Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Cyclists' deaths flag highway safety issue

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 8:09 AM EST 04/07/08

Deaths fulfill grim prophesy thousands of other riders have narrowly avoided ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. t tibbles from Calgary, Canada writes: I won't cycle on roads without a paved shoulder.
  2. Alan Davidson from Canada writes: The cyclists killed and injured may have been blame-free but all too often cyclists are riding on Canadian highways without rear view mirrors, sometimes two or more abreast, wearing clothing which provides inadequate contrast with the environment and traveling in low light conditions without electrical lighting. The attitude is 'motorists must yield' as opposed to 'ride courteously and defensively'. Ban, no, enforce some common sense rules of the road, absolutely.
  3. Hans-Jurrgen Becker from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is ridiculous. Highways are meant for moving people. Cycling is one of the best methods of transportation considering the environment, personal health, and the health care system costs. Why should cycling be banned.

    Why did the engineers who designed this road not provide a complete solution so that cyclists would be safe on the road? I have cycled many freeways in the U.S. and other places where there were wide shoulders for use by cyclists and by trucks when they have to pull over.

    The responsibility lies on the shoulders of the province and the engineering community for not providing safe facilities.

    It is time that engineers drop their cars only mentality and join this century and the needs of society in the upcoming years by designing for all people to use the road system. (Feeling from someone who has a civil engineering degree)

    Manitoba, cough up and built paved shoulders now. Ontario, you have a real need to do so also. Your highways are no better than this stretch of road.
  4. BUB ImumI from Canada writes: ..//

    Fact 1) Holland had the highest cycle use in western world
    Fact 2) Helmets are rare in Holland.
    Fact 3) Holland has the lowest per capita bicycle injury rate in western world.
    Fact 4) USA Canada has the lowest cycle use in western world
    Fact 5) Helmets are required in USA Canada
    Fact 6) USA Canada has the highest cycle injury rate in western world.

    hypothesis:

    the dutch use and know how to use bicycles safely
    and Canadians are Nanny-State babies who think that by covering themselves in foam rubber they are safer on a bike.

    Suggestion:

    Learn to ride bikes like the Dutch. Get rid of helmets and foam padding.

    ..//
  5. s like from Canada writes: When I grew up they taught us to ride against the traffic so you can see the cars coming at you.

    At some point they made it illegal - probably because someone decided it made everything appear more ordered. I always ride against the traffic because and when it comes right down to it, it makes little difference to the cars which direction I'm riding my bike.

    ** Good points BUB
  6. D Mores from GTA, Canada writes: No
  7. Marjorie Jackson from Canada writes: Oh heavens No, let the cyclists buy a BIG SUV and spend thousands on gas driving on roads and highways that were built totally lacking any vision for the 21st century lifestyle!!!
  8. Nat Pop from Canada writes: I'm sorry, but highways by definition are for fast moving vehicles. Low speed vehicles, like mopeds and golf carts, are not allowed on highways because they can't keep up with traffic and endanger the safety of traffic participants (them included).
    So why are cyclists allowed on highways? Why is it too dangerous for a moped, but not dangerous enough for a bicycle? What, a moped can be hit by an 18 wheeler, but a bicycle can't?

    I think the problem with cyclists is that they think they're special: they're neither pedestrians (so the rules for pedestrians don't apply to them), nor are they cars (so the rules for cars don't apply to them). So they believe they should get special treatment and obey only the rules that suit them. Unfortunately, when they bump heads with a car, they're always the losers.
  9. Sandy G. from Canada writes: Canada needs to start thinking about bikes as legitimate vehicles for transportation, and stop thinking of them as recreational toys. Europe 'gets' this, why not Canada? In southern Germany, where I live, the bike paths are parallel to the roads and highways so that cyclists don't have to deal with two ton cars barrelling down on them. Cycling is safe, and it's a way to get around all year round - even with snow on the ground. Get with the times, Canada!
  10. Dan P from Calgary, Canada writes: Of course bikes should be allowed on the TC. As gas prices climb, people are finally becoming more motivated, s...l...o...w...l...y, mind you, but surely, to explore other alternatives for getting around. Soon (within my lifetime, likely) there will be no more affordable oil, and then there will be no more oil at all. We may have other vehicles for getting around, but nothing beats the cheap simplicity of a bike. Bicycles are the most energy efficient form of transportation in existence, and should definitely have access to the one road we have that goes across the country. Widen the shoulders, make a separate (protected) lane for cyclists, whatever it takes, we need to invest in cycle travel in a big way.
  11. Nat Pop from Canada writes: The difference between Canada and Europe (Netherlands, Germany) is population density.
    When you have high population density and relative short distances it makes sense and is economically feasible to have routes for cyclists almost everywhere.
    But with sparse population and huge distances it's nonsense to expect hundreds of kilometers of cycling routes to be built and maintained for a handful of cyclists. Because, to be realistic, few of us would bike 100km to work every day, heat, rain or snow.
  12. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: If the Trans Canada had bike lanes, each year thousands of Canadians would make the entire treck and millions would cover some portion of it.
    It would be a spectacular hit!
  13. Nat Pop from Canada writes: And pigs would fly.
  14. K. Schroeder from Cobourg, Canada writes: I can't believe some of the above comments...helmets are required in Canada and the U.S???? ride against the traffic??? be more visible??? The fact is that motorists need to slow down and be more aware of cyclists as well as pedestrians. The two individuals that were killed did more than necessary to protect themselves. Had the driver been more careful in passing, this accident would not have happened.
  15. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: The Trans-Canada highway was built a long time ago, cycling was not considered when it was built.

    Yes the hwy is for moving people, but above all it was built to link the country together & provide a fast mode of transportation to move goods across the country.

    Cycling isn't a fast mode of transportation, it's a recreational activity. Cycling across the Trans-Canada highway can hardly be called a environmentally sound venture by any stretch of the imagination considering it's a one way trip!

    Should cycling be banned on the hwy? I don't think so! Is Manitoba doing enough? Given they are adding paved shoulders, I would say yes!

    The hwy wasn't built overnight, don't expect paved shoulders added overnight. If you have such a concern for paved shoulders should be added at a faster pace, create a foundation & collect donations to make it happen sooner!

    Don't expect heavily populated revenue rich Manitoba to allocate more money than they can afford to this endeavor just to appease a few cyclist!
  16. Pepsi Pierre from Montreal, Canada writes: I lived (and cycled) in France for years. There, drivers slow down and give WIDE berth to cyclists when approaching and passing them. (Typically, French drivers will left-signal as they approach and overtake riders to minimize confusion and signal their intention.
    Note, there are thousands of cyclists on Europe's highways, and (especially in France and Holland) there is a clear code of conduct that drivers follow around bikes.
    It would be great to envision endless miles of wide shoulders or dedicated bike paths here in North America, but the cost would be enormous, and it's unlikely to ever happen. A quicker, less costly and saner solution is to educate drivers/our society to drive with more caution and respect around bikers, be it on highways or city street. Far from showing respect, I've had motorists seemingly take runs at me when I'm out riding.
    Cyclists also have a responsibility to ride responsibly. But until drivers learn to drive with more caution and respect around bikes (face it, cars have the overwhelming advantage) bikers will continue to ride with 'do whatever you can to survive' tactics.
    In this tragic case, the circumstances of the accident are not yet clear enough to judge who was at fault, but it sure smells like the driver was going too fast without regard for the cyclists' safety.
  17. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: Good advice from Pepsi Pierre of Montreal and Sandy G. My spouse has Dutch relatives who visited us two years ago. They were astounded to read the newspaper and see casual references to cars striking bicyclists or pedestrians. In Holland, the streets are congested, but bicycles and cars share the space. If a car strikes a cyclist or a pedestrian, the driver is automatically charged with carelessness and endangering a life. The Dutch have figured out that the driver is never injured in these collisions, while cyclists are routinely maimed or killed: in fact, our relatives read an account where a cyclist was killed in Newmarket, and the driver was not charged; they were astounded by the sentence, 'the driver was not hurt in the incident'. They wondered why that was written at all since Holland teaches drivers that several tonnes of metal always wins out over fifty-plus kilograms of flesh. In Holland, collisions between cars and cyclists are extremely rare because the vehicle drivers know they will be held accountable so they are more cautious. In Canada, the car is king, and no politician or police agency wants to hold the king accountable. Terrible injuries and deaths are the result of this lackadaisical attitude. The Highway Traffic Act has many sections that could be applied, regarding lack of attention or caution. Apparently, police and motorists ignore the law, so these types of 'accidents' are common. Accident? Really? More like lack of attention and, in this particular case, recklessness.
  18. Pearls before Swine from Canada writes: BUB ImumI writes: ..// 'Suggestion: Learn to ride bikes like the Dutch. Get rid of helmets and foam padding.' Dutch biking accident stats have little to do with foam and padding, and everything with the fact that bicycling as transportation has always been fully integrated into transportation policy. Almost all drivers have been, and likely still are, cyclists as well. There were bikes before there were cars - in fact they were the major mode of transport well before car ownership spread to the middle class. All major highways have bike paths one one or both sides of the road. There are bike lanes along all major city streets. A number of cities have dedicated high-speed (seriously!) bike commuting lanes leading into the city from the boonies. But the bottom line is that bikes have always been considered vehicles. This means that riders are entitled to equal space and treatment on the road; however, they must also obey all traffic laws. (I recall my father - this is fifty yrs. ago - being fined for cutting a corner on his bike - i.e. not making a proper left-hand turn.) Personally I`d love to ride across Canada but I`m not crazy enough to expose myself to a traffic situation where I`m considered a nuisance, and a source of great uncertainty and even panic for may drivers. In fact in tourist season in NS I mostly restrict myself to mountain-biking up in the Cobequids because the roads simply are not safe with rubber-necking tourists and monster RVs.
  19. Christine Best from Toronto, Canada writes: Most of the TC is not a superhighway. Of course cyclists should be allowed on it. Where it coincides with expressways (like the 400-series in Ontario), bicycles aren't allowed on it.

    Automobile drivers in North America just have to be told they aren't the only legitimate traffic on the road. Safely driving in mixed traffic (trucks, cars, motorcycles, scooters, bicycles) should be defined, taught and people who can't manage it should be charged (no matter what they are driving/riding). A driver is supposed to allow a bicyclist a full lane when passing wherever possible and a minimum clearance of 1.5 metres (I believe) where a full lane isn't possible.
  20. Dave LeBlanc from Canada writes: Can I point out that you don't see cyclists being distracted by talking on their cell phones? The fact is, we're a nation full of fat lazy people who doesn't want our tax dollars paying for highway shoulders.
  21. C J from Canada writes: If we can't cycle on the 401, why can we cycle on Trans Canada??
  22. Child of the North in Canada from Canada writes: As someone who lives on the north shore area of Lake Huron in northern Ontario (the worse highways in the country, I believe), cyclists really take a risk. The roads are windy, rough, narrow, have poor shoulders and thousands of transports tear through every day. The groups of cyclists that travel through every summer with their saddlebags and sometimes pulling little trailers may have the right to travel the TC but they risk their lives in doing so.
  23. Bill Needle from Canada writes: 'Pearls before Swine' got it right, 'BUB ImumI' is a poor analyst.
  24. old trikebum from Peterborough, Canada writes: s like from Canada writes: ' When I grew up they taught us to ride against the traffic so you can see the cars coming at you.

    At some point they made it illegal - probably because someone decided it made everything appear more ordered. I always ride against the traffic because and when it comes right down to it, it makes little difference to the cars which direction I'm riding my bike.'
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accident data clearly shows that wrong-way cycling leads to more car-bike crashes and the crashes that do happen are more severe.

    Automobile drivers do not expect to see fast-moving bicycles coming towards them in their lane. And, at average bicycle speeds on residential streets, driver reaction time is more than cut in half by wrong-way cycling.

    Drivers pulling out from side streets and driveways do not expect fast-moving bicycles coming towards them near the edge of the street from the wrong direction. Drivers typically don't even look there before pulling into the road.

    Because, in wrong-way cycling, the cyclist and the automobile are moving towards each other, their speeds at the time of impact are added together. So the forces of impact of a wrong-way crash are as much as 700% higher than a similar crash in which the cyclist is riding on the right side of the road, with traffic.
  25. Mark Davies from Canada writes: 1200 kms x 200,000 per km = one quarter of billion dollars to pave shoulders of road for handfull of cyclist for couple of months of the year.
    Holland is tiny country(almost a city state) with a moderate climate.
    Canada is a vast country where you can not cycle for half the year.
    Lets be reasonable, I know it is fashionable to hate cars but we all have one and we all need one. If holland was 10,000 kms wide they would all want one too.
  26. EE Gaads from Amertume, Canada writes: Should reckless idiots be allowed to drive on the Trans-Canada...in pickup trucks or vehicles of any kind? Nope. They are, of course. I agree with those calling to pave the shoulders of the TC highway and make it that much better to drive on - as a bicyclist or as a vehicle driver.
    Let's look at what other jurisdictions do in this regard. Maybe it's time to adapt, adopt and improve.
  27. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: Dave LeBlanc from Canada writes: Can I point out that you don't see cyclists being distracted by talking on their cell phones? The fact is, we're a nation full of fat lazy people who doesn't want our tax dollars paying for highway shoulders.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You got that right.

    Damn motorists are always trying to run me over no matter if I'm walking or cycling. City or highway, we risk our lives everyday with these stinking behemoths and the drivers whose attitude is 'get the hell outta my way, I'm comin' through!'

    Taxis are the WORST, followed closely by truckers. Move or die!
  28. Steve Just Steve, That's All from Canada writes: old trikebum from Peterborough, Canada writes: Accident data clearly shows that wrong-way cycling leads to more car-bike crashes and the crashes that do happen are more severe. Automobile drivers do not expect to see fast-moving bicycles coming towards them in their lane. And, at average bicycle speeds on residential streets, driver reaction time is more than cut in half by wrong-way cycling. Drivers pulling out from side streets and driveways do not expect fast-moving bicycles coming towards them near the edge of the street from the wrong direction. Drivers typically don't even look there before pulling into the road. Because, in wrong-way cycling, the cyclist and the automobile are moving towards each other, their speeds at the time of impact are added together. So the forces of impact of a wrong-way crash are as much as 700% higher than a similar crash in which the cyclist is riding on the right side of the road, with traffic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. Right. Plus, there's nothing more unerving than wailing along a narrow paved shoulder on a busy road on a bike and seeing some bozo riding right at you. There's no where to go and no way to pass or avoid him/her.
  29. old trikebum from Peterborough, Canada writes: I can understand banning slow moving vehicles (which includes bikes) on high speed limited access highways as is the case in Ontario with 400 series highways.
    But only if there is a parallel route. Bicycles are vehicles and drivers of such have a right to use the roads whether for work or touring.

    If I wanted to bike across Canada to see and experience this great nation of ours I would expect the roads to accommodate me.
    This my right as a Canadian and as a driver of a vehicle under law.

    'Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles' --J Forester, Author of Effective Cycling
  30. Ron Shaw from Toronto, Canada writes: Only in Canada. Co-mingle vehicles travelling at 10 Km/h with those travelling at 100Km/h, and on our primary interprovince roadway: this is lunacy!

    If we're not going to build a new highway, let's build a new paved trail coast-to-coast for human powered vehicles. At $200,000 per kilometer that works out to $1 Billion. Less than 3 months profit for some corporate sponsor...
  31. Michael Cole from Toronto, Canada writes: Okay a little story that happens to be true from right in the heart of Hog Town. I commute to my professional office job in downtown, it's 7km, I use my bike. I could drive, I have a fancy over priced 1200kg slab of steel in the garage that costs a fortune every time it goes to the mechanic or gas station, but I choose to bike. Besides being a way to relieve stress, cheaper to use and park, better for me, better for the environment, better for road congestion, better for the over burdened city street, its a more fun way to get to and from work each day. Every day I take the Eastern Lake Shore trail past Don Roadway, there is a traffic light, right beside the light is a diagram, it shows a red light and under the light is a 'no right turn' symbol. You don't need to speak English or French to understand this diagram, they are all over the city, they mean (for those of you who really do need this explained) No right on red. Today, as I approached that intersection two cars made a right on red. The problem is not cyclists, the problem is not car drivers who do not pay attention. The problem is that car drivers do not pay attention and do not even realise they are not paying attention. Being caccooned in one or two tons of steel and using a slight downward pressure on the right foot to move forward is too mind numbing. If it were up to me, cars would be band from all roads. The lazy incomptence of most drivers boggles my mind and when you consider that I am asking for nothing more than what I pay for with the insane tax burden that I have to pick up, (roughtly 4 times the national average) to say that I have less right to the road... that's insulting!
  32. M Spiker from Ottawa, Canada writes: Cyclists lives are at risk on Canadian roads because of bad drivers...period.

    The cyclists weren't in the wrong and the TCH didn't cause the collision...the criminal (driver) was in control of the situation and didn't have to pass at that time or that dangerously...stop looking for excuses or to blame the victims.

    The TCH is mostly 2-lane highway and if you are lucky there is a rideable soft shoulder (like Highway 7 is near me). Unfortunately it (and roads like it) are the only choice for traversing parts of this country Improving the TCH would serve to keep some space between the cyclists (and pedestrians) and there should be a national standard for it. What cyclists really want is a network low traffic roads/trails that lets them cycle from A to B with less risk.
  33. R J from Montreal, Canada writes: It is a highway - If cycling a route intended for automobiles, perhaps a warning/guide/escort vehicle ( with lights/signs/warning-decals ) stagtegically placed behind the riders could warn automobiles travelling the highway that slower vehicles are ahead.

    I feel for the families of the kindhearted charity workers.

    Safety
  34. Magnolia Fan from Canada writes: What a ridiculous question, 'Should cyclists be allowed on the Trans-Canada Highway?'! Of course they should. We could just as easily ask if Terry Fox should have been allowed to jog along the trans Canada. If you think he shouldn't have then you've got some self esteem issues. Terry Fox is remembered as a hero. If you take away the ability of normal people to do heroic things, you're left in a sea of mediocrity.

    It's not right that Manitoba is promising to keep an eye on that stretch of road now that people have died on it. How many deaths will it take for them to make the roads safe? Why can't they be proactive and analyses and repair their roads before somebody gets hurt? The OPP do this sort of analysis before a road is built.
  35. Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: It's very easy for drivers to slow down and pass cyclist safety. Some just choose to be stupid.
  36. Prairie Driver from Manitoba, Canada writes: In Manitoba cyclist are legistated under the Highway Traffic Act and as such are required to follow all rules of the road. They are not required to ride on the sholuder, they do so for their safety.

    Lets remember that this accident occured on a multilane divided highway.

    These cyclist were rear ended!

    If the offending driver had hit a school bus there would be charge laid and national outrage over his poor driver skills.
  37. Another Option canada from Canada writes: 'Should cyclists be allowed on the Trans-Canada Highway?'! How else do you sugest you ride a bike from one end of Canada to the other.. ? In lots of areas you have no choice but to ride along the high way.. Maby there should be a bike path along the high way ????
    Becides in 50 years most people will have to ride there will be no gas ?
  38. Sunny Side from Toronto, Canada writes: I have read several accounts of this accident. All of them indicate that the driver of the vehicle pulled out to pass the cyclists and pulled back in with insufficient room. The driver is clearly at fault here. He was aware that they were there and simply didn't care, or was not competent enough to give them adequate space.
    The fact that there was no paved shoulder in no way exonerates him. That would be like saying that if you're wearing a bullet-proof vest then it is perfectly legitimate for someone to fire a gun at you. A car is a massive steel weapon. Because we use them every day, we take them for granted and do not appreciate the power they yield. The police need to treat all car-bike incidents seriously and charge drivers when there is an incident. A month a ago a cyclist was killed in Toronto by someone opening a car door into traffic - and no charges were laid. The police are giving a clear message that cyclists are expendable. Its appalling.
    I feel for the families of these men, paved shoulders are a lovely idea, as a cyclist I would feel much safer on one, but they shouldn't be necessary.
  39. Charles Murray from Toronto, Canada writes: There has to be a sea change in our thinking regarding bicycles. Drivers view cyclists as impediments to speed. Police see them as nuisances rather than legitimate road users. Example: a driver in Toronto parked and opened their door, hitting a passing cyclist who subsequently died. If convicted, their fine: $110.
    Statistically, if just 1% of drivers are inattentive, a cyclist's life is endangered with every 100 cars encountered. We need to beef up fines for inattentive driving as well as boost safety measures on all roads - especially in the current high fuel price climate. Perhaps it costs $200,000 per km to pave shoulders - what is the cost of a human life? Cyclists are dying because of concerted inaction.
  40. Shannon White from Waterloo, Canada writes: One thing I noticed. The article says they were riding 'alongside' the son and daughter. Were they riding two abreast? If terrain is hilly or visibility is otherwise reduced, you want to give drivers enough room to make last second adjustments. Riding two abreast cuts that significantly. Like cars, bikes may only drive two abreast when passing, otherwise single file. As someone else posted, rear-view mirrors would help. It's funny that the law requires bikers to have a working bell, but not a mirror. Like a bell makes much of a diff.
  41. Risto Richards from Tofino, Canada writes: I'm all for cyclists who prefer to ride without a helmet. However, when they have a head injury, they can pay for all medical costs. In fact, they would be an excellent source of organs. However, if you have an accident while wearing a helmet, you are fully covered by for medical expenses. The same should be true for motorists who do not wear their seat belt. Why should taxpayers pay for stupidity.

    Bicycles are considered vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act. They are allowed on the road if they are mechanically sound including sufficient breaking power and have a light for night riding. They have a place on the road. Motorists in Europe are light years ahead of North Americans when it comes to knowing how to share the road with bicycles.

    I know first hand. I also know first hand the feeling of losing a friend on a bicycle when she was hit by the mirror of a motor home. The driver didn't even know he hit her and she slowly died in a ditch... she was wearing a helmet.

    For the commenters who are anti-bicycle, you are an embarrassment. While there are some very dangerous bicyclists out there, the vast majority are good because they have to be to survive on the streets in Canada. Bicycles pre-date gas powered cars and will survive gas powered cars.
  42. E W from Canada writes: Given the number of times I've almost been hit by impatient drivers when crossing the street in a well-marked crosswalk in full accordance with the rules of the road, I really doubt drivers are all of a sudden going to start being more considerable of those with whom they share the road who do not have the benefit of being protected by two tonnes of steel.

    Drivers care more about saving two seconds than ensuring the safety of those around them, though I'm sure there's bound to be crocodile tears when the inevitable happens (to the great misfortune of people like the two cyclists mentioned in this article and their families).
  43. Fausto Capobianco from Pasadena CA, United States writes: I am among the increasing number of bicyclists who have been injured as a result of the carelessness of motorists and my mishap occurred on a quiet Pasadena, California Street. Neighbors in the area who came to my aide called city, county, and state police and were told 'we fight crime, we don't respond to bicycle accidents.'
    I have never biked in Canada nor have I been on the Tran Canada Highway but it sounds like a dangerous stretch for bikes to be on. Despite that, I believe bicyclists should have the right and the protection to use the roadway. After all we all pay taxes to maintain the roadways. Here in California bicyclists even get ticketed for violating the laws that apply to the motorists, however, bicyclists do not receive the same protection. With the increasing price of fuel and a corresponding increase in bicycle ridership, the issue may attract more attention from city and law enforcement officials. Then again, I live in California and , well, one can hope..and pray.
  44. Gizella Oehm from Toronto, Canada writes: Cycling is my mode of transportation around the city (Toronto), since I don't drive a car. While I've no plans to traverse the TransCanada Highway on a bike any time soon, I think the same problem prevails there as it does in the city: bikers are considered a nuisance, roads are not built to accommodate them, and cycling is not considered a viable form of transportation by most people. Perhaps because of the size of North America, perhaps because of the easy wealth that's persisted here in the last 50 years, this is a car continent. There are places in the States where, even tho there are perfectly adequate sidewalks, pedestrians are gawked at by drivers (since there are so few of them). I know, because it's happened to me. It's not so bad in Canada, but there's a similar car-focused philosophy. And at best cycling is a pastime for most people, and because there's no proper accommodation for it, it's dangerous. In Europe however, distances are shorter, population density is higher, cities are far older with narrower streets, cars are more of a luxury... and in many places, cycling is an alternative form of transportation. The Netherlands takes this to an extreme - but what a delight it is to cycle there. And in some cities in Europe, cyclists don't even have to ride with traffic - bike lanes are on sidewalks, with an area for pedestrians and another for the cyclists. No wonder the Europeans, on a whole, are a leaner, healthier people.
  45. Risto Richards from Tofino, Canada writes: If the cyclists were riding two abreast, they made a tragic mistake.

    Do people remember the students who were killed while bicycling outside of Calgary several years ago? They were creamed by a motorist who stated that he was fumbling for his lighter.

    Jocelyn Lovell, one of Canada's most celebrated and successful Olympic bicyclists was hit by a dump truck while training and rendered a paraplegic.
    see: http://archives.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/clips/8012/
  46. Bruuks Brew from Canada writes: Having recently taken up road cycling, primarily for recreation, it is with a new interest that I read the comments in threads relating to cycling. Generally the comments can be summed up into the following opinions:

    1. Cars rule the road. If you're on a bike, get out of the way. I'm not willing to give up 5 seconds of my life waiting for a safe opportunity to pass.

    2. Bicycles have just as much right to the road and should be treated with respect on the road.

    This has been my experience so far while riding. I've also noticed that riding my bike has affected how I drive while in my car. Having had a few too many close calls already, on my bike, I make sure I give space as needed while driving.

    The ignorance of some people is just disheartening. I fear for the human race when I confront someone at a stop light who nearly took off my head with a massive camping trailer, only to be told 'Get off the effing road.'

    I appreciate the comment above regarding cycling in Holland. Of course there are fewer fatalities there. People are more aware of the cyclists and there are better laws protecting the cyclists. Canada should adopt some of those laws.

    Regarding the current incident that has caused this discussion. The word 'accident' does not appear to apply. An accident would have been something like the car getting a flat tire while overtaking the bikes causing him to lose control of the vehicle. An accident is not running out of room to pass and avoiding a head on collision by taking out a couple of bikes. That is just driver error - manslaughter. The number of car 'accidents' that area actually accidental is probably quite low.
  47. Howard Roark from Whitby, Canada writes: As an avid cyclist myself, there should definitely be more provision and room made for biking, but a trail is a better method than major highways. When you mix a fast travelling ton (or more) of steel, with 200lbs of flesh and aluminum, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out who will prevail.

    There is also a certain arrogance among the cycling community who believe that they 'own' the road. Roads were built for cars and trucks. Cycling two or three abreast on a highway (which I have seen all too often) is dangerous and stupid, and causes drivers to swerve to avoid them.
  48. BUB ImumI from Canada writes: ..//
    Pearls before Swine..

    you a likely correct...

    I postulate that the social inhibitions are just as effective as the infrastructural obstacles in preventing wide scale bike use.... and snow....don't forget snow.

    There will be prerequisite safety classes and gps systems required on bikes, and stuff normal people can't imagine which will serve to frustrate bike use.

    ..//
  49. Canice L from Toronto, Canada writes: BUB ImumI: Dutch riders don't do cross-country trips on 50-pound Dutch bikes, they do that to get to work, to school, and to the grocery store. Holland also has an extensive network of bike paths and traffic signals that provide added safety and priority to cyclists over drivers, in the form of elevated bike paths with multiple lanes and advanced traffic signals so they can bypass or jump ahead of cars -- NONE of which is available in Canada in a widespread form (if at all). That is the difference. That's why there are so many cyclist accidents and fatalities in cities like Toronto and Montreal. And it's why 'nanny-state foam rubber' is necessary in Canada, because it can be dangerous. Comparing city cycling and tour cycling is like apples and oranges. As other people have mentioned, in many parts of Canada the Trans-Can is the only way to cross. People should look on a map before they put up these uneducated, false arguments. And, bicycles have the same rights to the road as any car or truck to be on the road. The misinformation spread on the G&M comment boards is astounding. Secondly, I have a friend who was killed by a driver on an Alberta highway while cycling across Canada last summer. This issue is quite close to my heart. I've also been on a few bike tours myself and there is nothing more terrifying than being pulled into the vacuum behind an 18-wheeler or an SUV. Cyclists may be an annoyance to drivers on a highway, but we're still people, and when a car and cyclist connect, we're the only ones with anything to lose.
  50. Charlie R from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: This is NOT a cycling issue NOR is it a pedestrian issue or is it even a roadway issue.

    THIS IS A CARELESS DRIVING ISSUE.

    Had those 4 cyclists been 4 fat guys on Harleys, they still would have been hit. Heaven forbid someone suggests we ban fat guys on harleys from the roads. Too many people across the country still don't know how to share the road, drive while intoxicated, or simply are not aware of the space around their vehicles. Substitue the word cyclists with the term 'stalled vehicle'. There is a very good chance this same accident would have happened. Had those cyclists been a heard of wandering animals, there is a good chance this accident would have happened also. A slow moving tractor perhaps? same thing.

    Stop trying to make this something it is not. The person driving the Honda did not properly yield or give enough space for the cyclists.

    It is a tragedy. Let's all ride carefully, drive carefully, be aware and learn how to share the road.
  51. J Johnson from Cloverdale, Canada writes: I for one have biked across Canada and have experienced the traffic conditions firsthand. My opinion is that Manitoba has the worst road conditions for cycling followed by northern Ontario. If provinces like BC, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick can build their roads with a wide enough shoulder why cannot others. Quebec has designated marked routes for cyclists.
    Almost all drivers try to give cyclists as much safety room as possible, but it only takes that one vehicle to cause the carnage. A bike against a vehicle is a lost cause 99.9% of the time.
    Cycling is an activity that has been growing in popularity and will continue to expand in tourism and normal daily routine. Road designers and policy makers must include the cyclists safety issues.
    My sympathy for the family and friends of the cyclists who have been tragically loss in this accident.
  52. Charlie Chan from Chanville, Canada writes: Cyclists have their backs to traffic, effectively blind, unlike runners who generally proceed facing traffic and can see a problem coming. However, there are many who, in narrow shoulder highways, still arrogantly place themselves over the white line as they travel side by side instead of single line. These people aren't helping their own safety.
  53. Another Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: First, I sympathize with some riders and I agree that roads and pathways should be better designed to accomodate them. Drivers should make every effort to safeguard cyclists, who are dangerously vulnerable when surrounded by thousands of pounds of fast-moving steel.

    There, I did my part. Now I can be direct.

    Every day I see cyclists who run stop signs and stop lights, cyclists who veer dangerously across the road to make a turn, cyclists who alternate between sidewalk and road as convenience permits, cyclists who ride at night without lights or reflectors, cyclists who appear to be riding on the road, only to turn abruptly into a crosswalk to get around an intersection....

    ...and on and on and on.

    I know cars are no better. I'm fully aware of the stupid things drivers do, but here's the thing: when a driver does something stupid and causes an accident it's considered reckless. When a cyclist does something stupid and gets themselves killed, it's a 'tragedy'.

    You want respect on the road? Act like you deserve it. I'm not your babysitter and I won't feel guilty if you get your death wish fulfilled.
  54. E W from Canada writes: Get Rob Ford on this right away.
  55. Paul Polock from Windsor, Canada writes: s like from canada, when did you grow up, i am 46 and the law has always been cycling must follow the same direction and rules as cars, when you are waling you are supposed to walk towards oncoming traffic in the absence of sidewalks, it is not about order it is about cycling being a wheeled form of transportation and must follow the same rules of the road as cars. sadly most cyclists do not follow these rules how many use the required hand signals for left, right turns and stopping, not many. this all being said their should be a paved shoulder as that is the only measure that might have prevented this, i ride on some highways that have speed limits of 80 Km / hr and can tell you that a transport truck going the opposite way at 80 - 85 can still push you off of the road onto the side. the difference in holland is that it is used and respected more as a mode of transportation and not just a hobby or exercise method, therfore cars and cyclists get along safer due to mutual respect. that is what is needed
  56. R. Merchant from Calgary, Canada writes: Having driven the Trans Canada Highway last year I was amazed at the poor condition of the Trans Canada Highway considering it is 'The' link across Canada. Its is poor with no shoulders at Manitoba, but also a twisty 50k disaster just east of Golden BC, Through little villages in BC interior, a high density traffic muddle either side of Lake Louise, and pathetic two lane on most of the route around Lake Superior. The National government could provide some real leadership by setting up a structure similar to the US Interstate system to properly fund and complete this vital link to inter provincial trade and traffic. But no, let's blame the provinces for thier lack of forsight and highway planning. At least Alberta and Saskatchewan sections are wide, modern, and smooth (except the silly bits through Calgary and Medicine Hat).
  57. Bruuks Brew from Canada writes: Another Opinion writes some stuff about cyclist responsibility.

    I agree with most of what you say. Not every cyclist on the road obeys the traffic laws. A lot cycle in the manner you described. I appreciate that it is difficult for a car driver to avoid a cyclist who runs a stop light in front of them, and in that case, obviously, the cyclist is at fault. This is very different from the incident on the TCH.

    Cyclists do need to ride in such a way that they are worthy of respect. However, regardless of how they ride they should still be given space and respect on the road.

    I think incidents like this raise awareness on both sides of the road - the drivers and the riders. Drivers - be aware of cyclists and slow down. Cyclists - ride defensively and within the law.
  58. don rycroft from London, Canada writes: I rode from Vancouver to Calgary this May and the TCH in BC was great, with wide shoulders and respectful traffic. Some of the comments suggest cycling should not be permitted. I disagree. I do agree with educating drivers. I want to comment about truck drivers particularly. I found them exceeding respectful of the four of us as we rode these roads. The truckers routinely gave a minimum of 1/2 lane and mostly a full lane of clearance. The most difficulty we had was in cities. Drivers are in too much of hurry to get to the next drive through so they can get a coffee and donut to eat while they talk on their cell. We rode in some rain and poor visibility, with flashing stobes and safety triangles, reflective clothing. Essentially we were doing everything we could to be visible. One person commented that cycling is not permitted on roads like the 401. There is a section of the TCH from Banff toward Calgary, divided highway, 100 kph speed limits. Cyclists are permitted, nay, required to ride this to move along this stretch. It was scary, but we stayed well onto the shoulder. Should it be permitted? I don't know, but should drivers be educated? Yes. There should be testing of all drivers on the rights of other users of the roads. I have ridden all over N. America and in Europe. European drivers as a generalization, respect cyclists. Probably because they are cyclists themselves. Do North Americans - generally not as much. We still have horses riding parts of the highways in Ontario and are they respected. Yes. It comes down to the fact that cyclists (who move at 20 to 40 kph - not 10 kph), are required by law to ride on the travelled portion of the roadway. Do I suggest separate paths and roadways? No, I don't want to fund that from my taxes. Should we pave shoulders? Yes. States like Colorado require a paved bike lane to be installed on any road undergoing renewal or construction. It's a state law. Why not in Canada?
  59. M Spiker from Ottawa, Canada writes: Another...you are typical of the blame the cyclist idiots that make our roads so dangerous.

    Care to explain (justify) why cyclists who are riding to code (highly visible, in a straight line, on their share of the road, and obeying the traffic laws) are under constant attack from motorists who won't pass safely?

    Cyclists and pedestrian pose no threat to a motorist...the reverse is not true. The onus is on the driver and the actions of the cyclist/pedestrian don't justify not slowing down or not giving space.

    I'll refer you to the City of Toronto's study on this (it's 10 years old but it is still one of the few studies out there on car-bicycle collisions). Over 80% of the time the driver initiated the collision (turned, stopped, pulled out, opened their door) or in other words could have avoided it.
  60. roy f from van, Canada writes: Manitobas portion of the TCH is a national disgrace.
    I rode x-Canada about 15 years ago and hated every second of the harrowing ride into from Sask. to Winnipeg. I turned south ito Minnesota after that, rather than risk too much more of the same. Semi-trailers would pass so closely I would feel close to getting blown over or drawn under.
    The rest of the trip was great. If other provinces can pave their shoulders, whats the government of Manitobas's excuse?
  61. carol c from Canada writes: Another Opinion as a driver you may not be aware of some of the cycling issues on Toronto roads. Pot holes are a major hazard that has to be biked around. Streetcar tracks cannot be crossed unless you are at a 90 degree angle, otherwise your wheel gets stuck and you will come off your bike.

    That's not to say that cyclists always obey the rules of the road, and ertainly should. Some of the rules however make cycling too unsafe. A left turn over streetcar tracks in traffic is not possible from the right side of the road for instance. It is safer and more sensible to cross at the lights with pedestrian traffic.

    In a city like Toronto, there needs to be much more infrastructure created for cycling. It is faster than driving, the TTC or taking a cab for reasonable distances and it is possible to cycle all year. I ride about 9 months myself, and I ride safely. No going through red lights, no sidewalks, always a helmet and lights at night.

    I for one am utterly shocked that it costs $200,000 per kilometre to pave a shoulder. How does that add up?
  62. bill d from Canada writes: Highways and bikes don't mix. I wouldn't ride a bike on city streets let alone the highway for safety reasons. The cyclists certainly share in their own fate by taking unreasonable risks by riding on the highway.
  63. mynalee johnstone from saltspring island, Canada writes: Only service vehichles and cyclists should be allowed. The frest of you should get a bike or take public transit and lobby for it.
  64. Terri Jubinville from Montreal, Canada writes: This is so darn sad, I personally am very fearful around cyclists anywhere.

    I drive daily on a street in my city where there is a bicycle path. Most cyclists do not ride on it but on the street. I have seen some near misses very often, and I have unfortunately seen that it is the cyclists who do not obey the traffic laws. Over 90% go through red lights, they cross over from the right side in front of cars to make a left turn and I have seen them mow down pedestrians twice who were walking on a green light.

    What is unfortunate is that it is not only the young ones but the older cyclists as well. If perchance one is hit by a vehicle when they ignore traffic rules, then most often the driver of the vehicle is blamed. I now take a longer way drive my granddaughter to work simply because my heart can't stand the adrenelin surge at all the near misses I see.

    Maybe they think they are invincible? I am a cyclist as well and strangely enough I feel safer with the cars than I do with other cylists, as I have seen accidents between cyclists, and between cyclists and rollerbladers.
  65. One More Smith from Canada writes: For all the motorists who have been annoyed by cyclists not following rules of the road....it's only a small number of idiots. The vast majority of us put on hundreds to thousands of law abiding kilometers in each year. You don't notice us because we're not cauing problems!

    As for the fool who thinks riding in the opposite direction of traffic is safer, think about this. You've increased your closing speed (and decreased reaction time) from 50 km/hr (speed limit 80) to 110 km/hr. If you're going down a hill you could have a closing speed of 120 to 140 km/hr! I don't want to pass a car with 36' to spare at that speed. And don't switch sides of the road as it suits you, you're going to die.

    Some cyclists are hit because they did something stupid. Most are hit because of things ranging from driver inattention to driver criminal negligence. Some car drivers have an dangerous sense of entitlement to the roads and they do kill people because of it.
  66. lary waldman from Qualicum Beach, Canada writes: Should cyclists be allowed on Hwy 1, well I just started riding a bike, two years now, mostly for exercise and to control my type II Diabetes, and I can say that you have the question sort of up-side down for me. I think that it is obscene, that in a country with a heritage of rail transportation, there are still numb nuts, flying down the highway, when they could put their trailer on a train. I think it is nuts to take the family on vacation and drive endless monotonous miles burning precious fuel, for what, take the train. The Trans Canada Hwy. will never be restricted to self propelled vehicles, but it's the fourth of July, so I am being whimsical.

    Lary Waldman
  67. Lawrence Koch from Canada writes: BUB ImumI from Canada writes: ..// 'Fact 1) Holland had the highest cycle use in western world Fact 2) Helmets are rare in Holland. Fact 3) Holland has the lowest per capita bicycle injury rate in western world. Fact 4) USA Canada has the lowest cycle use in western world Fact 5) Helmets are required in USA Canada Fact 6) USA Canada has the highest cycle injury rate in western world. hypothesis: the dutch use and know how to use bicycles safely' They don't need helmets because bike traffic is usually separated from car traffic, on separate paths/roads with their own signs, signals, markings, etc., and because cyclists and drivers are used to each other. Even in urban centres such as Amsterdam where they sometimes share the road, the number of cyclists is such that drivers have to take them into account. The lack of a helmet law arises from the safety inherent in the traffic situation, not from how the bikes are used. You seem to be arguing that they're safer because they don't use helmets, when in fact the lack of helmets is a result of their being safe in the first place. Helmet laws in North America assume - correctly, but regrettably so - that the situation is dominated by motor vehicles and that therefore cyclists need whatever protection they can get in the absence of segregation from motor vehicles. Cyclists in North America don't get injured and killed BECAUSE of helmets; it's DESPITE the helmets. I ride and I drive. If I could bike here in Canada without the possibility of cars driving or parking in the bike lane (separated from the main road only by a painted line), or on a route that was not open to motor traffic, I might consider not wearing a helmet. I've biked in the Netherlands, over long distances, only encountering cars when the bike path crossed a road, without a helmet - the point is that both drivers and cyclists still have to use their heads to deal with each other in traffic.
  68. One More Smith from Canada writes: Despite the increased cost of paving shoulders (for cyclists or otherwise), it has been proven that the increased pavement/road life (reduced wear & tear on pavement edges) easily pays for the additional cost.

    Governments that don't pave shoulders are throwing road work money away.
  69. Brian . from edmonton, Canada writes: Should we allow cars on the road? They're dangerous.

    If we continue to allow these lethal environmentally damaging devices on the road, we should make the training required for their use match their overall societal lethality and overall cost.

    Fortunately, the market is taking care a lot of this for us, now that we'd shortsightedly and irreversibly burned most of the easy to produce fossil fuels.
  70. eli langer from los angeles, United States writes: trans - canada bike path now!!!!
  71. James Eaton from Nepean, Canada writes: Should bicycles be allowed on the TransCanada Highway? Probably not, for the same reason that France does not allow bicycles on the autoroutes, Germany does not permit them on the autobahns, the USA does not permit them on the Interstates, and the Netherlands does not permit them on their 'motorways' (limited-access highways) (despite all the folks who have written above above about bikes on Dutch 'highways', they're only permitted on 'roads', not the higher-speed highways - which instead have separate bicycle paths!)

    Now, on stretches of the TransCanada Highway that are also the local road - like most of Highway 1 in Prince Edward Island, or Highway 17 in Ontario - bicycles should be allowed - but paved shoulders should also be required (and trucks and farm vehicles need those too).
  72. Peter Choate from Calgary, Canada writes: As a cyclist who has ridden just about all kinds of roads, paths and off road types of routes, I have come to teh conclusion that there is a group of motorists who just believe that we do not belong on roads - EVER! I have had motorits aim for me, purposefully cut me off, actively shove me to the edge of teh road, throw things at me, throw bottles down in front of my tires - to name a few. Yet cycling represents one of teh solutions for our environmental crisis. We should be looking for ways to embrace the bicycle.
  73. Nn Chi from Burnaby, Canada writes: No,

    I am a cyclist and a driver. Your first rule of riding is 'Safety'. Find another route, because vehicles going 80-120K/h on the TCH do not mix with bikes going 10-20K/h. Cyclists could be 'dead right' or 'dead wrong' but either way, they are dead. Gas is expensive so there are more 'two-wheelers' on roads but that means there are going to be more accidents too.
  74. rm Nickel from ex ott, Canada writes: The question is not simply the TCH but every highway in the country. The highway laws are routinely scoffed at by cars and most vehicles show little or no respect for slower moving vehicles like bikes. The highways around many major cities [Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Kingston] are lined with bicycles touring and training for the 4-6 months of the year that the roads are clear. This is normally a very healthy activity except for aberrant drivers doing daft things. We definitely need better road shoulders everywhere, if only to accommodate disabled motor vehicles, and allow cyclists safer passages. However as an interim step perhaps the most efficient safe guard would be the rigorous enforcement of existing laws and penalizing of aberrant drivers. If they can signpost every road construction site with a notice that fines will be doubled and enforced in the event of accident, why cannot the same be done for thoughtless motorists hitting bicycles?
  75. Malcolm Olafson from Montreal, Canada writes: When I am cycling on a highway I follow the rules for a pedestrian, that is; I will ride into the traffic, not with the traffic. This way I can easily see the oncoming vehicle and move to the shoulder as it passes. If you want to survive always move to the shoulder as a vehicle passes, there is always a vehicle that will come close to hitting you. Trucks need more space and can almost blow you off the road. Often cars are not paying attention to cyclists and some cars, I believe, intentionally want to scar you.
  76. roy f from van, Canada writes: bill d from Canada writes: Highways and bikes don't mix. I wouldn't ride a bike on city streets let alone the highway for safety reasons. The cyclists certainly share in their own fate by taking unreasonable risks by riding on the highway.
    -------
    Soooo, what your point then? People who like cycling should sit in their living room with a Wii cycling game or something like that?
    Cycling on roadways is as safe as governments are willing to make it.
  77. Edmond Marc du Rogoff from Canada writes: A car sidesweepped the cyclists, and did not stop after the accident. It is simply a murder. So we should ban murder victims from becoming victims? What about designated bicycle paths separated from the road, not just hardtop shoulders, like in Europe?
  78. TIM TURENNE from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I've been an avid cyclist for over 40 years and have podium finished at many cycling competitions. You can 'google' that :)

    As such, I have spent thousands of hours traveling 100s of thousands of kilometers over all sorts of roads in Manitoba and Ontario (where I spent 11 years).

    My take is that cyclists should share roadways with motorists. However, there needs to be a mutual awareness, respect, and skill level. Although it is a motorists responsibility to drive defensively, it is my experience that the onus is on cyclists to take care of themselves. A cyclist is hardly able to injure someone driving a car but a car is well able to injure a rider.

    I was hit by a left turning car a few years ago and let me tell you I will never argue with a 2 ton behemoth! Cyclists need to defer to the sheer size and force of a vehicle.

    Just yesterday as I was traveling at 40kph a car made a left in front of me and I had to lock my brakes to avoid hitting it. I don't think motorists appreciate the speeds bicycles can travel at.

    I think good road etiquette is especially important for cyclists because they are the 'lesser guy'. They need to follow the rules of the road and take precautions.

    Motorists, too, need sharpen their skills and attitude toward other forms of transportation. In this age of advancing oil prices bicycle sales are at an all time high and will soon be filling the roads 6-9 months of the year.

    Governments have a responsibility to constituents to ensure a sound and safe infrastructure. Manitoba (and Winnipeg) is definitely behind the curve in this matter. We need to get rid of our 'have not' status by thinking and acting progressively.