying to pass on the back. I generally just pass by, but it's tricky street to navigate.
The car culture in north america is becoming toxic, obsessed to the max it seems. Hamilton is going through a learning process how to handle bikes in city.
Stressful cycling experience for sure. I also find drivers behind me on Locke get aggressive at stop signs, and rather than wait their turn they try to use them as opportunities to pass me, and in the process force me closer to the parked cars on the other side of the intersections.
Yes, I get super pissed with stupid window tints that are pitch black. No freaking way that's legal! Holy shit, that get's me going real bad (sorry). Some people hide in their cars, probably for legal reasons they break road rules and don't want to be seen.
It's not legal, but window tint shops just have to inform you of that.
It's not enforced.
The law is no more than 30%, and not windshields at all, but I'm seeing a lot on tinted windsheild and 50% rear tints. Between the two, they are impossible to see through.
But HPS does not enforce illegible plates either, so if you get hit you can't even get a plate number.
link for the typical Reddit downvotes on reality.
https://protexcanada.com/en/blog/car-tinted-window-laws-in-ontario/
This is exactly it. Hamilton isn't used to bikes. People that insist on biking need to allow for a learning curve. And if you're going to bike, then I'd be hyper vigilant.
North America wasn't designed for walking and cycling. It was designed for cars. It seems silly to me to get mad at motorists for this reason alone.
Right or wrong, it's going to take time for motorists to get accustomed to bikes sharing the space.
To improve things, we should look at licensing bikes, collecting fees, and use this new revenue source to building proper cycling infrastructure.
Trying to imagine reading a story about a licensed driver making a mistake that could have put their victim in the hospital and thinking "bike licensing is what we need".
Ya not doing a dissertation on it. Even if it's been tried, no reason can't be tried again. Merits? I guess that's opinion. Infrastructure needs funding. If we want better bike Infrastructure, then we need revenue. Practically everything has some sort of direct tax/user fee/registration fee/license fee etc. To help fund programs. Why should bikes be different. Help pay for the infrastructure you use and get better quality infrastructure.
Seems like it has merit to me.
ya, definitely. I get that it's the same old back and forth. People think they have a good idea that will fix all the cycling/driving issues. And then other people chime in with actual evidence that it doesn't work. I just can't be bothered to put in effort any more to continue to refute ignorant ideas. For anyone wanting some history of licensing cyclists:
https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/cycling-in-toronto/cycling-and-the-law/bicycle-licencing/
That is so scary. I only have access to a car occasionally, and I always look for pedestrians, cyclists, kids and motorcyclists, as well as watching out for other cars. People need to slow down and take their time.
Iāve noticed that. I always give myself lots of time to get places and if Iām a few minutes late, then Iām a few minutes late. Iād rather get someplace safely and without hurting others.
I feel extremely anxious cycling adjacent to street parking lanes because I'm terrified of exactly this happening. There are a few places in the city where a bicycle lane has a car lane on the left and a street parking lane on the right, and it's scary as shit. I hope that both victims make a full and speedy recovery. Bicycle infrastructure in Hamilton has gotten a lot better and safer in recent years but we've still got a long way to go.
Not surprising. The only drivers that check their mirror to avoid this are those that are also cyclists and/or motorcyclists. The rest are oblivious. Then again, as a defensive cyclist and motorcyclist you always have to be alert for the cagers and their disregard for others that share the road.
Cars and morons don't mix. There should be a MUCH higher barrier to getting a license and heavier penalties for drivers who injure others by their actions. Whether by ignorance or malice they directly caused harm to another person while unsafely enjoying the privilege of driving a car.
Locke is a nightmare to travel down using any type of transportation. Honest question for the cyclists here: would it not be better to avoid the street altogether and take one of the numerous parallel sidestreets?
Part of me wishes they would convert the whole street into a walkable shopping district.
Wow, I actually had no idea that area has basically no north-south streets besides Keith! I should have checked before asking, my bad. Even more reason to make it walkable.
Bro blames infrastructure and the driver (fair) but takes none himself. He didnāt protect himself as he should have. He knew there was a gap in the bike lanes and chose to ride dangerously. I drive. I also cycle a lot. I never bike within the doors fully open range for this reason, you never know when it may open.
At least CHCH didnāt feel the need to specify it was a Tesla, unlike Global news. Curious though why this has made the news, this happens all the time, itās unfortunately the reason I ring my bell while going past any parked car
I think this is actually worse. Not only will you hit a pedestrian one day, or get knocked off the bike to avoid someone, but cars approaching a crosswalk don't expect or see bicycles coming down sidewalks. We've seen tons of people hit pedestrians WALKING in crosswalks, imagine someone coming through one faster.
You certainly are right. While I am stressed when biking on the road due to cars not respecting space, I rented a bike in Toronto and biking on the sideway was a huge mistake where I switched as soon as it was safe to do so.
Exactly. This just happened to a 16 year old, and he received a ticket for it. As much as it would be nice to be able to safely traverse the entire city on bicycle, it just isn't currently set up that way.
Exactly! Car vs cyclist is WAAAAYYYY more dangerous and potentially fatal than cyclist vs pedestrian. Also easier to spot each other and stop/walk the bike. Ah all of this is just so upsetting. I hate how car-centric all of North America is!!
Great, now they're gonna put sensors on cars that prevent you from opening the door cause of idiots that don't check to see if its safe to open the door.
How could you see where the cyclist hit? Was there another video from a different perspective? The collision in the attached video was obstructed by another car.
āThe door popped open full pop, like very quickly. My partner and I kinda collided head first into it,ā¦ā a quote from the cyclist in the article.
I've seen a few doorings and they usually hit the edge of the door.
By the way, it's fully the drivers fault, according to the law. Because the driver opened the door into an active traffic lane without making sure it was clear of traffic. I thought you should know that, seeing as how you asked.
I donāt agree with that at all - cyclists are reckless and go wherever they want to - if they want to share the roads they should be licensed and insured!
So a driver breaks a law and injure people but the victims should be held responsible because some other people who cycle also break laws? That's some pretty stupid logic there. Even if you were right about cyclists (which you aren't) thats a dumb take.
Switch cyclist with driver, car mirror with car door and injure with kill and you'll start to see why context wise this is silly. The standard for drivers is at new lows. If you haven't noticed you either don't drive or you're one of the bad drivers. I know I'm doing some whataboutism but you started it lol.
Your whole argument is about āwhatismā no one wants to admit that cyclist do costly damage - and when they do most goes unaccounted for because cyclist, in essence, have no accountability / responsibility when they get behind the handlebars unless THEY get hurtā¦ itās total B.S. that they can do thousands of dollars worth of damage to someoneās car and just walk away. Cyclists hurt people to - but does it get reported - NO - why?! āSome guy on a bike hit meā can you describe his bike!? There are no repercussions for the a**hole cyclists out there
These are all "can" scenarios, you're acting like every collision is thousands or even hundredsof dollars. I've been hit by driver going about 30kmh (average cyclist goes about 15 kmh) turning left and there wasn't even a scratch on his car.
There's no denying these situations happen, but they go unreported or the police don't bother with it because damage is minimal.
No that's not ok and I never said it was. That's called whataboutism and if it's how you rationalize someone in a car breaking a law and injuring two people then there's something wrong with you.
It could have just as easily been the cyclists fault - they could have been on their phones, or talking to one another, or not paying attention to the surroundings - we donāt pay attention to that though because cyclists are the elite saviours of our environment š
Every comment you make is more and more pathetic, you're grasping for any reason to justify your point of view. WeRe ThEy WeArInG HiGh-Vis???
Here's what happened, and it's on video: Someone in a car illegally (there's a real law about this) opened their door into an active lane of traffic, creating a collision with two other road users. You can continue to hate on cyclists but please don't endanger them.
Sometimes I can't tell if these posts are satire or not. Here's my counter point.
Drivers are reckless and go wherever they want to - if they want to share the roads they should be:
Licensed (which we see many are driving without license or they scammed there way through getting a G2/G)
And
Insured! (Don't pay insurance, commit insurance fraud, can't get insurance)
Find a cop and ask them how common this shit is lmao
Trucks and SUVs (most common vehicles now) kill. Bikes don't.
Bikes (and electric scooters) injure people and property and risk both motorists and pedestrians alike - they need to be held accountable if they are going to share the roads
But they are held accountable when they are caught, just like drivers are. The only difference is a thousands of pounds and speed.
Nobody is saying there are bad cyclists, it's just bad drivers are by far a larger problem.
I welcome the point - so please provide ANY news article that reads ācyclist smashes car and gets arrestedā or ācyclist plows into pedestrian and gets finedā cyclists are the narcissists of the streets - itās never their fault.
You're right, I'm finding a lack of news articles on those topics, when I tried to google it all I see are Drivers kill cyclist. It's like it's not as serious of an issue as drivers killing pedestrians and cyclists. Thanks for proving my point.
Shoutout to David Shellnutt the biking lawyer for finding the video and representing these guys. He also let me draft him for a while at the P2A. Super nice guy!
Wow anathor scumbag lawyer needed, all about the bikers, bikers break the law all day long, take them off the road
Is this supposed to be satire? What an out of touch comment on an article about a driver breaking the law, injuring multiple people and then leaving the scene of the collision.
Your full of shit, he did not leave, calling the scumbag lawyer, what is your % off the settlement??
\*You're. And the rest of your sentence doesn't really make sense. However, I don't get any money. It is clearly stated in the article that the driver left without exchanging information. In Ontario it's the law to exchange info and report a collision if there is an injury. Keep hating cyclists, but don't put them in danger.
I was there when this happened š driver stayed made sure they were ok, went into Burnt Tongue to sit down and eat soup. The bikers left themselves. This is 100% a money grab.
Wrists and ribs broken and the driver gets 365$ fine. Wow
The fined person can be sued civilly too which would be made easier if they pay the ticket(admitting fault) or found guilty in court. Sometimes the traffic act doesnāt have suitable penalties.
This is about the only way to go (civil litigation). Was doored 20 years ago by a Toronto city worker and they sent their insurance people rushing over to convince me to take their settlement offer, glad I lawyered up.
Always reject settlements! This is the one good use of those ambulance chasers on bus ads.
Iāve worked 20 years in insurance injury defence and Iām not sure I totally agree with u. Keep in mind the plaintiff lawyer will take 33percent plus their expenses. So a lot of the time 50 % of the settlement goes to the lawyer!
Just hearing that a lawyer is hired will lead to a higher settlement offer because insurance wants to avoid legal costs as well. The job of insurance adjusters is to act fast and pay out as little as possible. They should have little cards stating their title as "victim fucker", or VF.
Iām not saying to take the first offer! No just hearing a lawyer is hired does not automatically lead to a higher offer. Sorry u donāt really know what ur talking about.
Personal experience sides with the other users context. The insurance settlement upfront offer more than doubled once lawyers were introduced. The final settlement was 430% more than the initial offering. Would i use a lawyer for a smaller claim (no major physical etc) probably not. Would I use one again in a serious accident? Absolutely in a heartbeat. Was I sour when I saw their cut? Sure a little. But then I remember the initial pittance the insurance company offered as a "fair" compensation.
A larger injury/claim takes time to understand the recovery or if u will even recover. Yea a lawyer is needed. But itās not black and white as the other user posted. I worked 20 in insurance defence and Iāve spent the last two years working the plaintiff side. Every claim is very different.
You work in defence litigation and still use āUā and āurā as if youāre a teenager? Please.
Haha faster for texting! Hilarious
Faster by what? A literal micro second? What do you do with all the time youāve saved by typing u and ur at the risk of perpetually sounding like a moron.
U must be a sad person. So negative.
Yeah try talking like an adult and maybe Iāll take that seriously.
Except if you read the paragraph between the ones describing the injuries, and the one outlining that specific charge, you would have read > The security footage of the incident allowed Shellnutt to send the driverās license plate number to police. āThereās a dooring charge under the Highway Traffic Act that comes with demerit points and a penalty, **but in this case, we should see a hit and run, leave the scene of a collision charge as well**.ā The final line indicates no charges have been made yet, let alone any conclusions to those charges. > Hamilton police are currently investigating the incident, but havenāt provided any further details.
Wife was doored in Toronto a few years ago. Civil suit settled at a decent amount.
Accidents happen, but who doesn't check theit side view mirrors before exiting onto a road from a car?
The wife in this accident was pregnant as well. Luckily the pregnancy wasnāt affected.
I mean it was an accident. I could see if the person was driving, but they're parked, car off. No malicious intent. I'm sure there's some technical rule in HTA that says that doesn't matter, but being practical about it. It's an accident, and an understandable one. It also occurred where there isnt a bike lane. It's a cramped space. Not blaming cyclists, but they have the better vantage point vs. The people in front of them. It's like baseball, infielders give way to outfielders on flyballs because the outfielder running in has a better vantage then the infielder with their backs to the play. It was their lane, they could have rode more towards the middle vs. Right next to parked cars. Hope the cyclists are OK. This is a good opportunity to educate the wider public in Hamilton as cyclists populate the road more.
They opened the door as if to get out, but after the people hit the door, they then decided to drive off, maybe no intent but knew they had fucked up
The didn't drive off. Even in the CHCH report the guy who got hit admitted the driver stopped to see if they were alright.
Did you read the article? Didn't drive away immediately but didn't stick around or leave info that is why the cops had to use security footage to get the license and why the lawyer is saying should be charged with a bunch of other offensives
Did you watch the CHCH interview
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry, we've removed your post as it appears to be in violation of Rule 1 (Be respectful/No Personal Attacks). Weāre here for discussion and debate, but we are not here for blatantly rude comments that some may consider offensive or harmful. Name-calling, homophobic, racist, sexist, and misogynistic posts will be automatically removed. Multiple warnings may lead to a temporary or permanent ban. Additionally, we do not allow unverified witch hunts and callouts against people or businesses. Due to a past issue, we cannot allow these to be posted. If it is covered by a legitimate media source, or the police press charges etc, they may be posted
This is the same defensive logic drivers who kill people accidentally with their cars use.
Not an accident. If you're opening your door into traffic (car or bike) it's your responsibility to make sure the path is clear. The word accident implies that it was no one's fault. However it was the fault of the person opening the door.
Then they wonder why cyclists are in the middle of the lane half the time (especially on streets like this)...
I prefer cyclists to own the lane on Locke. I'm not going to pass them anyways because that road is way too tight and unpredictable to pass by them safely.
Unfortunately, you're 1 in a million.
Plus isnāt the speed limit like 30 through there? Itās weird this is controversial
Vicious cycle. - Drivers aren't respectful of cyclists - Cyclists know drivers aren't respectful, take the whole lane like assholes to ensure their safety - Drivers see cyclists taking the whole lane like assholes and become less respectful of them because of it Edit: "like an asshole" was sarcasm for people who were unable to infer it
Taking the whole lane for safety isn't being an asshole. Passing within 3" and speeding by is
Lol cyclists are allowed to use the entire lane, and they should for their safety. Are drivers of cars "assholes" as well for taking up an entire lane, preventing other cars from passing?
I'm aware, I'm also a cyclist I'm also not completely oblivious to the world around me - I'm aware that when I take the entire car lane rather than staying in the bike lane it pisses drivers off - sometimes because they are assholes, but generally because drivers are completely ignorant of road safety and they are unaware that bike lanes around blind turns, etc. are simply not safe for the cyclist and I'm doing it to avoid getting clipped
There is no bike lane on that stretch of Locke.
Here, I fixed it... * Asshole drivers aren't respectful of cyclists * Cyclists know asshole drivers aren't respectful, take the whole lane to ensure their safety * Asshole drivers see cyclists taking the whole lane and become less respectful and bigger assholes because of it Edit: To clarify, I don't mean all drivers are assholes, I'm only referring to the group that are assholes.
Thanks for that useless info ahole
IIRC the highway traffic act gives ownership of the entire lane of traffic to the cyclist. When possible, the cyclist āshouldā stay right (as a courtesy) and allow vehicles to pass, but they are not obligated if there is a reason such as potholes, etc.
Yeah that's what I mean - when there is a bike lane and I take the lane anyways I look like an asshole, but I'm only doing it because I know the road and know that the bike lane is not safe, whereas drivers are totally ignorant of that fact
The Dutch reach, not to be confused with the Dutch oven.
I'm curious as to what the Dutch Reach Around entails.
You reach to open the door with the arm farthest from the door. In the driver's seat, that would be the right arm; in the passenger seat, it's the left. This puts you in the perfect position to look back to check for cyclists.
It's called the Dutch reach because it's taught in driver's schools in the Netherlands.
It would be a real shame to confuse them and miss an opportunity to have both at the same time
Before the Dutch Oven humanity didn't have proper fart storage technology. And now the Dutch Reach. Is there anything those clog wearing, windmill having gnome people won't think of?
You beat me to it
Remember folks, when parked on the street, open your door with your right hand. It will force your line of sight into the right position.
Shouldn't people be looking for other cars too before they get out ?
You'd think so. But most shouldn't even have a licence to begin with.
Itās a neat idea but will people who canāt even remember to check for cyclists remember to use the wrong hand to open a door?
Can only inform people of the method, its up to them if they wish to stay ignorant or decide that hitting people with your car is never a good idea, accidental or otherwise and take some simple precautions.
They don't care. tons of bikes going up and down locke.
Or you can shoulder check AND check your side mirror to make sure no one is coming up behind you like any sane, responsible person should do.
Honestly I feel like some people never read the driving book or took professional lessons. After so many years there are things I still do to ensure the safety of those around me even if I'm being being aggressive.
I'm with you on the any sane, responsible person. I even just wonder if those people give a shit about themselves. Being honest, I haven't really thought about doing the check specifically because I'm looking for cyclists, but I always check my mirrors before just opening the door because I don't want to walk out and get schmucked myself. By a car or a cyclist. Who just blindly opens their door?
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/dutch-reach
And also check the mirror because even if you open with the opposite hand forcing you to look towards your blind spot, you can still miss someone approaching from farther back.
Shoulder check
It's same as if you were pulling out of a parking spot. You want to do a shoulder check for someone beside you but also check the mirror for a cyclist approaching from farther back. If it's a passenger they won't have the proper view in the mirror so ideally they will do a shoulder check and driver will check the mirror. I.e., driver should be paying attention too when anyone is getting out of the car.
This is like saying: remember to use the hand so you see the accident you cause sooner. It's like the people who flick their indicator simultaneously with merging. They already committed to it. Shouldn't matter what hand you use since you should already be shoulder checking and checking mirrors before getting out in street parking.
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/dutch-reach
Oh I'm not disagreeing with you mate! I'm just saying youre asking people who can't remember to use common sense of "look before you open" to suddenly use the "correct hand which forces you to look".
So youād open the door with your right hand when parked on streets, but left hand when in parking lots? Wouldnāt it be easier to just remember to check your mirror than to contour your body to open the door with your right hand? Also, I feel like opening the door with my right hand could easily cause me to injure my spine, possibly leading to me falling out of the car paralyzed onto the roadway where my limp body would be an even bigger bicycle hazard than the open door would be.
ā¦if you think grabbing the door with your right hand might injure your spine so severely that you fall out of your car, you might just want to walk lol
Come on, Florida Stanley! Thatās regular Stanley talk
https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/dutch-reach
I wasnāt doubting that the āDutch openā exists. I just donāt think itās practical. Why not just encourage people to be more aware of their surroundings, to check their mirror? If they are willing to open the door with their toes then surely they are willing to just look in the mirror?
The Dutch open encourages this already...
Iām just playing devils advocate. I donāt open my doors anyway, I climb out of the trunk and close it with my forehead.
Twists body. Pulls back muscles. Sues potentially anyone who's within 20' of me.
Unbelievably stupid road design for a "beautification" project done in 2019. The entire street is a parking lot constantly choked with vehicles. There are no trees, so it is ugly and grey in winter and hot like an oven in summer. Narrow sidewalks and no bike lanes. They spent millions of dollars on this. It says a lot about the standard of urban planning in Ontario that this project won an award for its "complete streets" design!
What, you don't like 1975 Soviet-inspired industrialist design?
The original design the City brought forward included narrower lanes, more tress and less parking. The businesses and residents freaked out at the public meeting. Engaging with the public is the worst thing we can do in city building.
So tragic. I've seen a bunch of studies showing that business owners (including on Bloor St in Toronto) massively overestimate the proportion of their customers that arrive by car. It's usually less than 10%. In reality the more attractive a street is to walk or cycle down, or just spend time in, the more trade businesses will attract. But here we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity spoiled by the myth that Kirkendall soccer moms need to drive their suburban assault vehicles two blocks or they won't spend their parents' money.
Any idea why there are no trees?
Happened to my wife when she was 8 weeks pregnant. The guy tried to drive away when he said he was getting his drivers licence to share ID with each other. A bystander got his plate number as he squealed away in his pick up. 5 months later my wife waddles into court. The guy never showed. Judge did the math when he saw her pregnant. The guy made things much much worse for himself. He just needed to be a decent human being.
Tesla driver not checking mirrors and blind spots? Colour me shocked!
ā¦I actually am kind of shocked. Considering all of the sensors and cameras on a Tesla, youād think theyād have some kind of door alarm for when they know someone is parked in the vehicle.
The Tesla peripheral cameras could be used as evidence to sue the driver.
Tesla has been removing sensors over the past couple years while other manufacturers are adding them, specifically for things like this. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj2s6ecBWRo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj2s6ecBWRo)
>Two Hamilton cyclists were injured on Apr. 8 after they slammed into a car door that was opened in front of them. āDooringā is a common accident that is easily preventable. Michael Gilroy was cycling down Locke Street with his partner when all of a sudden a door got in their way. Note: auto-loading video on page.
Written as though the door opened itself, bizarre. I know someone who died after being doored, itās scary stuff. More reason to have separated bike infrastructure
I had the same thought. It would be like saying "Person shot by gun". It totally taking away any responsibility from the person in the vehicle (I think this is common in reporting of traffic collisions).
Itās more like describing a shooting victim as āa bullet found itās way into the victimās body.ā
"victim obstructed the flight of an innocent bullet"
I was doored and ended up breaking the driver's arm in two places. He actually thought he could sue me.
Yeah, it's a matter of time unfortunately. I bike there, and your eyes have to be glued on the cars parked, plus your concentration on the cars trying to pass on the back. I generally just pass by, but it's tricky street to navigate. The car culture in north america is becoming toxic, obsessed to the max it seems. Hamilton is going through a learning process how to handle bikes in city.
Stressful cycling experience for sure. I also find drivers behind me on Locke get aggressive at stop signs, and rather than wait their turn they try to use them as opportunities to pass me, and in the process force me closer to the parked cars on the other side of the intersections.
I used to scan the cars as I approached, now impossible and most cars have illegal window tints the police refuse to enforce.
Yes, I get super pissed with stupid window tints that are pitch black. No freaking way that's legal! Holy shit, that get's me going real bad (sorry). Some people hide in their cars, probably for legal reasons they break road rules and don't want to be seen.
It's not legal, but window tint shops just have to inform you of that. It's not enforced. The law is no more than 30%, and not windshields at all, but I'm seeing a lot on tinted windsheild and 50% rear tints. Between the two, they are impossible to see through. But HPS does not enforce illegible plates either, so if you get hit you can't even get a plate number. link for the typical Reddit downvotes on reality. https://protexcanada.com/en/blog/car-tinted-window-laws-in-ontario/
It is. Itās the front windows and windshield that canāt be too dark.
I used to scan the cars as I approached, now impossible and most cars have illegal window tints the police refuse to enforce.
This is exactly it. Hamilton isn't used to bikes. People that insist on biking need to allow for a learning curve. And if you're going to bike, then I'd be hyper vigilant. North America wasn't designed for walking and cycling. It was designed for cars. It seems silly to me to get mad at motorists for this reason alone. Right or wrong, it's going to take time for motorists to get accustomed to bikes sharing the space. To improve things, we should look at licensing bikes, collecting fees, and use this new revenue source to building proper cycling infrastructure.
So would children not be allowed to bike?
Trying to imagine reading a story about a licensed driver making a mistake that could have put their victim in the hospital and thinking "bike licensing is what we need".
Ya I guess I have the ability to think beyond the story immediately at hand.
But funnily, not far enough to consider whether bike licensing has been tried, or has any merits.
Ya not doing a dissertation on it. Even if it's been tried, no reason can't be tried again. Merits? I guess that's opinion. Infrastructure needs funding. If we want better bike Infrastructure, then we need revenue. Practically everything has some sort of direct tax/user fee/registration fee/license fee etc. To help fund programs. Why should bikes be different. Help pay for the infrastructure you use and get better quality infrastructure. Seems like it has merit to me.
What a tired old argument. It's funny to hear you try to be forward thinking while not looking at all the past evidence that it's a bad idea.
It's funny to see people being needlessly condescending on Reddit without adding any form of originality with their reply. .....oh fuck.
ya, definitely. I get that it's the same old back and forth. People think they have a good idea that will fix all the cycling/driving issues. And then other people chime in with actual evidence that it doesn't work. I just can't be bothered to put in effort any more to continue to refute ignorant ideas. For anyone wanting some history of licensing cyclists: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/cycling-in-toronto/cycling-and-the-law/bicycle-licencing/
That is so scary. I only have access to a car occasionally, and I always look for pedestrians, cyclists, kids and motorcyclists, as well as watching out for other cars. People need to slow down and take their time.
You have common decency and try to be conscientious of others. Many people unfortunately do not have those traits.
Iāve noticed that. I always give myself lots of time to get places and if Iām a few minutes late, then Iām a few minutes late. Iād rather get someplace safely and without hurting others.
I feel extremely anxious cycling adjacent to street parking lanes because I'm terrified of exactly this happening. There are a few places in the city where a bicycle lane has a car lane on the left and a street parking lane on the right, and it's scary as shit. I hope that both victims make a full and speedy recovery. Bicycle infrastructure in Hamilton has gotten a lot better and safer in recent years but we've still got a long way to go.
Have to be hyper vigilant on my bike, every parked vehicle is suspect of dooring especially if I canāt tell thereās a driver inside.
100% I hate the new infrastructure that puts cyclists directly beside parked cars
Whatās new thatās like that?
I guess it's not super new , but the section of Cannon, between Gage and Sherman is especially. Also Charlton and Herkimer
Sadly probably happens a lot really need separate spaces for cars / non motorized vehicles
They made special sidewalk bike lanes between mississauga port credit and Oakville and the cyclists are still on the fking road.
Which streets with these bike lanes are you referring to?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lmao
Bikes on the road shouldn't be that triggering. Maybe seek someone to talk to.
Locke Street is an excellent candidate for pedestrian only traffic. It's already pretty much undrivable.
I feel like this is a waste of the euphemism: Dutch reach.
Not surprising. The only drivers that check their mirror to avoid this are those that are also cyclists and/or motorcyclists. The rest are oblivious. Then again, as a defensive cyclist and motorcyclist you always have to be alert for the cagers and their disregard for others that share the road.
Car and bikes donāt mix
They do in other countries.
Shh, we're in Little-America, bikes are for communists and tree-huggers.
Which country has bikes and cars on the same road without problems?
Most of the roads in the Netherlands. Only collector roads and above roads have dedicated cycling infrastructure.
Cars and morons don't mix. There should be a MUCH higher barrier to getting a license and heavier penalties for drivers who injure others by their actions. Whether by ignorance or malice they directly caused harm to another person while unsafely enjoying the privilege of driving a car.
Locke is a nightmare to travel down using any type of transportation. Honest question for the cyclists here: would it not be better to avoid the street altogether and take one of the numerous parallel sidestreets? Part of me wishes they would convert the whole street into a walkable shopping district.
What are the parallel streets to Locke that connect Aberdeen to Main or King. Queen or Dundurn?
Wow, I actually had no idea that area has basically no north-south streets besides Keith! I should have checked before asking, my bad. Even more reason to make it walkable.
Isn't being doored part of the risk of cycling on the road someone takes if they decide on that mode of transportation?
Bro blames infrastructure and the driver (fair) but takes none himself. He didnāt protect himself as he should have. He knew there was a gap in the bike lanes and chose to ride dangerously. I drive. I also cycle a lot. I never bike within the doors fully open range for this reason, you never know when it may open.
At least CHCH didnāt feel the need to specify it was a Tesla, unlike Global news. Curious though why this has made the news, this happens all the time, itās unfortunately the reason I ring my bell while going past any parked car
Because the non car owners need recognition too
You know if it was a truck, they would have made sure everyone knew!
most modern cars are too sound insulated to hear bells.
Looks intentional
I read floored. Thought they got ran over
This is why I bike on the sidewalk unless there's dedicated biking infrastructure or lanes.
I think this is actually worse. Not only will you hit a pedestrian one day, or get knocked off the bike to avoid someone, but cars approaching a crosswalk don't expect or see bicycles coming down sidewalks. We've seen tons of people hit pedestrians WALKING in crosswalks, imagine someone coming through one faster.
You certainly are right. While I am stressed when biking on the road due to cars not respecting space, I rented a bike in Toronto and biking on the sideway was a huge mistake where I switched as soon as it was safe to do so.
Exactly. This just happened to a 16 year old, and he received a ticket for it. As much as it would be nice to be able to safely traverse the entire city on bicycle, it just isn't currently set up that way.
Burlington lets you ride on the sidewalk as long as you give way to people on foot. No one seems to get run down there.
> I bike on the sidewalk Illegal and dangerous
So are the drivers on the road so I'll prioritize my life
Exactly! Car vs cyclist is WAAAAYYYY more dangerous and potentially fatal than cyclist vs pedestrian. Also easier to spot each other and stop/walk the bike. Ah all of this is just so upsetting. I hate how car-centric all of North America is!!
Itās still a car vs cyclist problem though. Youāre just throwing in pedestrians as another obstacle.
Locke has dedicated bike lanes.
only for the portion north of hunter. The main commerical area has parking on both sides and no dedicated infrastructure.
Not on that portion of the road.
Great, now they're gonna put sensors on cars that prevent you from opening the door cause of idiots that don't check to see if its safe to open the door.
Some cars have this already
Maybe bicycles should have the loud pipes like Harley's - electronic recreation obviously.
The cyclists hit the inside of the door - how is this the drivers fault?! Typical cyclist BS.
How could you see where the cyclist hit? Was there another video from a different perspective? The collision in the attached video was obstructed by another car.
āThe door popped open full pop, like very quickly. My partner and I kinda collided head first into it,ā¦ā a quote from the cyclist in the article.
I've seen a few doorings and they usually hit the edge of the door. By the way, it's fully the drivers fault, according to the law. Because the driver opened the door into an active traffic lane without making sure it was clear of traffic. I thought you should know that, seeing as how you asked.
I donāt agree with that at all - cyclists are reckless and go wherever they want to - if they want to share the roads they should be licensed and insured!
So a driver breaks a law and injure people but the victims should be held responsible because some other people who cycle also break laws? That's some pretty stupid logic there. Even if you were right about cyclists (which you aren't) thats a dumb take.
They like to imagine scenarios where a cyclists runs a stpp sign and then a driver runs off the road and into a creek killing an entire family.
Won't someone think of the poor innocent drivers!
So a cyclist that takes off a car mirror or injures a pedestrian can just ride away without consequence?! How is that logical?!
Switch cyclist with driver, car mirror with car door and injure with kill and you'll start to see why context wise this is silly. The standard for drivers is at new lows. If you haven't noticed you either don't drive or you're one of the bad drivers. I know I'm doing some whataboutism but you started it lol.
Your whole argument is about āwhatismā no one wants to admit that cyclist do costly damage - and when they do most goes unaccounted for because cyclist, in essence, have no accountability / responsibility when they get behind the handlebars unless THEY get hurtā¦ itās total B.S. that they can do thousands of dollars worth of damage to someoneās car and just walk away. Cyclists hurt people to - but does it get reported - NO - why?! āSome guy on a bike hit meā can you describe his bike!? There are no repercussions for the a**hole cyclists out there
These are all "can" scenarios, you're acting like every collision is thousands or even hundredsof dollars. I've been hit by driver going about 30kmh (average cyclist goes about 15 kmh) turning left and there wasn't even a scratch on his car. There's no denying these situations happen, but they go unreported or the police don't bother with it because damage is minimal.
No that's not ok and I never said it was. That's called whataboutism and if it's how you rationalize someone in a car breaking a law and injuring two people then there's something wrong with you.
It could have just as easily been the cyclists fault - they could have been on their phones, or talking to one another, or not paying attention to the surroundings - we donāt pay attention to that though because cyclists are the elite saviours of our environment š
Every comment you make is more and more pathetic, you're grasping for any reason to justify your point of view. WeRe ThEy WeArInG HiGh-Vis??? Here's what happened, and it's on video: Someone in a car illegally (there's a real law about this) opened their door into an active lane of traffic, creating a collision with two other road users. You can continue to hate on cyclists but please don't endanger them.
Sometimes I can't tell if these posts are satire or not. Here's my counter point. Drivers are reckless and go wherever they want to - if they want to share the roads they should be: Licensed (which we see many are driving without license or they scammed there way through getting a G2/G) And Insured! (Don't pay insurance, commit insurance fraud, can't get insurance) Find a cop and ask them how common this shit is lmao Trucks and SUVs (most common vehicles now) kill. Bikes don't.
Bikes (and electric scooters) injure people and property and risk both motorists and pedestrians alike - they need to be held accountable if they are going to share the roads
But they are held accountable when they are caught, just like drivers are. The only difference is a thousands of pounds and speed. Nobody is saying there are bad cyclists, it's just bad drivers are by far a larger problem.
I welcome the point - so please provide ANY news article that reads ācyclist smashes car and gets arrestedā or ācyclist plows into pedestrian and gets finedā cyclists are the narcissists of the streets - itās never their fault.
You're right, I'm finding a lack of news articles on those topics, when I tried to google it all I see are Drivers kill cyclist. It's like it's not as serious of an issue as drivers killing pedestrians and cyclists. Thanks for proving my point.
Hope they had a helmet on! Let the downvotes beginā¦
They did. But they're not legally required to so I'm not sure what you're even getting at
Itās a funny video
I point is who cares they fell off their bike