Advocacy & Safety - Toronto: Two city cyclists dead after colliding with trucks

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060421.CYCLISTS21/TPStory/TPNational/

Two city cyclists dead after colliding with trucks
OLIVER MOORE

Separate accidents involving large trucks killed a pair of cyclists in Toronto yesterday.

The first collision came during the morning commuting rush. A cyclist riding southbound on Avenue Road, between Eglinton Avenue and Lawrence Avenue, was hit shortly before 9 a.m. by a dump truck.

According to police, the collision came as the southbound truck turned right off the busy road. The truck was able to complete the turn onto residential Cortleigh Boulevard, but the cyclist was left lying on the pavement with fatal head injuries.

The second accident came about an hour after dark, at about 9 p.m. According to police, a woman was killed in a collision with an 18-wheeler truck at the intersection of Keele Street and Finch Avenue. She was pronounced dead at the scene.

The names of the victims were not released last night.

The deaths, the first bicycle fatalities of the year for Toronto, left one cycling advocate fuming that a decade of public awareness campaigns seemed to have come to nothing.

Darren Stehr, a member of Advocacy for Respect for Cyclists, said that politicians for years have been ignoring a coroner's report calling for safety barriers to prevent cyclists from being pulled under trucks.

"We've harped left, right and centre about this coroner's report but no one's listening," he said. "They've known about trucks and cyclists. We can make all kinds of excuses but, until they do something about trucks, cyclists will get killed."

Warm spring weather brings many more people out on their bicycles, some of them inexperienced, but Mr. Stehr argued that even the safest cycling practices will not protect against an inattentive driver.

Usually we have about 4 deaths a year, so we're off to a bad start.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060421.CYCLISTS21/TPStory/TPNational/

Two city cyclists dead after colliding with trucks
OLIVER MOORE ......


Darren Stehr, a member of Advocacy for Respect for Cyclists, said that politicians for years have been ignoring a coroner's report calling for safety barriers to prevent cyclists from being pulled under trucks.



What do they mean by 'safety barriers?' do you havean illustration or a description? Thanks.


roughstuff

Usually we have about 4 deaths a year, so we're off to a bad start.

Thanks for getting the article. I guess these first articles are rather scant on details. But what are those safety barriers they're talking about?

BTW, as I said, these first articles are rather scant on detais, but please always adhere to those stickers "If you can't see me I can't see you"!

What do they mean by 'safety barriers?' do you havean illustration or a description? Thanks.


roughstuff

Safety barriers are railing that hang along the side of trucks between the rear wheel and front wheel arch. The coroners reccomendation is for those trucks with a raised cargo bed or platform. They effectively lower the gap on the side of the truck between the bed and the ground. This would mean that in the event of a side contact collision with a cyclist, the rider would be more likely to be pushed away from the truck than dragged beneath the wheels.

Safety barriers are railing that hang along the side of trucks between the rear wheel and front wheel arch.

Hmmm... doesn't sound at all practical. Dump trucks need clearance. 18 wheelers' trailers are usually owned by the transport company not the OO, and are already poorly maintained. Don't think they would want to dish out money on welding barriers when they already cheap out on tires. Although my dad and brother both drive 18 wheelers, I really like the rails.

Seems there are articles in the other Toronto news papers but they're all just senesational crap and not worth posting.

Dump trucks need clearance.

True, but they don't really need four feet of clearance by the wheels. Even the difference of one or two foot could mean a radical improvement in safety.

If you look closely you notice that the clearance of the drivetrain is usually about a foot and a half to two feet. However, in the interests of saving a little bit of material and therefore money/weight, nothing is placed between the two wheels, creating a handy cyclist chewing gap.

18 wheelers are far less of an issue here because of their common manner of usage and the way that they are characteristically drive, particularly in urban areas, where these accidents tend to happen.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't want to be hit by a truck at all, side skirts or no side skirts.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't want to be hit by a truck at all, side skirts or no side skirts.

I think I speak for all of us when I say...

Duh huh

Hmmm... doesn't sound at all practical. .
European trucks have them.

I think I speak for all of us when I say...

Duh huh
Yeah well duh is right. I prefer to be deflected away from going under the truck/trailer's rear wheels in a typical low speed city truck turning bicycle truck incident.

Yeah well duh is right. I prefer to be deflected away from going under the truck/trailer's rear wheels in a typical low speed city truck turning bicycle truck incident.

This is an important point. The perception of danger is often misrepresented because often these vehicles are moving at maybe 10mph or less. However, that speed covers the length of bike and rider pretty quickly.

How did the accidents actually occur? Did someone run a stop sign or light?

The only thing I saw in the report is trucks verses cyclist, but no explaination of how the accidents actually happened.

Seems like Toronto has more bike deaths than car deaths.

I think I speak for all of us when I say...

Duh huh

Ok, so why is all the focus on fixing the truck and not fixing the rider's position that got them under the truck in the first place? Why is everyone always so satisfied with Bandaid solutions?

Ok, so why is all the focus on fixing the truck and not fixing the rider's position that got them under the truck in the first place? Why is everyone always so satisfied with Bandaid solutions?

It's more a matter of dealing with both issues at the same time. There are an estimated 93,000 cyclists in Toronto, they can't all be educated overnight and there will always be new ones. While it would be absolutely fantastic if all cyclists rode in the same predictable and safe manner its delusional to imagine that this will be a reality, ever. We're dealing with humans here and while some only need to be told not to run into walls, others need softer walls.

These incidents highlight the need to introduce safety measures into the design of higher risk vehicles. It's not a bandaid solution, it's political argument using what it can to further itself.

You could educate all of them at once if you interrupted Desperate Housewives with a "Don't Get Sucked" PSA



There are an estimated 93,000 cyclists in Toronto, they can't all be educated overnight and there will always be new ones.

Before making any judgment about either incident, I definitely need more information. Was the first cyclist trying to pass a right-turning truck on the right, in the driver's blind spot? Did the truck driver in the first incident cut the cyclist off to make his right turn? In the second incident, did the cyclist have adequate lights?

Irrespective of fault in the two incidents cited, the truck barriers sound like a reasonable, workable idea, particularly if they could be retracted manually to clear curbs or other barriers. "Monster trucks" driven on the streets need similar retractable fittings below their front bumpers to protect bicyclists and pedestrians.

You could educate all of them at once if you interrupted Desperate Housewives with a "Don't Get Sucked" PSA

Exactly. How many signs/billboards are out there for advertising or safety reminders for drivers? How about a "Cyclists Stay Left Through Intersections" sign/PSA campaign?

Seems like Toronto has more bike deaths than car deaths.
As I said we typically have 4 a year, but this year might turn out worse. I don't know how many car drivers/occupants die per year, but I will try to get that info. I'm pretty sure it's a fair bit higher, reflecting in large part the greater number of people in cars. There are also pedestrian deaths too, of course.

Just doing a scan of the news archives leads me to believe that there have already been 10 in car deaths this year in Toronto.

You could educate all of them at once if you interrupted Desperate Housewives with a "Don't Get Sucked" PSA
You would get the same response that happened when the last few minutes of a NY Jets game was interrupted for the start of the movie "Heidi" And Joe Namath threw several TD passes to pull out a win from the jaws of defeat, unseen by the TV public. A real popular groudswell of support I am sure can be expected for showing PSA's in prime time.

The man who was killed was a fellow staff member who I knew slightly at work...I had occasionally chatted with him at the bike rack, including last week. He had quite a few years of experience as a part-time bike commuter.

While it is a tragedy that two cyclists have perished in, no doubt, avoidable accidents, it is , unfortunately, not surprising. Of course, blame has yet to be determined and it would be presumptuous to suggest the drivers in either incident were openly or even subconsciously disrespecting cyclists, but I have noticed a sharp elevation of aggressive driving by motorists this year in Toronto with a noticeably hostile attitude toward cyclists. Perhaps it is because motorists are just once again becoming accustomed to a large number of cyclists returning to the roads with the arrival of pleasant weather or perhaps, due to congestion and high fuel costys, they are becoming frustrated, frazzled and frenetic. I could appreciate their attitudes if I were a reckless, unpredictable and inconsiderate cyclist, but I am not and the majority of motorists tend to afford me an acceptable level of acknowledgement. Yet, there are seemingly more motorists out there intent on causing harm to cyclists and we had better all be just a little more aware, a little more safety-minded and a lot more vocal about standing up for ourselves.

Sounds like the first one was a classic right hook, which hopefully, everyone reading this forum knows how to avoid.

All we know about the second one was that it was dark and at an intersection, but, odds are, the victim was not a regular on this forum...

...There are an estimated 93,000 cyclists in Toronto, they can't all be educated overnight and there will always be new ones...

According to this page, http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/bikeplan/pdf/chapter02.pdf., 939,000 residents of Toronto over the age of 15 are cyclists and about 60% of Toronto households own a bicycle, so is 2 deaths or 4 deaths a year really all that unexpected? Nothing is without risk. Aren't there somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 deaths a year to pedestrians by motor vehicles in Toronto?

We need more information about how this occured to try to prevent a similar situation happening again.

I'd be willing to guess in the absense of any more information, that some very simple and basic things weren't done that could have prevented this.

I'd be willing to guess in the absense of any more information, that some very simple and basic things weren't done that could have prevented this.
I'd be willing to guess that in the absense of ANY information certain BF experts will pontificate about how the cyclists could/should/would (or the truckers could/should/would) have been doing something else if only they had been "properly" trained.

How did the accidents actually occur? Did someone run a stop sign or light?

The only thing I saw in the report is trucks verses cyclist, but no explaination of how the accidents actually happened.
The police reports are here:
Male cyclist - dump truck: http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/9769.pdf
Female cyclist - 18 wheeler: http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/9776.pdf
It sounds like she was on the sidewalk and entered the road as the truck was turning. She was only 16, and that intersection is two fairly high speed suburban arterial roads - not at all friendly even for an experienced cyclist.

So the cyclist who went over the bridge doesn't count as a cyclist death because no other vehicle was involved? Or wasn't that in "Toronto" - not sure where the GTA ends.

So the cyclist who went over the bridge doesn't count as a cyclist death because no other vehicle was involved? Or wasn't that in "Toronto" - not sure where the GTA ends.

The two deaths yesterday, and the statistic of four deaths per year, are for the actual City of Toronto, 2.6 million population.

The guy who went over the bridge was in the neighbouring City of Mississauga, which is not actually part of Toronto, but is generally considered part of the "GTA" (Greater Toronto Area). You can't readily get stats for the GTA because it's an unofficial term and there isn't a clearly agreed upon boundary.

It sounds like she was on the sidewalk and entered the road as the truck was turning.

It sure does.

It doesn't matter if there are a million cyclists, 100,000 cyclists or 10 cyclists in Toronto. If they all were going to do something like this, there's a good chance that all of them would suffer the same fate.

If someone checked to see if their gun was loaded by looking into the barrell and pulling the trigger, would we say the gun was the problem?

I think the skirt barricades on trucks are a fine idea, always have. Couldn't they extend to the level of the lowest point of the drivetrain without affecting manueverablility? That is a damn sight lower than the cargo platforms lowest point on most transport & construction vehicles. If we're going to have large vehicles and cyclists interact in such large numbers, as we already do here in Toronto, it would be a wise consideration regardless of cyclist/motorist/OO education & training. Both deaths on April 20th reportedly involved cyclists finding themselves between axle sets after colliding with the rear portion of the vehicle. It's possible that they both could have been prevented had they bounced off such a barrier rather than continuing toward the drivetrain and thereby below the moving vehicle. Maybe the impact would've killed the, but there would be less chance of it being the wheels if the barriers were in place.

Sounds like it was the cyclist at fault.
I mean, there are HUGE signs on trucks that say do not pass on right but that seems to be what the male cyclist did. Even if a truck passes me to the right, I slow the hell down just in case it's making a turn.
As for the female, cycling at night on the sidewalk isn't exactly the safest thing in the world when approaching an intersection.


The police reports are here:
Male cyclist - dump truck: http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/9769.pdf
Female cyclist - 18 wheeler: http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/9776.pdf
It sounds like she was on the sidewalk and entered the road as the truck was turning. She was only 16, and that intersection is two fairly high speed suburban arterial roads - not at all friendly even for an experienced cyclist.

I think the skirt barricades on trucks are a fine idea, always have.
In Europe the rails between the trailer axles also serve to reduce the possibility of the smaller cars from ending up under the rear trailer axles.

In Europe the rails between the trailer axles also serve to reduce the possibility of the smaller cars from ending up under the rear trailer axles.

I see rails at the back of the trailers on 18 wheelers all the time in the US, presumably to stop a car from going under the back of a trailer in a rear end collision. If the rails can be put at the back of a trailer, why can't the same trailer have rails on it's sides between the axles?

I understand the ground clearance issue on construction vehicles, but how many of the different types of trucks on the road require this kind of clearance?

Wow, those are striking close to home! I ride very frequently around the Avenue & Eglinton and the Keele & Finch area where the accidents happened. In fact, when I was a student at York University I passed through Keele & Finch twice a day!

I am afraid the cyclist certainly seems the one at fault in the second collison. The first one, though, might easily have been the driver's fault. Perhaps it was avoidable, bu some right hooks are difficult to prevent: even if you take the whole outside lane, there are morons who will attempt to turn right from the adjacent lane thus cutting you off... "Oh, I had no idea you were going that fast!" "Oh, but you're supposed to slow down to let me turn, and while we're at it, why aren't you in the gutter?!!" Sh!theads...

According to this page, http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/bikeplan/pdf/chapter02.pdf., 939,000 residents of Toronto over the age of 15 are cyclists and about 60% of Toronto households own a bicycle, so is 2 deaths or 4 deaths a year really all that unexpected? Nothing is without risk. Aren't there somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 deaths a year to pedestrians by motor vehicles in Toronto?

We need more information about how this occured to try to prevent a similar situation happening again.

I'd be willing to guess in the absense of any more information, that some very simple and basic things weren't done that could have prevented this.

Given the frequency of incidents on roads around the world then 2 or 4 deaths a year in a city like Toronto isn't unexpected. But there is an acceptable number of deaths that needs to be keenly and carefully pursued. That number is zero.

... some right hooks are difficult to prevent: even if you take the whole outside lane, there are morons who will attempt to turn right from the adjacent lane thus cutting you off... "Oh, I had no idea you were going that fast!" "Oh, but you're supposed to slow down to let me turn, and while we're at it, why aren't you in the gutter?!!" ... Been there ... done that. Some motorists are programmed to believe that bicycles always belong to their right, irrespective of respective intended trajectories. A little motorist education, perhaps in the form of a vehicle registration mailing insert or a media public service announcement, is desparately needed on this point.

...there is an acceptable number of deaths that needs to be keenly and carefully pursued. That number is zero.

Persued, perhaps. Acceptable? Of course. Realistic, no way. There will always be those who are a couple of bricks shy of a load. People do stupid things and sometimes those things results in a death.

The question is, are the benefits of bike riding outweighed by the risks of bike riding? My opinion is yes. Many people may say no, but I find it interesting that some people accept deaths of motorists as part of the bargain of driving but won't accept deaths of cyclists as part of cycling.

Sounds like it was the cyclist at fault.
The guy was an acquantance and colleague of mine. He was a very experienced commuter, so I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.