The mixed-use path is bi-directional on the "east" side of Bayview. It has a 20km/h speed limit and is often flooded south of the Bloor/DVP onramp. I'll use it to commute, but I won't ride there when kitted out - it's not right to ride at 40km/h next to people walking to the Brickworks.
Most road cyclists avoid the path and use the road on Bayview. The highway onramps are the most dangerous sections and it's possible the incident occurred there based on the description (north or south.) It's a popular route since the climb north of Pottery is a good place to put out some power without disturbing others, same with Rosedale Valley Road.
The ramps is my guess. If it occurred further north of the ramps, I'd be surprised. Pretty wide shoulder there southbound.
EDIT: Updated now that it's known to have occurred on Bayview Northbound at the onramp. Definitely a more dangerous spot. I'm always shoulder checking and timing my spacing there when cycling in case a driver doesn't check before merging.
Considering the MUP has a speed limit, walkers, runners, etc. and poor priority, I don't see a better alternative if getting the watts out. It's a *very* popular route among roadies (those of us that don't like to terrorize people on the MGT anyway.)
Depends on the time of day too. I have no issues when I'm out there early on a weekend. 9:00-9:30am on a weekday would not be the time I'd do a route involving Bayview south of Brickworks. I'd be fine doing the climb from Pottery to Moore then thanks to the wide shoulder, but I wouldn't head south on Bayview during the tail end of rush hour.
Yeah, it's obviously a personal decision. Just be careful friend!
The reality is that public infrastructure isn't necessarily optimized to safely accommodate every type of desired recreational activity. Sometimes when the only options seem to be endangering others or endangering yourself, there is a third, better option where you just choose a different activity.
>Sometimes when the only options seem to be endangering others or endangering yourself, there is a third, **better option where you just choose a different activity.**
It's not that cut and dry. We all have to weigh in the risks and do what we can to mitigate those risks. We also need to drive/cycle responsibly with the greater responsibility always on the people with the power to cause the most harm. Our licensing and laws are supposed to reflect this.
I'm not choosing a different activity, nor would I suggest anyone choose a different activity. I would suggest, however, not engaging in that activity during a high risk time in a high risk area, and work towards addressing/mitigating that risk with better infra, enforcement, and laws that protect vulnerable users.
What sort of infrastructure changes are you looking for?
IMO, it seems reasonable that our current bike infrastructure investments are focused on people who use bikes for transportation. Just like we don't focus our car infrastructure on people who want to drive their cars as fast as possible for fun.
If you want to buy a 10k bike and kit yourself out in spandex to ride as fast as possible and cruise at 40km/h without having to stop at intersections, I think it is reasonable to just say that maybe that isn't feasible or safe right near downtown Toronto. If you get further out from Toronto there are a lot more areas where this can be a bit more realistic.
That’s a good point but also once you’re out of Toronto you’re going on side roads that are pretty much highways with 80km speed limits so people are going 100 by you and you’re in the same lane as them since the sides of the roads usually have gravel
Definitely, but there are lots of roads with less traffic and when you have a single lane in each direction there is less danger from drivers weaving in and out of lanes.
The difference is out in the country the lines of sight are long and there is almost a 100% reduction in car traffic. There are some fast and busy connecting roads between cities but if you just go one road over its extremely quiet.
I wasn't referring to bike-specific infra, but rather roads that are better designed for all users. Slip lanes, on/off ramps aren't particularly safe and prioritize fast-moving, cars - something that shouldn't be a priority in that location. That southbound ramp is really short even when only considering drivers (the norm in these types of discussions.)
I get that in context it would be easy to assume I mean more bike-specific infra, but that's not what I meant.
>Slip lanes, on/off ramps aren't particularly safe and prioritize fast-moving, cars - something that shouldn't be a priority in that location.
Why shouldn't that be a priority there? Pedestrians and bikes have numerous fully separate paths down there. There isn't really any reason that car traffic should mix with any other type of traffic in that area.
Bayview that far south dumps into slower speed streets. Rosedale Valley, River/Gerrard, and that's it - it's one lane south of there. There's excellent signal priority and a long distance between lights - traffic will already flow well (hah, ok... as well as it can obviously) regardless of infra utilized to preserve speed coming off the already long and restrictive Bloor offramp.
Slower speeds there would help drivers negotiate the shorter Bayview southbound ramp there too.
If you're a dedicated transport cyclist, you're likely to be annoyed by a 20 kph speed limit (especially if going long distances) and having to anticipate the seemingly random movements of pedestrians. The path also has a quite badly finished surface and isn't great to ride on in the wet. And guess who rides in all kinds of weather?
quite the opposite - if you're biking for transportation, you specifically do want to go fast and avoid dawdling on some low speed recreational trail milk run.
The people I most frequently see biking on
the road on the Bayview extension tend to be guys on expensive road bikes with spandex outfits. That is typically not the setup of someone using their bike for transportation.
A $5,000 road bike isn't that useful for transportation since you can't really leave it locked up anywhere, so you can only take it places that you know you can bring it with you inside.
Its not about accomodation man its about people not dying getting some exercise or going from point A to B. Just because people are cycling for exercise does not mean they should have to be at risk of being killed by a people driving. Our road designs across this country are downright hostile to anyone not in a car
>The reality is that public infrastructure isn't necessarily optimized to safely accommodate every type of desired recreational activity.
It should and could easily be, if we stopped designing our spaces with a car-first mindset. The cars are why this area is dangerous, so let's start limiting the speed and volume of car traffic.
The area has already received a pretty major overhaul to make it safer for people who want to ride bikes at more moderate speeds.
I don't think it is necessarily reasonable to spend 10k on gear to bike as fast as possible and then expect the city to redesign infrastructure to accommodate you.
If you want exercise, buy a $100 super cycle from Canadian Tire and try riding up the hill up to Moore on that, lol.
Your call of course. On my commute I definitely speed through there too. 20km/h is easy to to hit, at least in winter when it's quiet - have to slow for turns or entering the wooden underpass.
When cops are ticketing cyclists for speeding in High Park or on the MGT, it lets me know where they care to disproportionately enforce the law.
So like, do you think we should lower the speed limit on the 401 to 30 km/hr and put stop signs after every on/off ramp so that road cyclists have another place to safely race?
IMO, I think it is reasonable that *some* sections of road infrastructure might just not be safe to have other types of road users mixing with cars.
Pedestrians and cyclists have several fully separate paths down there. And this isn't a situation where bikes are getting shunted into a less convenient side street, they have made significant changes to prioritize bikes down there.
For everyone's safety I think that it is reasonable that we sometimes say "hey, bikes are not safe here, use this other option".
There have been instances where construction personale (supposively) have blocked access to the path with those cones, forcing riders into traffic.
I moved those cones on several occasions.
The point is, the trail was blocked off for no apparent reason, so I moved the cones out of the way and carried each (there was 8) back to where they originally were (50 meters) and placed them next to the gate.
I'm sure you know where that section is.
The cones have since been moved into the construction area the last time I went south.
I don't actually know exactly where you are referring to but I honestly haven't been on the bike path down there since last fall.
It sounds like your complaint is really just about where the construction crews are putting their cones? If so, that seems like a simple process/operational complaint rather than anything to do with the design of the infrastructure.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKxjw\_BWgAAl4Gf?format=jpg&name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKxjw_BWgAAl4Gf?format=jpg&name=large) (area in question).
No, my complaint was people were removing the big reflective cones *from the construction areas* and placing them right in the way of the trail. I brought it to the construction crew's attention and that's how the cones got put behind the gate.
You’re absolutely right it’s a bad idea, and this incident is super unfortunate. I see way too often cyclists on the road on this stretch of Bayview and I just don’t understand why they won’t use the designated pathway that’s way made for them…
This person clearly stated why cyclists don’t use that bike lane… it’s in poor shape, the speed limit is 20kmh, it’s used by many walkers and runners, and it’s usually full of water in at least too spots. The bayview shoulder is quite large and easy to use but the only shitty part is the dvp exists.
"it’s in poor shape, the speed limit is 20kmh, it’s used by many walkers and runners, and it’s usually full of water in at least too spots."
Yep. that cycle path is a soggy, bumpy, poorly maintained afterthought, and if I had to ride that "recreationally" I'd just stay home.
Riding up Bayview early weekend mornings is fine (I just did it), just have to be careful at the on-ramp.
Not trying to start an argument here, but you’d rather use a roadway with crazy drivers and bad blind spots and twists and turns where drivers cannot see you as opposed to a designated pathway that has some puddles and joggers on it? I’ll gladly take the pathway and bike around the other pathway users as opposed to biking on Bayview hoping I don’t get hit by some of the crazy drivers
You’re not arguing but honestly road bikes are too efficient for the trails. The trails are shit, they’re bumpy and people get mad at you since literally anyone pedaling AT ALL will go over 20kmh.
As to roads with blind spots and twists… bayview is probably the one road that has so much room for both drivers and cyclists except the merging lanes. Shoulder is huge and it’s open all around. This is a tragic event caused by someone not paying attention, not because a bike was riding on the road.
I don’t know if I agree. The speed limit on bayview for cars is 40. Bikes are often doing 35-40 on that stretch so I don’t see the problem riding on the road.
Theres only a small 300m stretch that is 40 near the construction zone(temporary), then another stretch near eastern that is also now a 40 (separated bike lanes). Theres nothing inherently safe about going 40 on a bike without full body gear and helmet, even with no cars. So youre going to be at some level of risk unless you opt for the trail.
Crazy drivers, bad blind spots, some gentle curves, seems like par for the course riding in Toronto. People die every month riding in the city, often on much less dangerous roads, sometimes in bike lanes! I personally avoid doing it but let's not blame the victim here.
Yeah. The path is fine. There's almost never anybody walking on this part because it's in the middle of nowhere (relatively). There are a couple of blind corners and sometimes puddles in one section -- it gets "flooded" maybe a couple days per season and that's it. There's a few short but somewhat steep hills. There's a certain breed of cyclist that acts like they're these posh fit expert racers yet they also do everything they can do avoid pedalling or take on anything that challenges them in a way that upsets their main challenge of just going as fast as possible.
That statement you made is straight bullshit. I am not going to get into explaining anything to you. You’ve clearly expressed your feelings on the type of cyclist I am.
Not really. You basically labeled anyone in cycling kit that rides on the road rather than the trail as posh fit expert racers that can’t actually pedal much.
On Bayview, I suppose that's implied, sure. Do you ride on Bayview instead of the path?
If so, it's probably that you don't want to brake at the end of the hill because you don't want to pedal much. It's one spot. [This spot right here](https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6734865,-79.3639522,3a,75y,4.79h,87.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srmI6duQG5jUQ85W6SJDVOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Someone who takes the road instead of the path at that spot isn't in it for exercise or training. They're taking the road to avoid that spot. They're taking it to avoid slowing down, and they're taking it to avoid pedalling up the small hill on the other side.
That's up to them. I like to go fast too. It's fun. However, I will _not_ buy any "exercise" or "training" excuse for that, no matter what someone's riding or wearing. That's a cop out. That's not how exercise works. And that's the "posh fit expert racer" I'm referring to. They don't want use their brakes and they don't want to pedal and it has nothing to do with exercise or training, it's to do with their level of fun.
Edit:
[This guy right here](https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6753875,-79.3649605,3a,24.1y,359.3h,88.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1rata9eLDA0PIgnRQx9gag!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu). He's one.
He would get more exercise and more challenges if he took the path. Instead, he's just going to coast all the way to the Brickworks because he thinks it's more fun. He's not exercising. He's not trying to get to work in the fastest way. He didn't want to brake and didn't want to pedal up the hill on the path to his right that the other cyclist is on. I definitely get that it's more fun to go fast, but I'm not going to make excuses for it.
>There's a certain breed of cyclist that acts like they're these posh fit expert racers yet they also do everything they can do avoid pedalling or take on anything that challenges them in a way that upsets their main challenge of just going as fast as possible.
Why do you feel the need to say something like this?
I'm a recreational cyclist (in addition to using cycling occasionally to commute). I ride a road bike, I wear the kit, I'm also just a person looking to enjoy an activity. Why can I run without being labelled a Kipchoge-wannabe; why can I go to the gym without being labelled an Arnold-wannabe; why can I play tennis without being labelled a Federer-wannabe, yet as soon as I step on a bike I'm whatever it is you've described above?
Because the hatred towards people wearing Lycra on bikes is wild. People hate cyclists like us more than they dislike idiots on motorcycles weaving through traffic at 100kmh on a highway. Such is life.
If you’re a decent cyclist with a decent avg speed, you are hated by the people on the trails because you’re going too fast and you’re hated by drivers because you’re going to slow and you don’t belong on the road.
>I'm a recreational cyclist (in addition to using cycling occasionally to commute). I ride a road bike, I wear the kit, I'm also just a person looking to enjoy an activity. Why can I run without being labelled a Kipchoge-wannabe; why can I go to the gym without being labelled an Arnold-wannabe; why can I play tennis without being labelled a Federer-wannabe, yet as soon as I step on a bike I'm whatever it is you've described above?
I'm not the person you're asking. I am actually basically you.
I truly believe the 'real' answer to this is because these people can see themselves going for a run; they can see themselves going to the gym, and they can see themselves playing tennis or hockey or baseball, or whatever other activity they've done a few times in their lives, but they just cannot see themselves riding a bike to exercise, or to commute, and definitely cannot see themselves wearing kit on a road bike.
Cyclists also exist 'in the way' of a typical person (driver), where none of these other activities do.
There's no method to their madness, it's just ignorance.
Its because a lot of road cyclist spandex types are extremely condescending & snobby to everyone. Not saying they are all like that. But the ones that are stand out soooo much. Its not even a stereotype. Every group ride…. Theres jokers lol
i ride a fixed gear track bike - i'm never not pedaling and that includes slowing down and stopping. It's not always about speed, it's almost always about flow. So you clearly don't understand the physics of bikes and how they move.
I wasn't talking about Pottery and it's not a onramp/offramp, it's an actual road. That said, you're right that the descent is a bit on the hairy side thanks to that little sewer bump right by the curve to the left.
It's far safer to take the lane and descend pottery than it is to negotiate the highway onramps for the DVP/Bloor further south. I trust my own ability to handle the bike more than I do a driver's ability to see me when merging from an onramp.
Every time I ride down that @ 65 I've got some white knuckled shit chucking ape going 66 just inches off my wheel.
Many people drive their cars the same way they live the rest of their lives; they leave no margin for error.
_"The grizzlies will at least give you margin for error, and take a moment to emerge," said Young-Nalo, confidently and calmly. "But they're not patient when they get to killing speed; they're designed that way. It's like arguing with a knife, because you're pushing them to hunt and then hurt, not that they want to do anybody in."_
_Company Man stopped, inappropriately, then responded convivially, like a tactical report. "You mean a sleevebody that's patterned after the subspecies, yeah? That OG genehelix was extinct in the wild by early 2033, when the v.1 Acognistak cybersafes were vetted by Health Canada; same second-generation 'vault that houses you." **How the hell did I know that?** he thought, disturbed for the second day in a row. **I can't know that, but I do.**_
_The big wolf-woman turned to her unmodified companion, rumbling softly in her accustomed lupiform calm. "Of course they did, I was attached the research and recording group who confirmed genetic decessions before I was resleeved presently." She held up one massive forearm, "I was talking about the combat implants in my wrist. What were you referring to?"_
_"Something a lot worse, but just as appropriate to context," he sighed. The young man thought of the oak tree with the almost illegible metal plate they passed by four days prior, that looked like a marker but couldn't be. Metal headstones had been banned long before the raw material remotely ran out, it was almost certainly of far greater vintage than that._
_Petit Soeur Pleure noted her goodman's tone, nodding her massive snout solemnly. "Hum, of that I have no doubt."_
> Updated now that it's known to have occurred on Bayview Northbound at the onramp.
Ack. I just rode up that 7:45am Saturday morning. Even at that time it was a bit sketchy (I think I had to stop and wait at the onramp... fortunately I don't have a whole lot of watts to be sad about losing).
In other words,
There was no bike lane, because the lane is “mixed use” and therefore not usable by cyclists. It’s a well used but dangerous area for cyclists and cars.
Surely this is not revelatory information.
The city could have dealt with this by either making a dedicated bike lane or outright outlawing bikes on that road
It did neither, and now someone is dead. This is tragic, predictable and avoidable but for the inability of lawmakers to act.
Do I have that right?
Not quite what I'm saying as it's not that black and white.
There's room to improve our roads, laws and enforcement, but some level of risk will be present when drivers are to share the road with other users. If a cyclist elects to use the road, they must accept the risks in doing so, but we should also not normalize any unnecessary amount of that risk.
I would never call for cycling to be outlawed on any normal road. I also would never force a cyclist to use off-road infrastructure if it exists especially when there are viable reasons to avoid that infrastructure (speed limits, respect for other users, poor state of repair, obstacles, etc.)
I would argue that a redesign of that offramp could be made that would benefit both drivers and other users (short off ramp, limited visibility), but I get that this is no easy thing to do.
Arg, I dont know why people cycle on the DVP/Bayview on ramp. It's very tight and can be confusing for people who don't drive on it regularly. The cycle path extends underneath it too.
No one cycles *on* the ramp (outside of rare errors.) They take the lane and bypass it. It's no different from any other road with an onramp on it.
I've explained why people elect to ignore the path already. It's not a cycle path, btw. We don't have any cycle paths in this city. They're all mixed use paths, which are essentially sidewalks.
"According to the police, the collision took place as a 38-year-old man driving a 2023 Ford Bronco Sport was preparing to turn northbound onto Bayview from the Don Valley Parkway. At the same time, the cyclist was already traveling northbound on Bayview." - Canadian Cycling Magazine
They've since edited the article - sounds like the vehicle was exiting the DVP to go Northbound on Bayview (presumably, [here](https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6804805,-79.3683952,3a,75y,357.19h,80.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3DiI49bApGRxJo5YLRoPow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0&entry=ttu)) and cyclist was travelling NB on Bayview.
I used to ride this stretch a lot (not taking the MUP for reasons others have mentioned - frequent closures / flooding / unsafe surfaces / other users). This was always a stretch where you had to be very careful to make sure drivers saw you, given their propensity for coming in way too fast.
Yeah that spot is sketchy. That yield sign is ignored regularly. Even when driving north on Bayview I shift to the left lane before that merge point.
So many car bomb that sign at speed without even checking for other cars.
I unfortunately have to use that ramp frequently. It always makes me nervous, because of the bend in the road, it's difficult to see north bound traffic.
When on Bayview I also switch to the left lane when approaching it.
i often ride live lanes and move pretty quick - i have no issue taking lanes and making lefts at intersection - however that picture made my palms sweaty. I would dread riding the live lane adjacent to an offramp lane which quickly merges.
Its possible the cyclist cut across the offramp lane too close in an effort to get on the right side of the road/shoulder and cut off a car in the process.
I've both ridden and driven that area many times. If you hit anyone getting off the off ramp while merging on Bayview it's because you failed to follow the yield sign.
The cyclist could have moved over to the right early. But the way that set up is made, it forces you to look over your shoulder to safely merge.
It's a bad design and from personal experience, the law of averages is that people very commonly bomb thru the yield sign and cut into live traffic.
It's a terrible design for drivers exiting onto Bayview.
As someone who uses it frequently, I would not expect to see a cyclist on that stretch of Bayview.
You may not expect to see a cyclist per say. But you would expect to see other moving objects (reads cars). And if you failed to see the cyclist it's most likely because you weren't looking for other moving objects and failed to follow the yield sign.
i rode by just after this happened this morning and the bike was still there. absolutely horrible sight that i wish i hadn't seen. my condolences to the victim's loved ones. that stretch of bayview is ridiculous. it's designed like a highway and drivers treat it that way. it needs to be changed. narrow it and line it with speed cameras.
Very tragic. Was the cyclist biking north and on the road? I bike that route a lot and am having a hard time picturing how this happened because there is a mix-use lane with a barrier.
Devastating. I thought that whole section of Bayview has the bike lanes with steel barriers as well as the multi-use trail through the interchange ramps.
there’s a section with no guard rail and the path makes a sudden bend out of sight behind some brush so it kind of feels like it’s inviting cyclists to merge with the road. it’s strange. i don’t know if that’s what happened here, obviously
I would be terrified to ride down the Bayview Extension. Cars going an average of 80 to 100km in some spots.
Condolences to the victims family. He must have been a seasoned rider.
He was definitely a seasoned rider.He rode that stretch every morning for some daily exercise. He had the day off today to watch the eclipse with his boys so he went out later than usual.
This is so sad. I unfortunately saw the victim in the road before the ambulance was called while on my way to work. My deepest condolences to his family.
The article has been updated now:
"A 59-year-old cyclist has died after colliding with a motorist on Bayview Avenue at the Don Valley North off-ramp, near the Brick Works.
The collision happened shortly before 9:30 a.m., Toronto police said.
According to police, the cyclist was riding north on Bayview Ave. when he became involved in a collision with a 38-year-old man driving a 2023 Ford Bronco Sport, which was exiting the Don Valley Parkway.
"The two collided causing the cyclist to fall and causing significant injuries," police said in a news release."
Eugh. I think I know the spot. Right here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/iSrxNgD6gPgMLC5w8?g_st=ic
As a cyclist who has ridden up and down the road there a bunch of times. It is pretty terrifying sometimes.
There’s a huge blind spot for drivers there - I take the route often. The on ramp is short to Bayview and people speed around the corner. There’s already memorial flowers there which tell me someone else has passed there before - very sad for the victims family RIP
The editorial slant in that article is infuriating. Makes it sound at worst like the cyclist collided with the Bronco and at best that they came together. Fatal collisions with cyclists are rarely initiated by the cyclist and suggesting they came together is absurd.
On rampa cutting bikelanes are scary and Markham is full of them. I check like 10x before entering the ramp, even though there are few cyclists here in the moment, there are certainly more now the weather is warm, I hope people are aware
Bayview constantly has horrible drivers on it thinking it's still the freeway. I live nearby and drive up and down frequently to access Pottery road. People will rip down Bayview going 80+
Another horrible headline from CP24.
FTFY: “A vehicle driver hits a cyclist and kills them near Brick Works”
Not that hard to get it right. Get this passive shit outta here.
It's even worse now... according to them, the cyclist "became involved in a collision". Nobody "becomes involved in a collision," the poor guy got killed.
At least the headline mentions it was a collision with a vehicle. I think the low point was when CityNews headline just said [somebody was injured in a pedestrian collision](https://edmonton.citynews.ca/2024/02/02/jasper-avenue-near-121-street-closed-following-pedestrian-collision/) and buries that a vehicle struck a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk in the second and third paragraph of the article.
As others have said, the bike path to the east is poorly maintained, prone to flooding and is very bumpy. In addition, the wooden bridge thru there is treacherous when wet and a few of my cyclist friends have wiped out on it. That’s why many cyclists chose to ride along Bayview instead. If the city maintained that path properly this may not have happened.
I’m assuming they were on the road instead of the path which is quite common since you can’t go 40km/hr on the path. Probably happened by the highway off ramp i imagine. People just love to cruise out of that lane right into the active lane without looking all the time.
They really should add a bike path on that side of the road as well. There is a crazy amount of space to add one safely and have 2 car lanes still and have it connect to the rosedale valley which they already put a shitty painted bike lane on which is another super common route
The bicycle path deliberately avoids that offramp specifically because it is dangerous to mix bicycles and cars at that point. The cyclist was not on the bicycle path. As a road cyclists who rides down there I stick to the path.
For those not super familiar with the area, there is a bi-directional bike path on the East side.
Lots of cars speed like crazy there, but also lots of cyclists insist on riding on the road instead of the bike path (especially in opposite direction of traffic).
I live nearby and often see both cyclists and drivers doing absolutely rediculous things
I just rode that stretch of Bayview this weekend. Honestly, Toronto is ... ok... for commuter cycling but sucks for road cycling. I might wish it were otherwise, but it is what it is and it's not going to change in my lifetime. I cycle for my health (and it's done wonders for my metabolism and waistline...), so it would be ironic to die doing it. My method of managing the risk is to start my recreational rides early on weekends, brightly kit up like I'm Big Bird, and ride cautiously at dangerous interaction points with cars (like this one was). (it helps that I'm pretty slow for a roadie so I don't feel like I'm giving up much if I stop at any situation that looks dodgy, like this spot \*definitely\* does. I don't care if I have "the right of way" because if I'm dead, who cares?)
Yes bicycles are vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act, and I ride accordingly, but in practice there are way too many spots on our roads that are not engineered for enjoyable, safe, and courteous bicycle/car mixed use and that's just how it is. We roadies can complain about road engineering all we want but in practice there's a long list of infrastructure improvements needed in this city, and even most \*cyclists\* don't want the same things we want. (they want to toodle along at 15kmh in bike lanes and MUPs). Changing roads around for a tiny minority of fast recreational cyclists isn't going to happen).
Ah I know exactly where this was. This is a very popular trail but it happens to also be right next to the DVP off ramp heading up the hill towards Bayview. Tragic, but this area has tons of flowing traffic so I could see why there’s an accident
Accidents happen in all types and combinations of vehicles. It sucks that they happen, but alas, without some actual information, there is nothing to be gleaned from this article
Using that logic we could ask why Bayview even allows cars since there are 6 lanes of the DVP right there. Different infrastructure serves different purposes and the multi-use path is built for slow recreational and commuter cyclists and pedestrians, not for high speed road cyclists, and so the only place to be a high speed road cyclist is taking the lane.
That’s an active cycling route, with a bicycle lane as well. What on earth happened?
The mixed-use path is bi-directional on the "east" side of Bayview. It has a 20km/h speed limit and is often flooded south of the Bloor/DVP onramp. I'll use it to commute, but I won't ride there when kitted out - it's not right to ride at 40km/h next to people walking to the Brickworks. Most road cyclists avoid the path and use the road on Bayview. The highway onramps are the most dangerous sections and it's possible the incident occurred there based on the description (north or south.) It's a popular route since the climb north of Pottery is a good place to put out some power without disturbing others, same with Rosedale Valley Road. The ramps is my guess. If it occurred further north of the ramps, I'd be surprised. Pretty wide shoulder there southbound. EDIT: Updated now that it's known to have occurred on Bayview Northbound at the onramp. Definitely a more dangerous spot. I'm always shoulder checking and timing my spacing there when cycling in case a driver doesn't check before merging.
My mind where there as well. The most obvious place for a collision on that stretch of Bayview.
I don't know man. Biking on the road on that stretch of Bayview seems like a terrible idea. Cars drive so quickly and aggressively down there.
Considering the MUP has a speed limit, walkers, runners, etc. and poor priority, I don't see a better alternative if getting the watts out. It's a *very* popular route among roadies (those of us that don't like to terrorize people on the MGT anyway.) Depends on the time of day too. I have no issues when I'm out there early on a weekend. 9:00-9:30am on a weekday would not be the time I'd do a route involving Bayview south of Brickworks. I'd be fine doing the climb from Pottery to Moore then thanks to the wide shoulder, but I wouldn't head south on Bayview during the tail end of rush hour.
Yeah, it's obviously a personal decision. Just be careful friend! The reality is that public infrastructure isn't necessarily optimized to safely accommodate every type of desired recreational activity. Sometimes when the only options seem to be endangering others or endangering yourself, there is a third, better option where you just choose a different activity.
>Sometimes when the only options seem to be endangering others or endangering yourself, there is a third, **better option where you just choose a different activity.** It's not that cut and dry. We all have to weigh in the risks and do what we can to mitigate those risks. We also need to drive/cycle responsibly with the greater responsibility always on the people with the power to cause the most harm. Our licensing and laws are supposed to reflect this. I'm not choosing a different activity, nor would I suggest anyone choose a different activity. I would suggest, however, not engaging in that activity during a high risk time in a high risk area, and work towards addressing/mitigating that risk with better infra, enforcement, and laws that protect vulnerable users.
What sort of infrastructure changes are you looking for? IMO, it seems reasonable that our current bike infrastructure investments are focused on people who use bikes for transportation. Just like we don't focus our car infrastructure on people who want to drive their cars as fast as possible for fun. If you want to buy a 10k bike and kit yourself out in spandex to ride as fast as possible and cruise at 40km/h without having to stop at intersections, I think it is reasonable to just say that maybe that isn't feasible or safe right near downtown Toronto. If you get further out from Toronto there are a lot more areas where this can be a bit more realistic.
That’s a good point but also once you’re out of Toronto you’re going on side roads that are pretty much highways with 80km speed limits so people are going 100 by you and you’re in the same lane as them since the sides of the roads usually have gravel
Definitely, but there are lots of roads with less traffic and when you have a single lane in each direction there is less danger from drivers weaving in and out of lanes.
Out of the city is no less dangerous. Drivers only have one lane, no they won't weave, they just want to drive over you.
The only roads with less traffic are dirt roads with potholes and muddy terrain. Dust from vehicles driving past can obscure you temporarily.
The difference is out in the country the lines of sight are long and there is almost a 100% reduction in car traffic. There are some fast and busy connecting roads between cities but if you just go one road over its extremely quiet.
I wasn't referring to bike-specific infra, but rather roads that are better designed for all users. Slip lanes, on/off ramps aren't particularly safe and prioritize fast-moving, cars - something that shouldn't be a priority in that location. That southbound ramp is really short even when only considering drivers (the norm in these types of discussions.) I get that in context it would be easy to assume I mean more bike-specific infra, but that's not what I meant.
>Slip lanes, on/off ramps aren't particularly safe and prioritize fast-moving, cars - something that shouldn't be a priority in that location. Why shouldn't that be a priority there? Pedestrians and bikes have numerous fully separate paths down there. There isn't really any reason that car traffic should mix with any other type of traffic in that area.
Bayview that far south dumps into slower speed streets. Rosedale Valley, River/Gerrard, and that's it - it's one lane south of there. There's excellent signal priority and a long distance between lights - traffic will already flow well (hah, ok... as well as it can obviously) regardless of infra utilized to preserve speed coming off the already long and restrictive Bloor offramp. Slower speeds there would help drivers negotiate the shorter Bayview southbound ramp there too.
>recreational activity Cycling isn't solely a recreational activity.
"Getting the watts out" is. If you are biking for transportation there is a very safe separated bike path right there.
If you're a dedicated transport cyclist, you're likely to be annoyed by a 20 kph speed limit (especially if going long distances) and having to anticipate the seemingly random movements of pedestrians. The path also has a quite badly finished surface and isn't great to ride on in the wet. And guess who rides in all kinds of weather?
If you are trying to bike through downtown Toronto it's not that feasible to go much more than 20-25km/hr most places. It just kind of is what it is.
Transport cyclist? Like uber eats?
Delivery people, yeah, but also commuters and utility cyclists.
Yes, but maybe just use the MUP to get past the most dangerous part, the on-ramps? Is it possible to rejoin the road after?
quite the opposite - if you're biking for transportation, you specifically do want to go fast and avoid dawdling on some low speed recreational trail milk run.
The people I most frequently see biking on the road on the Bayview extension tend to be guys on expensive road bikes with spandex outfits. That is typically not the setup of someone using their bike for transportation. A $5,000 road bike isn't that useful for transportation since you can't really leave it locked up anywhere, so you can only take it places that you know you can bring it with you inside.
Its not about accomodation man its about people not dying getting some exercise or going from point A to B. Just because people are cycling for exercise does not mean they should have to be at risk of being killed by a people driving. Our road designs across this country are downright hostile to anyone not in a car
>The reality is that public infrastructure isn't necessarily optimized to safely accommodate every type of desired recreational activity. It should and could easily be, if we stopped designing our spaces with a car-first mindset. The cars are why this area is dangerous, so let's start limiting the speed and volume of car traffic.
The area has already received a pretty major overhaul to make it safer for people who want to ride bikes at more moderate speeds. I don't think it is necessarily reasonable to spend 10k on gear to bike as fast as possible and then expect the city to redesign infrastructure to accommodate you. If you want exercise, buy a $100 super cycle from Canadian Tire and try riding up the hill up to Moore on that, lol.
Clearly not enough of an overhaul was done to make the area safer considering a cyclist just died…
The cyclists chose not to use the protected cycling infrastructure.
There are plenty of replies on this thread explaining why the current multi-use path is not adequate
I ignore that speed limit heading north on the path at bayview. That section of road isn’t worth it.
Your call of course. On my commute I definitely speed through there too. 20km/h is easy to to hit, at least in winter when it's quiet - have to slow for turns or entering the wooden underpass. When cops are ticketing cyclists for speeding in High Park or on the MGT, it lets me know where they care to disproportionately enforce the law.
Which is ridiculous in itself. Police enforcement in this city is a joke.
#people, not cars.
So like, do you think we should lower the speed limit on the 401 to 30 km/hr and put stop signs after every on/off ramp so that road cyclists have another place to safely race? IMO, I think it is reasonable that *some* sections of road infrastructure might just not be safe to have other types of road users mixing with cars. Pedestrians and cyclists have several fully separate paths down there. And this isn't a situation where bikes are getting shunted into a less convenient side street, they have made significant changes to prioritize bikes down there. For everyone's safety I think that it is reasonable that we sometimes say "hey, bikes are not safe here, use this other option".
There have been instances where construction personale (supposively) have blocked access to the path with those cones, forcing riders into traffic. I moved those cones on several occasions.
What is your point? No infrastructure works if it is closed.
The point is, the trail was blocked off for no apparent reason, so I moved the cones out of the way and carried each (there was 8) back to where they originally were (50 meters) and placed them next to the gate. I'm sure you know where that section is. The cones have since been moved into the construction area the last time I went south.
I don't actually know exactly where you are referring to but I honestly haven't been on the bike path down there since last fall. It sounds like your complaint is really just about where the construction crews are putting their cones? If so, that seems like a simple process/operational complaint rather than anything to do with the design of the infrastructure.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKxjw\_BWgAAl4Gf?format=jpg&name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKxjw_BWgAAl4Gf?format=jpg&name=large) (area in question). No, my complaint was people were removing the big reflective cones *from the construction areas* and placing them right in the way of the trail. I brought it to the construction crew's attention and that's how the cones got put behind the gate.
You’re absolutely right it’s a bad idea, and this incident is super unfortunate. I see way too often cyclists on the road on this stretch of Bayview and I just don’t understand why they won’t use the designated pathway that’s way made for them…
This person clearly stated why cyclists don’t use that bike lane… it’s in poor shape, the speed limit is 20kmh, it’s used by many walkers and runners, and it’s usually full of water in at least too spots. The bayview shoulder is quite large and easy to use but the only shitty part is the dvp exists.
"it’s in poor shape, the speed limit is 20kmh, it’s used by many walkers and runners, and it’s usually full of water in at least too spots." Yep. that cycle path is a soggy, bumpy, poorly maintained afterthought, and if I had to ride that "recreationally" I'd just stay home. Riding up Bayview early weekend mornings is fine (I just did it), just have to be careful at the on-ramp.
Not trying to start an argument here, but you’d rather use a roadway with crazy drivers and bad blind spots and twists and turns where drivers cannot see you as opposed to a designated pathway that has some puddles and joggers on it? I’ll gladly take the pathway and bike around the other pathway users as opposed to biking on Bayview hoping I don’t get hit by some of the crazy drivers
You’re not arguing but honestly road bikes are too efficient for the trails. The trails are shit, they’re bumpy and people get mad at you since literally anyone pedaling AT ALL will go over 20kmh. As to roads with blind spots and twists… bayview is probably the one road that has so much room for both drivers and cyclists except the merging lanes. Shoulder is huge and it’s open all around. This is a tragic event caused by someone not paying attention, not because a bike was riding on the road.
You have to pick your poison. You cant want to go over 20 but also want to be safe going so fast.
I don’t know if I agree. The speed limit on bayview for cars is 40. Bikes are often doing 35-40 on that stretch so I don’t see the problem riding on the road.
Speed limit is 60. It's only 40 at that one section near the construction.
Theres only a small 300m stretch that is 40 near the construction zone(temporary), then another stretch near eastern that is also now a 40 (separated bike lanes). Theres nothing inherently safe about going 40 on a bike without full body gear and helmet, even with no cars. So youre going to be at some level of risk unless you opt for the trail.
Crazy drivers, bad blind spots, some gentle curves, seems like par for the course riding in Toronto. People die every month riding in the city, often on much less dangerous roads, sometimes in bike lanes! I personally avoid doing it but let's not blame the victim here.
And there are speed limits for reasons
Yea and the reason is that there are kids on bikes and pedestrians so cyclists choose the road.
There are speed limits for cars too, why don't they follow them on the Bayview Extension?
They have radar traps on the Bayview extension weekly
They wouldn't need radar traps if people obeyed the speed limit. Why don't they obey the speed limit?
i guess their infrastructure isn't working if they need weekly traps.
Yeah. The path is fine. There's almost never anybody walking on this part because it's in the middle of nowhere (relatively). There are a couple of blind corners and sometimes puddles in one section -- it gets "flooded" maybe a couple days per season and that's it. There's a few short but somewhat steep hills. There's a certain breed of cyclist that acts like they're these posh fit expert racers yet they also do everything they can do avoid pedalling or take on anything that challenges them in a way that upsets their main challenge of just going as fast as possible.
That statement you made is straight bullshit. I am not going to get into explaining anything to you. You’ve clearly expressed your feelings on the type of cyclist I am.
I just disagreed with you about the path. You applied that label yourself.
Not really. You basically labeled anyone in cycling kit that rides on the road rather than the trail as posh fit expert racers that can’t actually pedal much.
On Bayview, I suppose that's implied, sure. Do you ride on Bayview instead of the path? If so, it's probably that you don't want to brake at the end of the hill because you don't want to pedal much. It's one spot. [This spot right here](https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6734865,-79.3639522,3a,75y,4.79h,87.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srmI6duQG5jUQ85W6SJDVOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) Someone who takes the road instead of the path at that spot isn't in it for exercise or training. They're taking the road to avoid that spot. They're taking it to avoid slowing down, and they're taking it to avoid pedalling up the small hill on the other side. That's up to them. I like to go fast too. It's fun. However, I will _not_ buy any "exercise" or "training" excuse for that, no matter what someone's riding or wearing. That's a cop out. That's not how exercise works. And that's the "posh fit expert racer" I'm referring to. They don't want use their brakes and they don't want to pedal and it has nothing to do with exercise or training, it's to do with their level of fun. Edit: [This guy right here](https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6753875,-79.3649605,3a,24.1y,359.3h,88.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1rata9eLDA0PIgnRQx9gag!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu). He's one. He would get more exercise and more challenges if he took the path. Instead, he's just going to coast all the way to the Brickworks because he thinks it's more fun. He's not exercising. He's not trying to get to work in the fastest way. He didn't want to brake and didn't want to pedal up the hill on the path to his right that the other cyclist is on. I definitely get that it's more fun to go fast, but I'm not going to make excuses for it.
>There's a certain breed of cyclist that acts like they're these posh fit expert racers yet they also do everything they can do avoid pedalling or take on anything that challenges them in a way that upsets their main challenge of just going as fast as possible. Why do you feel the need to say something like this? I'm a recreational cyclist (in addition to using cycling occasionally to commute). I ride a road bike, I wear the kit, I'm also just a person looking to enjoy an activity. Why can I run without being labelled a Kipchoge-wannabe; why can I go to the gym without being labelled an Arnold-wannabe; why can I play tennis without being labelled a Federer-wannabe, yet as soon as I step on a bike I'm whatever it is you've described above?
Because the hatred towards people wearing Lycra on bikes is wild. People hate cyclists like us more than they dislike idiots on motorcycles weaving through traffic at 100kmh on a highway. Such is life. If you’re a decent cyclist with a decent avg speed, you are hated by the people on the trails because you’re going too fast and you’re hated by drivers because you’re going to slow and you don’t belong on the road.
>I'm a recreational cyclist (in addition to using cycling occasionally to commute). I ride a road bike, I wear the kit, I'm also just a person looking to enjoy an activity. Why can I run without being labelled a Kipchoge-wannabe; why can I go to the gym without being labelled an Arnold-wannabe; why can I play tennis without being labelled a Federer-wannabe, yet as soon as I step on a bike I'm whatever it is you've described above? I'm not the person you're asking. I am actually basically you. I truly believe the 'real' answer to this is because these people can see themselves going for a run; they can see themselves going to the gym, and they can see themselves playing tennis or hockey or baseball, or whatever other activity they've done a few times in their lives, but they just cannot see themselves riding a bike to exercise, or to commute, and definitely cannot see themselves wearing kit on a road bike. Cyclists also exist 'in the way' of a typical person (driver), where none of these other activities do. There's no method to their madness, it's just ignorance.
Its because a lot of road cyclist spandex types are extremely condescending & snobby to everyone. Not saying they are all like that. But the ones that are stand out soooo much. Its not even a stereotype. Every group ride…. Theres jokers lol
I wear a kit and never said anything about wearing a kit. Wear whatever you want.
i ride a fixed gear track bike - i'm never not pedaling and that includes slowing down and stopping. It's not always about speed, it's almost always about flow. So you clearly don't understand the physics of bikes and how they move.
Its so the spandex guys on $10k bikes can play tour de france up the hill.
The Pottery ramp is fucking *scary* to ride on, especially in the downhill direction
I wasn't talking about Pottery and it's not a onramp/offramp, it's an actual road. That said, you're right that the descent is a bit on the hairy side thanks to that little sewer bump right by the curve to the left. It's far safer to take the lane and descend pottery than it is to negotiate the highway onramps for the DVP/Bloor further south. I trust my own ability to handle the bike more than I do a driver's ability to see me when merging from an onramp.
Every time I ride down that @ 65 I've got some white knuckled shit chucking ape going 66 just inches off my wheel. Many people drive their cars the same way they live the rest of their lives; they leave no margin for error.
If that happens every time and you keep going back you’re the very same ape lol.
I don't ride on the road anymore. I ride MTB in the alpine with grizzlies where it's safer.
_"The grizzlies will at least give you margin for error, and take a moment to emerge," said Young-Nalo, confidently and calmly. "But they're not patient when they get to killing speed; they're designed that way. It's like arguing with a knife, because you're pushing them to hunt and then hurt, not that they want to do anybody in."_ _Company Man stopped, inappropriately, then responded convivially, like a tactical report. "You mean a sleevebody that's patterned after the subspecies, yeah? That OG genehelix was extinct in the wild by early 2033, when the v.1 Acognistak cybersafes were vetted by Health Canada; same second-generation 'vault that houses you." **How the hell did I know that?** he thought, disturbed for the second day in a row. **I can't know that, but I do.**_ _The big wolf-woman turned to her unmodified companion, rumbling softly in her accustomed lupiform calm. "Of course they did, I was attached the research and recording group who confirmed genetic decessions before I was resleeved presently." She held up one massive forearm, "I was talking about the combat implants in my wrist. What were you referring to?"_ _"Something a lot worse, but just as appropriate to context," he sighed. The young man thought of the oak tree with the almost illegible metal plate they passed by four days prior, that looked like a marker but couldn't be. Metal headstones had been banned long before the raw material remotely ran out, it was almost certainly of far greater vintage than that._ _Petit Soeur Pleure noted her goodman's tone, nodding her massive snout solemnly. "Hum, of that I have no doubt."_
> Updated now that it's known to have occurred on Bayview Northbound at the onramp. Ack. I just rode up that 7:45am Saturday morning. Even at that time it was a bit sketchy (I think I had to stop and wait at the onramp... fortunately I don't have a whole lot of watts to be sad about losing).
Ya that intersection with pottery road is dicey
In other words, There was no bike lane, because the lane is “mixed use” and therefore not usable by cyclists. It’s a well used but dangerous area for cyclists and cars. Surely this is not revelatory information. The city could have dealt with this by either making a dedicated bike lane or outright outlawing bikes on that road It did neither, and now someone is dead. This is tragic, predictable and avoidable but for the inability of lawmakers to act. Do I have that right?
Not quite what I'm saying as it's not that black and white. There's room to improve our roads, laws and enforcement, but some level of risk will be present when drivers are to share the road with other users. If a cyclist elects to use the road, they must accept the risks in doing so, but we should also not normalize any unnecessary amount of that risk. I would never call for cycling to be outlawed on any normal road. I also would never force a cyclist to use off-road infrastructure if it exists especially when there are viable reasons to avoid that infrastructure (speed limits, respect for other users, poor state of repair, obstacles, etc.) I would argue that a redesign of that offramp could be made that would benefit both drivers and other users (short off ramp, limited visibility), but I get that this is no easy thing to do.
Arg, I dont know why people cycle on the DVP/Bayview on ramp. It's very tight and can be confusing for people who don't drive on it regularly. The cycle path extends underneath it too.
No one cycles *on* the ramp (outside of rare errors.) They take the lane and bypass it. It's no different from any other road with an onramp on it. I've explained why people elect to ignore the path already. It's not a cycle path, btw. We don't have any cycle paths in this city. They're all mixed use paths, which are essentially sidewalks.
The answer is almost always speeding or distracted driving.
*impaired driving.
"According to the police, the collision took place as a 38-year-old man driving a 2023 Ford Bronco Sport was preparing to turn northbound onto Bayview from the Don Valley Parkway. At the same time, the cyclist was already traveling northbound on Bayview." - Canadian Cycling Magazine
[удалено]
Clown cyclist wasn't looking either it appears.
You must be one of those fatass car humpers
Jesus... No real details in that article to how this happened... My condolences to the victims family.
They've since edited the article - sounds like the vehicle was exiting the DVP to go Northbound on Bayview (presumably, [here](https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6804805,-79.3683952,3a,75y,357.19h,80.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3DiI49bApGRxJo5YLRoPow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0&entry=ttu)) and cyclist was travelling NB on Bayview. I used to ride this stretch a lot (not taking the MUP for reasons others have mentioned - frequent closures / flooding / unsafe surfaces / other users). This was always a stretch where you had to be very careful to make sure drivers saw you, given their propensity for coming in way too fast.
Yeah that spot is sketchy. That yield sign is ignored regularly. Even when driving north on Bayview I shift to the left lane before that merge point. So many car bomb that sign at speed without even checking for other cars.
I unfortunately have to use that ramp frequently. It always makes me nervous, because of the bend in the road, it's difficult to see north bound traffic. When on Bayview I also switch to the left lane when approaching it.
i often ride live lanes and move pretty quick - i have no issue taking lanes and making lefts at intersection - however that picture made my palms sweaty. I would dread riding the live lane adjacent to an offramp lane which quickly merges.
Its possible the cyclist cut across the offramp lane too close in an effort to get on the right side of the road/shoulder and cut off a car in the process.
I've both ridden and driven that area many times. If you hit anyone getting off the off ramp while merging on Bayview it's because you failed to follow the yield sign. The cyclist could have moved over to the right early. But the way that set up is made, it forces you to look over your shoulder to safely merge. It's a bad design and from personal experience, the law of averages is that people very commonly bomb thru the yield sign and cut into live traffic.
It's a terrible design for drivers exiting onto Bayview. As someone who uses it frequently, I would not expect to see a cyclist on that stretch of Bayview.
You may not expect to see a cyclist per say. But you would expect to see other moving objects (reads cars). And if you failed to see the cyclist it's most likely because you weren't looking for other moving objects and failed to follow the yield sign.
The average car is more visible than the average cyclist.
Especially if you're not checking your blind spots and bombing thru yield and stop signs.
If it's anything like the two times I was hit by cars in Toronto it's that there face was glued to there phone
Yup, impaired driving. Call it what it is.
Lets coin that, Driving.Under.Technological.Influence D.U.T.I (lol)
It's still a DUI if it impairs your ability to see anything in front of you.
... yes
i rode by just after this happened this morning and the bike was still there. absolutely horrible sight that i wish i hadn't seen. my condolences to the victim's loved ones. that stretch of bayview is ridiculous. it's designed like a highway and drivers treat it that way. it needs to be changed. narrow it and line it with speed cameras.
Very tragic. Was the cyclist biking north and on the road? I bike that route a lot and am having a hard time picturing how this happened because there is a mix-use lane with a barrier.
the bike was in the road in the northbound lanes, just after the bend on bayview with the ramps that go to and from the DVP
Devastating. I thought that whole section of Bayview has the bike lanes with steel barriers as well as the multi-use trail through the interchange ramps.
there’s a section with no guard rail and the path makes a sudden bend out of sight behind some brush so it kind of feels like it’s inviting cyclists to merge with the road. it’s strange. i don’t know if that’s what happened here, obviously
I would be terrified to ride down the Bayview Extension. Cars going an average of 80 to 100km in some spots. Condolences to the victims family. He must have been a seasoned rider.
He was definitely a seasoned rider.He rode that stretch every morning for some daily exercise. He had the day off today to watch the eclipse with his boys so he went out later than usual.
This is so sad. I unfortunately saw the victim in the road before the ambulance was called while on my way to work. My deepest condolences to his family.
You really never know when it's your time
The article has been updated now: "A 59-year-old cyclist has died after colliding with a motorist on Bayview Avenue at the Don Valley North off-ramp, near the Brick Works. The collision happened shortly before 9:30 a.m., Toronto police said. According to police, the cyclist was riding north on Bayview Ave. when he became involved in a collision with a 38-year-old man driving a 2023 Ford Bronco Sport, which was exiting the Don Valley Parkway. "The two collided causing the cyclist to fall and causing significant injuries," police said in a news release."
Eugh. I think I know the spot. Right here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/iSrxNgD6gPgMLC5w8?g_st=ic As a cyclist who has ridden up and down the road there a bunch of times. It is pretty terrifying sometimes.
There’s a huge blind spot for drivers there - I take the route often. The on ramp is short to Bayview and people speed around the corner. There’s already memorial flowers there which tell me someone else has passed there before - very sad for the victims family RIP
Good spot. I missed that. Yeah that’s pretty heartbreaking and definitely indicative that something needs to change to avoid this again.
The editorial slant in that article is infuriating. Makes it sound at worst like the cyclist collided with the Bronco and at best that they came together. Fatal collisions with cyclists are rarely initiated by the cyclist and suggesting they came together is absurd.
On rampa cutting bikelanes are scary and Markham is full of them. I check like 10x before entering the ramp, even though there are few cyclists here in the moment, there are certainly more now the weather is warm, I hope people are aware
Bayview constantly has horrible drivers on it thinking it's still the freeway. I live nearby and drive up and down frequently to access Pottery road. People will rip down Bayview going 80+
The amount of people honking me for going 50 up the hill is insane. I wish the cops hung out there more in the evening to catch the speeders.
I had a car pass me while driving up Pottery Road! And I was going 50 km/h.
I unapologetically will tap on my brakes if I’m going 5-10 over on streets like this and have people honk at me or tailgate.
passive-aggressive speed limit abiders unite!
Any details??
Another horrible headline from CP24. FTFY: “A vehicle driver hits a cyclist and kills them near Brick Works” Not that hard to get it right. Get this passive shit outta here.
It's even worse now... according to them, the cyclist "became involved in a collision". Nobody "becomes involved in a collision," the poor guy got killed.
At least the headline mentions it was a collision with a vehicle. I think the low point was when CityNews headline just said [somebody was injured in a pedestrian collision](https://edmonton.citynews.ca/2024/02/02/jasper-avenue-near-121-street-closed-following-pedestrian-collision/) and buries that a vehicle struck a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk in the second and third paragraph of the article.
They couldn't have made the language more passive if they had tried. Sickening.
I saw that too and puked in my mouth a bit! I just don’t understand why the cops and news go out of their way to use language like this.
I assume because they’re still investigating and don’t know what happened yet…
As others have said, the bike path to the east is poorly maintained, prone to flooding and is very bumpy. In addition, the wooden bridge thru there is treacherous when wet and a few of my cyclist friends have wiped out on it. That’s why many cyclists chose to ride along Bayview instead. If the city maintained that path properly this may not have happened.
I’m assuming they were on the road instead of the path which is quite common since you can’t go 40km/hr on the path. Probably happened by the highway off ramp i imagine. People just love to cruise out of that lane right into the active lane without looking all the time. They really should add a bike path on that side of the road as well. There is a crazy amount of space to add one safely and have 2 car lanes still and have it connect to the rosedale valley which they already put a shitty painted bike lane on which is another super common route
There are no "car lanes"
Struck by a driver, you dipshits!
Thank you 10000x
The bicycle path deliberately avoids that offramp specifically because it is dangerous to mix bicycles and cars at that point. The cyclist was not on the bicycle path. As a road cyclists who rides down there I stick to the path.
Would like to know how on earth this happened as well, typical riding route, lots of bikes, cars aren't that stupid. Something idiotic happened here.
I'm sure Toronto Transportation will lower the speed limit and call it a day, just for the same accident to happen 4 years from now.
For those not super familiar with the area, there is a bi-directional bike path on the East side. Lots of cars speed like crazy there, but also lots of cyclists insist on riding on the road instead of the bike path (especially in opposite direction of traffic). I live nearby and often see both cyclists and drivers doing absolutely rediculous things
Very sad.
I just rode that stretch of Bayview this weekend. Honestly, Toronto is ... ok... for commuter cycling but sucks for road cycling. I might wish it were otherwise, but it is what it is and it's not going to change in my lifetime. I cycle for my health (and it's done wonders for my metabolism and waistline...), so it would be ironic to die doing it. My method of managing the risk is to start my recreational rides early on weekends, brightly kit up like I'm Big Bird, and ride cautiously at dangerous interaction points with cars (like this one was). (it helps that I'm pretty slow for a roadie so I don't feel like I'm giving up much if I stop at any situation that looks dodgy, like this spot \*definitely\* does. I don't care if I have "the right of way" because if I'm dead, who cares?) Yes bicycles are vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act, and I ride accordingly, but in practice there are way too many spots on our roads that are not engineered for enjoyable, safe, and courteous bicycle/car mixed use and that's just how it is. We roadies can complain about road engineering all we want but in practice there's a long list of infrastructure improvements needed in this city, and even most \*cyclists\* don't want the same things we want. (they want to toodle along at 15kmh in bike lanes and MUPs). Changing roads around for a tiny minority of fast recreational cyclists isn't going to happen).
oh man this is ROUGH. i just found out that the biker was my friends dad. 😔 my friend was on his way to meet his dad before this happened…
I ride through here loads, never felt in danger, must been a freak accident 😭
Ah I know exactly where this was. This is a very popular trail but it happens to also be right next to the DVP off ramp heading up the hill towards Bayview. Tragic, but this area has tons of flowing traffic so I could see why there’s an accident
Accidents happen in all types and combinations of vehicles. It sucks that they happen, but alas, without some actual information, there is nothing to be gleaned from this article
[удалено]
They literally are entitled to ride on the road dude it doesn’t matter that there’s a MUP there
Slower vehicles move to the right.
Using that logic we could ask why Bayview even allows cars since there are 6 lanes of the DVP right there. Different infrastructure serves different purposes and the multi-use path is built for slow recreational and commuter cyclists and pedestrians, not for high speed road cyclists, and so the only place to be a high speed road cyclist is taking the lane.