Advocacy & Safety - Pedestrian hit by cyclist... and died.

Speeding may be the cause and the man jay walked. Then again alot of people here jay walk.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/pedestrian-80-killed-in-collision-with-cyclist/article1809538/

and the man jay walked.

Really?


The release said Mr. Chan was hit at 6:30 a.m., but he didn't leave the house until almost 7:30. It says he was crossing the street “mid-block” when he was hit by a northbound cyclist and that he was just stepping out into traffic when he was hit.

Family members said that this part of Main has a pedestrian-controlled crosswalk mid-block because of a jog in the street alignment of 20th, and that their father would never have jaywalked.

"Jaywalking" isn't illegal everywhere, by the way. (I have no idea if it is illegal in Vancouver.)

Mr. Chan died apparently because of bleeding in the brain caused by a skull fracture.

Why wasn't the pedestrian wearing a helmet? Walking around an urban area, at his age and without head protection, he's got no one to blame but himself. Looks like it's time for mandatory walking helmet laws in Vancouver.

The article says the pedestrian was 80 years old and lived with his parents in their house. ??

^^^^
The surviving Mr. Chan lives with his parents, not the deceased Mr. Chan.

^^^^
The surviving Mr. Chan lives with his parents, not the deceased Mr. Chan.

That's better. :)

“All I know is what I was told when I went to VGH, I was told by a nurse that … it was a cyclist going at high speed, going 50 kilometres an hour,” said George Chan, one of Kwok Chan’s five children. Really, 30 mph as determined by a nurse at the hospital.

Based on the article, this appears to be the location:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=map+Main+Street,+vancouver&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Main+St,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia,+Canada&gl=us&ei=o2LsTKbvMY7GsAPs2NzQDw&oi=geocode_result&ved=0CBMQ8gEwAA&ll=49.252894,-123.100904&spn=0.000754,0.000986&t=h&z=20

Note how the cross streets do not align.

That's sad but realistically, it was just an awful accident. No criminal charges should be filed.

Why wasn't the pedestrian wearing a helmet?

hehehe

Car drivers too should be made to wear helmets - think of the lives that would be saved!!:D

That's sad but realistically, it was just an awful accident. No criminal charges should be filed.

If we as cyclists demand that motor vehicle drivers face criminal charges when a fellow cyclist is hit, shouldn't we hold ourselves to the same standard when a cyclist hits a pedestrian?

If we as cyclists demand that motor vehicle drivers face criminal charges when a fellow cyclist is hit, shouldn't we hold ourselves to the same standard when a cyclist hits a pedestrian?

I'm with you on this one. There really aren't enough details in the article to make a judgement though. I wouldn't hold a driver responsible if a bicycle shot out of a driveway into the street right in front of him, and I wouldn't hold a driver or a guy on a bike responsible for a pedestrian stepping in front of them. I do try to ring the hell out of my bell whenever I see a person who might step in front of me, but if the guy on the bike really was somehow going 50kph (an astounding feat if you ask me), he might not have had time to react.

In all of theses cases what's really needed is investigation and I think reporters muddy that by getting quotes from anyone who'll talk to them. How could a nurse possibly know how fast the cyclist was moving? The guy hit his head on the ground, not on the bike...

^^^
Exactly. If the ped was crossing legally at a controlled crosswalk, then the cyclists is at fault. But if the ped just stepped out in front of the cyclist, then the ped is at fault. If the cyclist was doing 50 kph in a 30 kph zone, then the cyclist could certainly be found at fault. But I don't know how anyone could determine the cyclist's speed, unless his computer froze at the exact moment of impact.

But 50 kph isn't that astounding of a feat, it's only 26 mph. I can hit that in a hard sprint on my mountain bike with road tires. Someone with an equivalent or higher level of fitness as myself (of which there are many, I'm sure) could easily exceed that on a skinny tired road bike. Pro cyclists average 25 mph over the course of the TDF, and can hit 40 mph in hard sprints on flat terrain!

A few points of clarification from that article.


The most famous case in Canada is of CBC producer Joan Donaldson, who was hit by a cyclist in Montreal in 1990.

Joan was struck as she stepped off the curb into traffic, a mistake anyone could have made.


She remained in a coma until she died in 2006.

Incorrect.


A Toronto woman died after being hit by a 15-year-old who was riding his bike on a sidewalk last year

The bicycle was being ridden on the sidewalk in accordance with all Toronto by-laws and the HTA. Speed was determined not to have been a factor.


which prompted a call for bike licensing in the city.

Incorrect.

But 50 kph isn't that astounding of a feat, it's only 26 mph.

31 mph.

Speedo

The speed limit in Vancouver is 50 kph

The Vancouver Sun has reported, So far, police have found no fault with the cyclist (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vancouver+police+investigating+death+year+pedestrian+struck+cyclist/3867399/story.html)

(and almost 10 X the amount of pedestrians die than cyclists, almost all from head injury)

This is the location shown in the article picture. No crosswalks here.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bakers+dozen,+Main+Street,+vancouver&sll=49.252583,-123.100921&sspn=0.001514,0.002559&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=bakers+dozen,&hnear=Main+St,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia,+Canada&ll=49.253405,-123.100895&spn=0,0.002559&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=49.253529,-123.10089&panoid=ga3lGpBwdHXfubylT7mFCg&cbp=12,99.03,,0,5

31 mph.

Speedo

Whoops, had the conversion program set to nautical miles. :o

Very sad. No one should joke about a man's death with snarky pedestrian helmet comments. (don't see a problem with using pedestrian helmets as a point of argument, though).

Just as drivers who may not "be at fault" in certain accidents, but may have avoided killing someone by exercising care and vigilance, we cyclists should not use the bare minimums of legal responsibility to guide our general exercise of caution.

If we as cyclists demand that motor vehicle drivers face criminal charges when a fellow cyclist is hit, shouldn't we hold ourselves to the same standard when a cyclist hits a pedestrian?

For those who do that, yes they should. However, I'm not one of those who believe that every cyclist-car collision is a criminal act.

Speeding may be the cause and the man jay walked. Then again a lot of people here jay walk.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/pedestrian-80-killed-in-collision-with-cyclist/article1809538/

That is sad.

I almost slammed into a jay-walking pedestrian the other day. I managed to see him in time, to slam on my brakes.

That is sad.

I almost slammed into a jay-walking pedestrian the other day. I managed to see him in time, to slam on my brakes.

Once the fall time change happens, pedestrian collisions jump. Part of it is the weather too. Peds often just walk out into a roadway without looking. Many is a time I've had a ped just cross right into my path. There's reasons these collisions happen more often at certain times of the year than other times. Some people just don't take the extra care needed for conditions.

I forgot to look on my closet door when I got my bike out for the commute this morning but... I have a clipping stuck on it from an article in the paper after there was some bike/ ped/ car collision.

A VPD spokesman said that there wasn't a bike problem in Vancouver, but there is a pedestrian problem. They get hit, hurt, and killed far more often in the city than cyclists are.

This is the location shown in the article picture. No crosswalks here.
The article picture is a google streets view of something on the "3500 block". It is north of the 20th ave jog. There isn't any indication that the image is "exactly" where the accident occurred.

The article picture is a google streets view of something on the "3500 block". It is north of the 20th ave jog. There isn't any indication that the image is "exactly" where the accident occurred.Stop being a jerk and inferring that I said that is exactly where the collision occurred. The article does say

A cyclist was riding northbound in the curb lane of the 3500 block of Main Street last week when a pedestrian began to cross the street mid-block and was struck.
The man was in the 3500-block of Main Street when he tried to cross the street in the middle of the block when he was struck by a northbound cyclist in the curb lane at about 6:30 a.m. last Wednesday.

My post provides a link to the street view section shown in the article for BF members to explore street view for themselves.

On the east side of Main Street, E 20 Ave is the south end of the 3500 block and E 19 Ave is the north end of the 3500 block.
The alley pictured next to the Bakers Dozen Antiques address of 3520 Main Street is exactly mid-block of the 3500 block of main street, so my link is pretty dam close to the collision location based on the two quotes in the article.

Stop being a jerk and inferring that I said that is exactly where the collision occurred.
Touchy, touchy! If it doesn't show the location of the accident, the photo is irrelevant. If it isn't "exactly where", no one has any idea why the article included it or why you linked to it.


On the east side of Main Street, E 20 Ave is the south end of the 3500 block and E 19 Ave is the north end of the 3500 block. The alley pictured next to the Bakers Dozen Antiques address of 3520 Main Street is exactly mid-block of the 3500 block of main street, so my link is pretty dam close to the collision location based on the two quotes in the article.

Here's a mid block crosswalk "pretty dam close to the collision location".

Note that "Birkeland Bros Wool Lt" on the right where the mid block crosswalk starts has a 3573 address, which might mean the crosswalk might be even closer than "pretty damn". And, yes, there's a crosswalk there in a 3500 block.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bakers+dozen,+Main+Street,+vancouver&sll=49.252583,-123.100921&sspn=0.001514,0.002559&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=bakers+dozen,&hnear=Main+St,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia,+Canada&t=k&layer=c&cbll=49.252906,-123.10091&panoid=xjjz17cUipUPOXZSYsw1Aw&cbp=12,288.72,,0,34.14&ll=49.252906,-123.10091&spn=0,0.000603&z=21

Which appears to be what this quote from the first article is talking about.


Family members said that this part of Main has a pedestrian-controlled crosswalk mid-block because of a jog in the street alignment of 20th, and that their father would never have jaywalked.

Touchy, touchy! If it doesn't show the location of the accident, the photo is irrelevant.

Here's a mid block crosswalk (in the 3600 block) "pretty dam close to the collision location".

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bakers+dozen,+Main+Street,+vancouver&sll=49.252583,-123.100921&sspn=0.001514,0.002559&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=bakers+dozen,&hnear=Main+St,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia,+Canada&t=k&layer=c&cbll=49.252906,-123.10091&panoid=xjjz17cUipUPOXZSYsw1Aw&cbp=12,288.72,,0,34.14&ll=49.252906,-123.10091&spn=0,0.000603&z=21The link to the crosswalk you show is outside the article description of where the collision occurred, making your jerkism irrelevant. Try a little reading comprehension, the collision did not occur AT E 20 Ave in the 3600 block.

And for a rider traveling north, your link is at an intersection (main and E 20 Ave) and not mid-block.

I see you edited your post to try to cover your lack of reading comprehension. Which of those family members were eye witnesses to the collision such that they could add something other than irrelevant conjecture?

The link to the crosswalk you show is outside the article description of where the collision occurred, making your jerkism irrelevant. Try a little reading comprehension, the collision did not occur AT E 20 Ave in the 3600 block.

Wrong. The cross walk starts in the west side of the street at the following address.

Birkeland Bros Wool Ltd‎
Rate it
1 review - more info »
3573 Main Street
Vancouver, BC V5V 3N4, Canada


And for a rider traveling north, your link is at an intersection (main and E 20 Ave) and not mid-block.

The problem is that we don't know exactly where the collision occurred. "3500 block" isn't precise enough to say.

Touchy, touchy! If it doesn't show the location of the accident, the photo is irrelevant. If it isn't "exactly where", no one has any idea why the article included it or why you linked to it. ...Sorry, missed this part of your edit when you added the other garbage about irrelevant family conjecture.

The article picture and my link are both within reason of the location of the collision. You sound like you want an X within a couple of inches of the exact mark, which is just being a jerk.

It is not just this thread, many BF members have noted this quality about you in many, if not most of your post.

The article picture and my link are both within reason of the location of the collision.
If it is not "exactly where" the collision occurred, the photo is irrelevant! The crosswalk is also "within reason" too!

He lives on E 20 ave on the west side of Main street (otherwise, he would not have needed to cross the street). It's quite possible that he used the crosswalk which starts on the west "3500 block". Using the crosswalk isn't any less convenient. It seems that it's the bus stop on the east side of Main Street he was using (since where he was supposedly going is north of where the collision occurred).

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bakers+dozen,+Main+Street,+vancouver&sll=49.252583,-123.100921&sspn=0.001514,0.002559&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=bakers+dozen,&hnear=Main+St,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia,+Canada&ll=49.25308,-123.100844&spn=0.000994,0.002411&z=19


You sound like you want an X within a couple of inches of the exact mark, which is just being a jerk.
The photo is somewhere "near" the location. If it isn't exact, it's irrelevant. This is not that hard to understand!


garbage about irrelevant family conjecture.
The "irrelevant family conjecture" is plausible looking at the map. (I have no idea whether it's true or not). Since there is no indication that the photo is the exact location of the accident, it it clearly is irrelevant.


It is not just this thread, many BF members have noted this quality about you in many, if not most of your post.
Yawn. So, it's you who can't deal with somebody pointing out that the photograph is irrelevant!

A cyclist was riding northbound in the curb lane of the 3500 block of Main Street last week when a pedestrian began to cross the street mid-block and was struck.
The man was in the 3500-block of Main Street when he tried to cross the street in the middle of the block when he was struck by a northbound cyclist in the curb lane at about 6:30 a.m. last Wednesday. Again some reading comprehension on your part would be helpful. Cyclist headed north bound, mid block of north bound side of 3500 block is the alleyway. Police found no fault in cyclist actions (unlikely to occur if pedestrian was in a crosswalk). No mention in article of pedestrian being in a crosswalk (unlikely to occur if pedestrian was in a crosswalk). Article shows a photo of the scene that does not include your crosswalk.

You provide an address on the southbound side of the street at the end of the 3500 block just to try and confuse readers.

Again some reading comprehension on your part would be helpful.
Yawn!


No mention in article of pedestrian being in a crosswalk (unlikely to occur if pedestrian was in a crosswalk). Article shows a photo of the scene that does not include your crosswalk.
You are now saying it's the "scene"? Make up your mind: do you think the photo is exactly where the collision occurred or not?

(I have no idea where the collision occurred. No one is willing to say precisely. The photo certainly is a picture of something nearby.)


mid block of north bound side of 3500 block is the alleyway.
The first article doesn't say this. The second article doesn't say "north bound side".

Anyway, it's common that these articles don't get the details correct.


You provide an address on the southbound side of the street at the end of the 3500 block just to try and confuse readers.
I know it's on the south bound side. It's quite clear it's on the south side. No one (other than you, it appears), is "confused".

I know it's on the south bound side. It's quite clear it's on the south side. No one (other than you, it appears), is "confused".Since the collision occurred on the northbound side, why are you then referencing locations on the southbound side?

Since the collision occurred on the northbound side, why are you then referencing locations on the southbound side?
Because that's where the bloody crosswalk that he allegedly used is! It's really not that hard. It's possible (again, I don't know) that he was on the east side of the crosswalk when the collision occurred.

And "3500 block" is ambiguous: it includes the west side of the street as well as the east side.

Why do you keep talking about a photograph if it isn't clearly the location of the accident?

It's not at all clear that the photograph is helpful in figuring out the details of what occurred (all we know about it is that it is somewhere near or at the collision site). If it isn't "at" the collision side, it's useless.

Because that's where the bloody crosswalk that he allegedly used is! Allegedly used by which eyewitness?

And "3500 block" is ambiguous: it includes the west side of the street as well as the east side.The cyclist was riding northbound (east side), nothing ambiguous about that.

Allegedly used by which eyewitness?
You, apparently, are the only eyewitness!!



And "3500 block" is ambiguous: it includes the west side of the street as well as the east side.The cyclist was riding northbound (east side), nothing ambiguous about that.
So what? You are making another assumption, which could be wrong.

"3500 block" is ambiguous. Because of the odd jog in 20 E Ave, there are two "midblocks" (one which has a crosswalk and one which does not). He could have been hit by a northbound vehicle crossing from the west side midblock (this isn't that hard to understand). I don't know which one is being referred to.


Stop being a jerk and inferring that I said that <the photograph> is exactly where the collision occurred.
Somebody who is assuming you are reasonable would make this inference. Are you saying I'm a jerk because I assumed you were reasonable? Are you saying you are unreasonable and are talking about an irrelevant photograph?

If you don't think the photograph is a picture of the collision seen, you haven't explained why you commented about the irrelevant photo. It's not unreasonable to assume that it might be. But nothing in the article says that it is. It appears that it is a photograph of the bus stop and the person selected the photograph based on the assumption that it shows where the collision occurred. If the writer was sure it was of the collision site, he should have said so. Since he didn't, it would seem that he isn't sure.


The release said Mr. Chan was hit at 6:30 a.m., but he didn't leave the house until almost 7:30. It says he was crossing the street “mid-block” when he was hit by a northbound cyclist and that he was just stepping out into traffic when he was hit.

Something is funny here. Moving west to east, how could he get hit by a northbound cyclist after "just stepping out"? (Ir's not a one-way street.)

^^^
Your like a dog chasing it's tail by repeatedly trying to jump to the west side of Main Street, when it is clear the collision occurred on the east side.

..It is not just this thread, many BF members have noted this quality about you in many, if not most of your post.


^^^
Your like a dog chasing it's tail by repeatedly trying to jump to the west side of Main Street, when it is clear the collision occurred on the east side.

I've re-visited this thread because of an opinion piece in a local paper about cyclists being irresponsible. That they act irresponsibly more often than motorists or pedestrians.

I thought of this incident because it seems at this point that the irresponsible party was the pedestrian (you know, crossing mid-block directly in the path of an oncoming cyclist - police clearing the cyclist of any wrong-doing).

So, not to derail the topic (if it is derailing it) but I concur with CB HI.

For all the flack I've taken over the years on BF, very few members have made it to my ignore list, but njkayaker has. His manner of posting makes it a waste of time to spend what it takes to explain how out of line he can be.

I admit, on occasion I click on the "View Post" to see what he's posted and it almost always confirms why I put him on ignore. The interaction here only confirms what I've experienced elsewhere. njkayaker isn't contributing here, he's impeding.

If we as cyclists demand that motor vehicle drivers face criminal charges when a fellow cyclist is hit, shouldn't we hold ourselves to the same standard when a cyclist hits a pedestrian?

Even if the ped was in the right, he is DEAD. We all need to look both ways before crossing the street. Walking, cycling, driving. A green light and right of way means nothing when you are dead. A green light means that you have the right of way. Period. We can not confuse a green light with safety. The two have nothing to do with each other.

This is a tragic event. If the cyclist broke the law, and the ped was obeying the law, then the cyclist should pay the consequences. I take a lot of heat around here for running red lights when the coast is clear. So what is safer? Running a red when nothing is coming, or proceeding on a green in front of a bus? Let this be a lesson to all who think a green light means GO. It means look around, then go - when the coast is clear.

Door zone sharrows? My money is on the fact that the door zone hugging didn't help visibility, either for the cyclist to see the ped, the ped to see the cyclist, and the elimination of sufficient reaction time for either of them to avoid each other.

Whoops, had the conversion program set to nautical miles. :o


26 knots...

Let this be a lesson to all who think a green light means GO. It means look around, then go - when the coast is clear.
Excellent advise for all, whether one is prone to adhering to the rules of the road or not.