Ontario Canada - careful...
 

After the recent spree of cycling deaths/injuries etc...

5
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...clists020.html
1
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loca...hub=OttawaHome
1
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/stor...s-ogilvie.html
1
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1271351/

There has been a mass spree to change things. Yet, for all you cycling (non racer types) - you better speak up soon!!!

Because there are racer types about to really voice their opinion on the matter!

One fella - Avery Burdett (http://www.ottawabicycleclub.ca/phpB...p?t=2231#35213 )
and this guy http://www.rbrmike.com/rick.html
want to start pushing courses before people can get on a bike. And, others feel it is 90% the cyclists responsibility to be safe.
Yet, most of the incidents that occur are 90% the drivers fault!

So, all you out there that are couriers or rely on bikes each and every day better speak up quick before select few people who don't really represent the masses of cyclists (because these people are just "racer" types and hit the roads on off-peak times etc...).
They are about to set the standard for all of us.

Total bullchit from my view.
1) I can't afford a course
2) my money could be spent some place else
3) I'm not the big threat on the roads. Why should I be taxed! Go tax the drivers. They have the luxury of sitting in a couple of thousand pounds of metal to push them around using up precious resources etc... I use little.
4) What next, a PhD in biking?
5) There are only so many safety things I can wear. If I could, I would bike naked!

etc...

total bull...

So, before these select few Ottawa elite types start making up the rules... you better contact your MP in Ontario, Canada. And, they will set the rules...

And you got that statement from?

Here's a tidbit from Preventable.ca
In 2007, in B.C. alone, more than 1,000 people needed hospitalization as a result of cycling injuries. The Community Against Preventable Injuries, offers some tips and information on how people can cycle safely.

• Most bicycle injuries do not involve motor vehicles. Most are falls, collisions with stationary objects, and collisions with other bikes or pedestrians resulting from the bicyclist losing control.

• Helmets can reduce the risk of head injury by 88 per cent if worn appropriately.

• Those who survive unprotected head injuries may suffer epilepsy, intellectual and memory impairment and personality changes.

• Head injuries are the most common cause of death, disability and serious injury.

• Most injuries occur less than five blocks from home, in familiar surroundings.

• Most injuries suffered by bicyclists are fractures, dislocations and other non-life- threatening injuries, but head injuries are typically the most dangerous.


Bicycle riding training is a good thing. It will only promote awareness and better riding skills and situational awareness. VACC here has started offering bicycle riding workshops in the Lower Mainland.

There will always be people required to take a course like that who don't need it; it's 'collateral damage' for the 90% of bike riders who DO need it.

And hey, if you're that good, apply to be an instructor.

When the former Attorney General of Ontario murders a bicyclist, you kind of realize that cyclists may not have a great deal of recourse to speak out on this matter within the courts......

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/689220

To Arms! To Arms!

Okay, well in the first article, a van turned into the biking lane and smashed five people. I don't care how much training you do, you can't help, as a cyclist, moronic drivers hitting you. This was completely the driver's fault.

Second article was a guy and his kid riding his bike around. Not too much info in this article. I think it's reasonable to assume that these two were on neighborhood streets, just doing a father-son activity together. Any drivers passing by should be more cautious knowing that a kid is riding a bike on the road, just like how they should be more cautious when they see children playing/walking on the road. I would say this is completely the driver's fault. IF the driver was TRYING to be cautious and ACCIDENTALLY hit the cyclists, the result should not have been broken bones and the driver speeding off. This was completely the driver's fault.

Article three: Here was a fool riding his bike, at night, without a helmet. Odds are this guy didn't have any lights on his bike (why would you have lights and no helmet?). I drive around at night, and cyclists ARE harder to see than drivers. If you look up that Ogilvie + Blair road, you'll notice that it's two lanes in each direction (high-speed, high-capacity), near a freeway (bunch of people used to traveling 100+km/h get off and start doing the same on the high-speed, high-capacity roads. 'Round here, Hwy 7 is the equivalent (high-speed, high-capacity). You're crazy if you ride that road in broad daylight, mind you at night.

It's irresponsible that the driver would speed off (that's what the article implied, right?), agreed. It is irresponsible that the driver even hit the guy. However, I'd think the cyclist could've been a little safer, avoiding roads like this at night.

Article 4:This is where a cyclist and driver are getting into a fight? Psh, both partys are at fault. It just so happened the cyclist was vulnerable, and thought he was tough.

So... out of nine people being hit, I believe that one could've seriously been prevented by a safety program. I don't think one in nine is really worth it.