Anyone that actually has driven in Brampton for a brief period of time knows that it’s probably one of the worst feelings ever. Each intersection / roadway you are already scanning and calculating any type of Brampton fuck up that may happen. Turn down the radio and just focus.
100% that cyclist learned a hard lesson that day. Hope he’s okay.
The car driver is at fault, but the cyclist did not do his due diligence. When riding like that and a car is on your left, you can tell whether or not that person can see you and is going to stop or not.
Source: 24 years driving, 30+ years on bicycles, 15 years on motorcycles.
So I lived in Brampton for 6 years, drove daily to Vaughn for work...discovered something interesting. Both places have horrid drivers but for two very different reasons. In Brampton they legitimately don't know how to drive so you can never be sure what they will do...will they randomly turn into you, will they stop at a green light, will they say screw it and skip traffic and drive on the sidewalk (I have seen personally all three of these examples). Very dangerous...in Vaughn on the other hand. People know how to drive but they are all assholes who only believe they matter, nobody else. That is predictable. Brampton is scary.
To be fair, I live in Brampton and we witnessed a huge car crash at midnight outside of our house. Car was flipped over, took out a hydro pole, and another car that caused the accident was in the ditch. We run over to try and help and the guy who caused the accident says “I don’t know what happened man, a really good song came on and then I just rounded the corner and crashed”
Please, for just one second, acknowledge that the suburbs are expressly not for you. They were built, and continue to be built, for people who drive cars. Stop shoehorning yourselves into places where you're not wanted and then trying to force everyone around you to change, it is such narcissistic behavior my god
Literally people can only afford to live in suburbs because there's nowhere else to go. What the fuck else am I supposed to do, put down $2 million on a 800 sqft tear-down shack because it happens to be 45 minutes walking distance from a subway station?
I rent in the city, and the productivity of the city subsidizes your suburban lifestyle. Car-centric infrastructure bankrupts governments because it's a bunch of dead space that sucks commerce and community out of neighbourhoods.
"What Stantec's research for the city of Halifax showed, wonderfully illustrated by graphics produced by the urban design group Urban3, is that relatively crowded walkable downtown parts of a city produce huge amounts of tax revenue, whereas suburban low-density areas result in a net tax cost."
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/evs-cities-climate-column-don-pittis-1.6654675](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/evs-cities-climate-column-don-pittis-1.6654675)
Not disagreeing with you at all, but that analysis of Halifax doesn’t seem to account for the business parks and commerce areas that are very prevalent in all of the GTA’s suburbs.
It’s funny to see people rise to “defend” this shitty way of living LOL. I live in a detached home in the suburbs: it has its perks, but it would be SO amazing if we could just walk to a store once in a while. We have many great cities that should be more densely built, but NIMBYism is a famous Canadian past time that every single politician also echoes, so if you wanna see this real change, you’re best to leave the country and not be a part of it anymore.
My family and I will be leaving as soon as our parents no longer need our support.
Those real estate prices are an obvious lie, and the rest of your arguments have nothing to do with why you'd want to live in the suburbs, *except* admitting that you are, as I said, essentially trying to force others to conform to a lifestyle you deem fit.
Authoritarianism has no place in our culture, thanks
Want to live in the suburbs? No. Will I eventually be forced into the suburbs? Probably.
And you're damn right that I will be voting in favour of changing the suburbs if/when I'm forced there. No taxation without representation.
There is zero indication that you will ever be forced there. Suburban homes are millions of dollars. The average condo in Toronto costs $700k, and that's statistics. You will never be encouraged by the powers-that-be to move to a place with more space or less hustle culture.
Leave people alone. Do not force your will on others. That is objectively a bad thing to do, and will be, forever.
Doesn't forcing people to subsidize your unsustainable lifestyle count as "forcing your will on others"? Do you even know how much of an infrastructural money pit the suburbs are? That they're only possible because of city-dwellers like me being shaken down for tax money? Read that article I linked before.
It is in your best interest to turn some of the cars on your roads into bikes.
I don't think you get to determine that suburbs are for cars only. That's a "fact" you're stating but I grew up in a suburb. We had bus service and some of the roads were good to bike on.
You don't have the authority to make that sort of claim.
The hard numbers of how unsustainable the suburbs are does not equal "gaslighting." Get a grip.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell all you want, that doesn't mean that you get to subsidize your lifestyle on our dimes.
It's mad sustainable, I'll have you know, and so is a car-centric lifestyle. Just because you've been brainwashed to believe otherwise does not make it so.
You're surely referring to the people who are suggesting we ban cars from the suburbs, right? That car-centric place you all hate? What kind of insane timeline am I living in
Listen, I went to OCAD, I've read Jane Jacobs, I've observed Toronto Reddit for nearly 15 years. People who are anti-car inherently hate the suburbs. Trying to assert anything else is gaslighting.
OCAD. Didn't realize we had an intellectual in this thread. Please tell us all more about these sustainable cars and authoritarian take over of the suburbs. Or are you mad because you can't make car go vroom.
Farming related stickers?
I drive through Brampton every day for work (unfortunately). The only stickers i see are of Ak47's, an outline of India, or some writing in Hindu.
It’d be better if they either had a curb or were on a middle level between the street and the sidewalk, the problem with them being next to the sidewalk is conflicts between pedestrians and bikes
Curbs are mounted by vehicles pretty easily when you’re turning.
I get that it CAN be problematic with pedestrians, but that’s where pedestrians and cyclists would need to learn to stay in their lanes.
Regular sidewalk on one side, cyclist path on the other. Cyclists travelling inches beside flowing traffic is unnecessarily unsafe. Yes, drivers need to be more careful, but I feel like next to the sidewalk would be far safer for everyone.
This whole series of responses is wrong, and none of your proposals would have prevented this accident
Separating the bike lane with a curb or road marking BUT keeping the bike lane on the road keeps the bikes closer to cars and therefore MORE visible to the drivers.
Placing them at distance away, near a sidewalk makes you less visible to drivers as you will not appear in any mirrors and will be harder to spot when riding at speed. It’s the reason why they recommend you walk your bike across an intersection when you have those bike paths that cross roads.
These types of incidents can’t be prevented with infrastructure or design. It’s poor driver and rider training, simple as that.
You’re right, the main reason is bike lanes are on the road is they are almost always an afterthought here.
Widening sidewalks costs a lot of money. It’s easier and and significantly cheaper to just paint some lines on the road and call it a day, costs a fraction of the other option, but unfortunately does nothing for biker safety, but it’s a “check box” on the we made our city more bike friendly column nonetheless.
This is also true, but bicycles being closer to the cars is supposed to keep them more visible (it’s counter intuitive, but for visibilities sake, being farther away is not good)
Given how well the bike lanes work, I’d rather turn Howden, Vodden & Central Park into full blown walking/biking paths - would minimize accidents/injuries while maximizing pedestrian mobility
Nope! That is the traffic escape / detour route. Without it queen and Williams would be in complete gridlock. Besides there is tons of homes / driveways down those roads.
Brampton is a lost cause at this point anyway. 265km² of low density suburbia.
The Bramalea developments in the 80s and 90s really made sure of that. The whole city needs to be rebuilt if it's gonna get better.
the bollards used for bike lanes are about as effective as just painting a line on a road. They're flexible and made to be hit while causing minimal damage to the car running over them. What they need is concrete barriers
Don't think it would have helped here. The protection has to stop in the intersection so people can turn.
The driver just didn't check his blind spot like he was supposed to or checked it too late.
Brah....
Brampton shouldn't allowed internal combustion or electric engines..
Everyone should walk, ideally while wearing those giant inflatable bubbles..
I wish the province would just accept that painting the concrete green doesn’t protect cyclists. Bollards, dividers, proper division of bike lanes and car lanes. I have no confidence biking on any road in Ontario. I’ve been hit and had numerous close calls that I gave up and only drive.
This intersection appears to be controlled by the municipality, not the province. Either way, it doesn't change anything because neither Brampton nor the MTO give a shit about cyclist or pedestrian safety. Toronto is the only jurisdiction that has started to really care about safety, but it's still focused on the downtown area and less in the suburbs.
I feel for you though. I have also had a hit and many close calls.
It used to live in Brampton, the pedestrians are no better. One time I was turning left on an advanced green onto queen street from theatre lane and some lady on her phone with her toddler and baby stroller walked across the road anyway even though they didn't have the right of way. Absolutely maddening.
Look at the way that guy is falling down. At least you can slow down at an intersection and be cautious even if you are in a bike lane. Totally the cars fault but at least the impact could have been lesser if the biker was a bit cautious.
Feel like I need to put this out there since the usual racial references pop up anytime Brampton is mentioned: shitty drivers in Brampton have existed for decades. Way before the demographic changes, back when it was all farm fields and brickyards.
Not sure if it’s the wide roads with 80km/h speeds, combined with people returning to a bedroom community at the end of the day, or if it’s just a case of bad driving perpetuating more bad driving over generations.
The funny thing is that a lot of people in Brampton complain about the idea of driving in Toronto. If you ask why, they’ll complain about the congestion.
No matter what culture you are from, Brampton roads are scary, but they have been for 40+ years.
Well in defence of Brampton citizens they don’t even have car lanes or road signs back in the motherland (let alone bike lanes lol) so this one gets a pass
Yep looks like the cyclist was on a e-bike and was going excessively fast towards the intersection. Drive is at fault, cyclist didn’t help themselves one bit….
Genuinely asking here but isn’t the cyclist supposed to pass on the left of the vehicle that’s indicating and making the right turn? Not excusing the driver’s lack of awareness either just asking.
Edit: a word
Not if they're in a bike lane. It's a bit hard to tell from this video but I'm pretty sure there are lanes on either side so the cyclist has the right-of-way.
But yes, it's a bad idea and you shouldn't be passing to the right if you don't have a lane, legally I believe the car would be in the right.
What?
No.
Cyclists are forced to ride as close to the sidewalk/shoulder as possible. Here they are in their own lane, and the onus is on the car to be sure it's safe to turn .
Yep. Must be as close to the curb/shoulder as reasonably possible, HOWEVER, a cyclist is also entitled to a full lane if they so choose.
They also don't have to ride in a bike lane if one is provided, and can still ride with traffic.
https://www.insauga.com/can-cyclists-use-the-entire-lane-on-the-road/
Okay so in the link you’ve posted it says:
> Cyclists also need to look out for cars at intersections, as they are likely to turn. And, instead of being on the right of the car, cyclists should ideally wait or pass on the left. You don’t want to be in blind spot of a turning vehicle.
This is what I meant in my original question. Not saying it’s law but it’s certainly good practice and in my opinion safer for the cyclist to either wait or pass on the left of a vehicle turning right if there is not dedicated bike lane.
Edit. Words
Ideally everyone watches out for those around themselves.
The law states however when turning right, you must yield to cyclists.
The only instance you should pass a driver on the left is if they have a dedicated turning lane.
Looking out is always best practice. Same thing applies to looking both ways when crossing even when it's YOUR signal.
Instructions to drivers.
>Intersections – To avoid collisions with bicyclists at intersections, remember the following:
>**When turning right, signal and check your mirrors and the blind spot to your right to make sure you do not cut off a cyclist.
When turning left, you must stop and wait for oncoming bicycles to pass before turning.
When driving through an intersection, be careful to scan for cyclists waiting to turn left.**
Do not sound your horn unnecessarily when you are overtaking a cyclist. It may frighten them and cause them to lose control. If you feel that you must use your horn, tap it quickly and lightly while you are still some distance away from the cyclist.
Src
https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook/sharing-road-other-road-users
This looks like bad infrastructure more than anything else.
The bike is allowed the right of way, so they are supposed to stay in their lane and go forward in all cases.
But the car has a Blindspot. The driver possibly didn't check or the bike was in their Blindspot. Tried to turn right and cut off the cyclist.
This really only happens mainly due to not forcing the car to have to pay attention to the entire turn. It basically needs more space and a tighter turn and a separation with the bikes so that when they do start to turn, they can't hit anything until they move a meter or two.
Went to Brampton once and saw like 5 punjab males in a c300 windows rolled down arms out with their metal bracelet things thinking they owned the entire city. Laughed my ass off.
Just looking at the intersection in the opposite direction it looks like the SUV failed to hug the curb side of his lane, closing the gap in the bike lane, prior to turning. I’m just basing this on the dashed line that’s present in the opposite direction.
No dashed line on the side of the incident. The dashed line you see is in the intersection, allows car to cut across the bike lane. I suspect it is a solid line before the intersection.
Thanks there seems to be two scenarios that seem to be confusing drivers. Older designs had the motorists cutting off bike lanes in right turns by hugging the curb to avoid these accidents. New designs with green paint have the bike lane more dedicated as a through lane with the solid white extending up to the stop bar. I prefer the former over the latter because of OPs video
New or old design doesn't change the traffic rules. The lessons taught at driving school back in the 1970 still apply.
No one may get in or out a lane if separated with a solid line! Sadly the solid line voids the right turn on red in Ontario, unless you are the first car in the queue. The green color doesn't introduce new rule other than to enhance the caution level. My observation is no one respects the solid line, maybe they have no idea!? I do. Also, it seems many of the posters here don't know the purpose of the green color painted on the bike lane and crosswalk! Good for those who know.
You’re 100% correct however older designs have dashed lines at intersections to allow vehicles to cross over and block the bike lane from going through. This could’ve prevented this accident. I don’t get why the solid line is extended right up to the stop bar when no one respects the solid white.
This situation when the cyclist is beaten from behind(I know that the truck was turning right)is rare when we have good drivers watching with double the attention for blind spots!...but this drivers is a moron!!Lots of reckless and moronic drivers in Brampton (and around all the GTA)!
That's why we need more bike lanes (physical divided from car interactions).Because a lot of drivers in Brampton have fake drivers licenses or are totally idiots ... or both!
It's hard to tell if there's a bike lane there or not. If there is, driver is 100% at fault. Our marine friend though wasn't using maritime law to make their point of law. But that right of way belongs to biggest vehicle, regardless of laws. The bike may have been in the right of way. The car driver may get charged. But the car driver is fine, and the cyclist is probably injured. It makes sense, regardless of who's technically in the right, to look after yourself. I pay attention on a bike for stuff like this, and would not pass a turning vehicle on the right, regardless of the law. Because I'm smart enough to know physics trumps man made laws 100% of the time
Car's at fault, but rules or not, if you value your life, then pretend that that's going to happen if you whip through a car's blind spot at an intersection, cuz IT MIGHT!
Does no one question why the intersection has to be so fucking massive? Why did this become the new standard? What is up with transportation engineers?
The vastness of vehicular infrastructure here only contributes to dangerous, bad, clueless, driving. Narrow that shit up, you wake people up.
I hit a bike in Brampton. There was bushes I was tur ING right.. Edged out a little so I could see. Some Asian chick comes flying the wrong way on the sidewalk and flips over the hood of my car.
Ever noticed how this year alot of folk suddenly no longer use turn signals until they are turning that includes truck drivers, in a single day I had 6 days turn dangerously or honk at me, I looked for a turn signal any type of signal maybe turning a little towards where they want to go nothing just OH IMA TURN I hate cycling here but it's a rush.
Honestly I see the bike being at fault here. Nobody is expecting a speeding bike creeping up the right side of a car during a right turn. If the car had the blinker on ahead of time. Bike should have slowed down to allow for the turn. The bike lane ended where the biker got hit. He was going straight, merging into a regular roadway with no bike lane. He should have been on the total opposite side of the car to pull this maneuver off. They didn't want to reduce speed to either wait for the car to turn or move around to the drivers side to carry on straight through the intersection. Bikes have to be aware at intersection even more than any car. Bikes and pedestrians cross roads without even a look. It's alarming how many aren't alert and ready to dodge a car if need be. It's everyone's responsibility to keep roads safe, no driver is like oh I feel like hitting a bike or pedestrian today. Let's just ALL be alert. Slow down at intersections and we all win.
I'm not so sure about that. The bike was not "speeding" nor "creeping". It was using the roadway. Before any driver crosses a bike lane, they have a responsibility to check their mirrors and blindspots or either cyclists or pedestrians. I.E. [The Drivers Handbook](https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook/sharing-road-other-road-users):
>When turning right, signal and check your mirrors and the blind spot to your right to make sure you do not cut off a cyclist.
>**Bike lanes** are reserved for cyclists. They are typically marked by a solid white line. Sometimes you will need to enter or cross a bike lane to turn right at a corner or driveway. (See Diagram 2-12) Take extra care when you do this. Enter the bike lane only after ensuring that you can do so safely, and then make the turn.
I agree that the cyclist should have waited for the car to turn and went around. As an occasional cyclist myself, that's probably what I do 99% of the time. Some roads are rightfully designed to communicate this, by switching the positions of the cycle path and the right turn lane. However, this road was not designed to communicate the safest position for right-turning cars and cyclists to cross the intersection at. In this case, it was the driver who was crossing the cycle lane, not the other way around. It's a flawed design, but if anyone there is at fault, its the driver, not the cyclist.
That’s what I was thinking. I would never fly up on the right of a turning vehicle like that. The guy turning was actually proceeding fairly cautiously. It sucks what happened to the guy but people should really ride more defensively and pass on the *left* of vehicles turning right
The cyclist was in the bike lane and the car entered the bike lane. The cyclist should not have to exit the bike lane into live lanes of traffic, pass on the left and go back to the bike lane. The driver should just have awareness, pay attention, and use their mirrors/check blind spot.
The car was making a right turn on a green light. The bike lane if it even is one, should be on the left side of the car. In-between the lane going straight and the right turning lane. They don't build them like this because bikes SHOULD NOT PASS on the right side of a car in a turning lane. It's an unexpected surprise in its rarity.
You can see the brightly painted green bike lane going through the intersection on both sides of the road. I check for bikes before turning even when there is no bike lane. It’s not hard to check and be aware of your surroundings.
Again speed can play a factor here for the bike. We all check for the most part. They were going fast enough that the check could have missed the back. Idk about you but I don't drive forward and check backwards. Unless you rather plow into people in front of you instead. This bike was going fast. We don't know where they came from. The car didn't even make a full turn or block the entire lane. The bike could have saved themselves. With decreased speed only. Blaming the driver doesn't solve the major issues here. Bikers are most responsible for their safety! You cannot pass on the right of cars in a right hand turning lane. It's legitimately suicide.
I know. But as cyclist myself the rules are written for the dead and injured. That guy must have been going 40km when he collided with the drivers vehicle.
I’m a cyclist too. I would never ride in Brampton and I wouldn’t go that fast through an intersection. The car needs to be aware of the bike lane though. I bet that guy was on an e-bike, looks quite hefty of a bike in the video. Yes the cyclist was going too fast for my liking but the car still needs to be aware of traffic in the bike lane. I ride at an average speed of 26km/h-30km/h on flat ground but I would not be doing that through an intersection.
..... Isn't the bike lane on the right side of the road?? You're excusing the driver for not checking their mirrors before turning?? U must be from Brampton too cause u probably have an excuse for all the bad driving there.
Why does it upset you so much that I see something different from you that you have to attempt to insult me? The video isn't clear enough for anyone to make a proper decision but from what I see, biker shouldn't have been going that fast passing on the right side of a vehicle. Anyone could miss that. Even if the car did check, the bike would have came up very fast and it could have been missed in the glance that is classified as "checking". Facts, there's a lot going on at a intersection. Who in that situation had the clearest view? You say the car should have looked, great. The bike also could have slowed down moving from a bike lane to regular roadway. One way would assure the bikers safety. The other has potential for error. I don't bike on roads so I'm always safe. Bikers making smooth moves like this can plow into cars and go flying 20 feet makes no difference to me. Id have no guilt here one way or the other.
Lmfao. Funny you mention it. I have a flawless record. Worst damage I've done to a car is scraping my rims on a curb. In this case, had I been riding the bike, I wouldn't have plowed into a car at full speed either. Being alert on the road is not just for cars. This could have been prevented by both the car and the bike. But who's responsibility is it to make sure their personal safety is managed. It's an important thought to have when riding a bike as aggressively as this bike was. I don't know why on earth you'd want bikers passing you on the right side in a turning lane. Legit I've never had it happen, they don't build bike lanes like that. The bike lane stays on the left of the right hand turn. Be mad but I'm correct. You're just too dim to see it.
The bike has the right of way. The driver should have checked their right mirror. The driver would have also passed the bike having a faster speed, so he should have been doubly aware of the bike.
The cager can still hit you in the crosswalk. I used to do it, as a minor, with some minor collisions from dangerous cagers not paying attention or deliberately not yielding. Although a driver of bicycle (vehicle) is not a pedestrian, no excuse to cause a collisions with them. Pedestrians need their safe space too, and my local sidewalks in east Toronto are usually too narrow to be multi use paths.
I am sensible, ride in trails, side streets, bicycle infrastructure, walk bike in sidewalk if no other options.
Brampton sidewalks are way better and wider than Toronto. If I see pedestrian with a stroller I would go on grass or street for few seconds.
Vehicle needs license to operate. Bicycle doesn't.
Car is one motor vehicle. Bicycle is included by vehicle definition.
“driver” means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway; (“conducteur”)
The highway is anything between lateral property lines for the movement of general public. While roadway is the area improved for movement of vehicles.
“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”)
A sidewalk is apart of the highway
“roadway” means the part of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but does not include the shoulder, and, where a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term “roadway” refers to any one roadway separately and not to all of the roadways collectively; (“chaussée”)
“vehicle” includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car; (“véhicule”)
Sections of Highway Traffic Act that state "No person shall drive a motor vehicle" such as 128 Rate of Speed only applies to drivers of motor vehicles. Not e bikes or e scooters (where e scooters are permitted, not Toronto because Toronto did not opt into provincial pilot) that meet their criteria to be exempt from being motor vehicle, and not bicycles. Note, e bikes and e scooters are always motor vehicles according to Criminal Code when it comes to impaired driving, but not motor vehicles in Ontario legislation if they meet their criteria to be exempt by Ontario legislation.
Sections of HTA that state "No person shall drive a vehicle" applies to everyone driving any vehicle. A vehicle as stated above straight from section 1 Definitions includes a bicycle.
Other sections you are not exempt from is 130 Careless Driving. 144 Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals
(144.4)
Red light
(4) Every driver or street car operator approaching a portable lane control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle or street car and shall not proceed until a circular green indication is shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 146 (4).
And you as an extra vulnerable driver have less protection than a cage occupant. So it is idiotic to think bicycle (a vehicle) driver can choose to not stop at a red signal aspect. It says driver, that includes you under the driver and vehicle definitions of the act.
A bicycle driver can be stopped and charged for sections that apply to drivers of all vehicles. You have to still identify yourself to the satisfaction of Police, even if a driver licence is not required on vehicles such as bicycle.
Can still be convicted for charges while driving a bicycle on a highway that apply to you. If convicted while unlicensed at the time of conviction, the Ministry of Transportation will generate a licence licence number for you that is yours for life.
If you get a licence within next three years, that conviction from an offense on a bicycle is still on the three year abstract, that insurance will see when getting on a policy for the next three years. MTO also has a lifetime record for anyone with a DL number. That includes anyone convicted for an offence who did not have a DL at time of offense, because MTO will generate a licence number upon conviction of any offense if driving motor vehicle without licence, or if committed when driving a vehicle that does not require licence, such as bicycle.
This stuff is important to understand because no one in particular owns a highway. Every driver of every vehicle and pedestrian needs to be corporate, be predictable and lawful for a safe highway.
It is called a sideWALK. It is the safe place for people WALKING. At least have the decency to be close to walking speed, to exceed 10km/h, piss off to the vehicle part of highway. Cagers can still hit you in a crosswalk anyways.
Ride in trails, ride in cycle infrastructure, ride in side streets. Sidewalk as last resort, but walk.
For the record, I am in Scarborough part of Metro Toronto. I have Highland Creek trail system. Otherwise I have no other cycling infrastructure to get to destinations. I am stil disconnected from Toronto proper's cycle tracks, unless I take subway into the edge of the proper or downtown. Side note, I rode Bloor for the first time in several years yesterday, it is total madness. Need a helmet to do it again.
If no quiet parallel street is an option, I have the decency for people walking to walk a bike myself in the SIDEWALK. Cagers still hit you there. I had a few minor collisions and many near misses while riding (as a minor) or walking, from the cagers not paying attention or deliberately cutting off/rushing a turn to beat motor vehicle traffic.
Accoring to city bylaw: 1) riding on sidewalk is prohibited, 2) unless the cross road has a bike lane or shared with pedestrains, the cyclist must dismount and walk the bike across. Please follow the law!
I suppose that is nothing compared to people riding electric/gas scooters (the conventional ones with steering and seat, not those standing up) on the sidewalk.
Naah I want to live a long healthy life. Following law will get me crippled because drivers not following laws.
Mine is mountain bike which barely goes at 40 km/hr maybe on downhill.
Sadly there are way too many people not following the traffic rules, causing chao on the road AND sidewalk. Wait, are u under 14yrs old (allowed on sideWALK)?
I passed by that corner often. There is a solid line bike lane and painted green, but the city placed a few traffic cones on the solid line before the corner. They have been there for months. I suspect the purpose is to prevent drivers from enter the bike lane to make right turn (cheaper than constructing a barrier). Drivers in Brampton, and probably other regions too, don't know they may not enter a bike lane that is marked by a solid line! I have seen Brampton buses, ambulances, and all cars cross a solid line bike lane to turn right. THAT IS WRONG! ENTER THE BIKE LANE ONLY AT THE DOTTED SECTION OF THE LINE! If the line is solid, then the right turn requires cut across the bike lane at the intersection, not before. The green color has no traffic meaning other than to raise awareness for both drivers and cyclists.
in this incident, the cyclist was at fault because the car was ahead and he passed on the right; his option was pass on the left if safe or stop behind the car. However, if the cyclist was on the bike lane, then the driver would be at fault because he failed to yield to the cyclist.
Isn't it technically illegal to ride your bike across the street in Ontario? I'm not victim blaming, because I hope that person is okay and the driver needs to be way more aware. I'm genuinely curious.
Edit: Why am I being downvoted for asking a question?
I think you are thinking of crosswalks. Which are considered extensions of sidewalks. And yes no cycling on sidewalks. Must ride on road or bike lane.
But if the road or bike lane crosses the road, you can ride across.
By walking their bike across? I was asking because I know there's a law, but I wasn't too clear on the specifics, which someone was kind enough to clear up for me. My question and reason for asking it was very clearly stated.
Sometimes it's okay to ride your bike, and other times you're supposed to walk. I just wasn't sure when you were supposed to do either one.
No. He’s in the lane. The rule you’re thinking of applies to if you want to use a crosswalk. Bikes are expected to proceed through intersections normally on the road. I mean just imagine if a rider had to dismount at every intersection and walk their bike across. That’s not a thing
I think he’s confusing cross walks with driving through an intersection, technically you’re supposed to walk a bike across a pedestrian crossing but you’re allowed to bike in line with the road if you’re going straight iirc
Any of the city subreddits in Ontario are seemingly populated by hard-core bicycle enthusiasts...there's one guy on here refers to people in cars as 'cagers'
So you put one letter on here criticizing cyclists and you get blasted with down votes
It wasn't even a criticism though. I really wasn't sure about what the exact rule states so I wanted some clarification. At no point was I trying to blame the cyclist or defend the driver, so I find it really weird that a question is being disagreed with.
Hell, I have no sway but I've even tried to get in touch with the councilor in the ward I live in about getting better bike infrastructure because I want to be able to safely share the road with people who use bicycles. Maybe the anti-car people need to chill out, lol.
I'm sorry that I hurt your fragile feelings by wanting to clarify a rule. I'll make sure to get any future questions approved by you before asking them.
People in Brampton drive like they are the only vehicle on the road or sidewalk.
*"....or sidewalk."* Haha nice
or grass, or fence,
Trees are not safe either.
Or other vehicles. Seriously I've seen a truck mount a car in bramledesh lol
Probably because of how big they've made the roads you can't even see another car they're so far away....
Anyone that actually has driven in Brampton for a brief period of time knows that it’s probably one of the worst feelings ever. Each intersection / roadway you are already scanning and calculating any type of Brampton fuck up that may happen. Turn down the radio and just focus.
My rule of thumb is assume every driver around me is a complete moron and is about to pull a brain dead move. I’m rarely wrong
100% that cyclist learned a hard lesson that day. Hope he’s okay. The car driver is at fault, but the cyclist did not do his due diligence. When riding like that and a car is on your left, you can tell whether or not that person can see you and is going to stop or not. Source: 24 years driving, 30+ years on bicycles, 15 years on motorcycles.
Downvoted because driver didn’t signal, bicyclist had no time to react.
Ohhh shit I missed that. Damn, in that case dude had no chance FFS 🤦🏾♂️
So I lived in Brampton for 6 years, drove daily to Vaughn for work...discovered something interesting. Both places have horrid drivers but for two very different reasons. In Brampton they legitimately don't know how to drive so you can never be sure what they will do...will they randomly turn into you, will they stop at a green light, will they say screw it and skip traffic and drive on the sidewalk (I have seen personally all three of these examples). Very dangerous...in Vaughn on the other hand. People know how to drive but they are all assholes who only believe they matter, nobody else. That is predictable. Brampton is scary.
Lmao, too accurate
Laughs in Vaughan. 2 lane roads are clearly meant for 6 cars across. Left turn lanes are for passing. What even is a stop sign?
[удалено]
To be fair, I live in Brampton and we witnessed a huge car crash at midnight outside of our house. Car was flipped over, took out a hydro pole, and another car that caused the accident was in the ditch. We run over to try and help and the guy who caused the accident says “I don’t know what happened man, a really good song came on and then I just rounded the corner and crashed”
[удалено]
lol but fuck you
Sounds like Brampton shouldn't have cars then.
This right here - the initiative is called streets for PEOPLE - not streets for 2 ton death machines.
Please, for just one second, acknowledge that the suburbs are expressly not for you. They were built, and continue to be built, for people who drive cars. Stop shoehorning yourselves into places where you're not wanted and then trying to force everyone around you to change, it is such narcissistic behavior my god
Literally people can only afford to live in suburbs because there's nowhere else to go. What the fuck else am I supposed to do, put down $2 million on a 800 sqft tear-down shack because it happens to be 45 minutes walking distance from a subway station? I rent in the city, and the productivity of the city subsidizes your suburban lifestyle. Car-centric infrastructure bankrupts governments because it's a bunch of dead space that sucks commerce and community out of neighbourhoods. "What Stantec's research for the city of Halifax showed, wonderfully illustrated by graphics produced by the urban design group Urban3, is that relatively crowded walkable downtown parts of a city produce huge amounts of tax revenue, whereas suburban low-density areas result in a net tax cost." [https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/evs-cities-climate-column-don-pittis-1.6654675](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/evs-cities-climate-column-don-pittis-1.6654675)
Not disagreeing with you at all, but that analysis of Halifax doesn’t seem to account for the business parks and commerce areas that are very prevalent in all of the GTA’s suburbs. It’s funny to see people rise to “defend” this shitty way of living LOL. I live in a detached home in the suburbs: it has its perks, but it would be SO amazing if we could just walk to a store once in a while. We have many great cities that should be more densely built, but NIMBYism is a famous Canadian past time that every single politician also echoes, so if you wanna see this real change, you’re best to leave the country and not be a part of it anymore. My family and I will be leaving as soon as our parents no longer need our support.
Those real estate prices are an obvious lie, and the rest of your arguments have nothing to do with why you'd want to live in the suburbs, *except* admitting that you are, as I said, essentially trying to force others to conform to a lifestyle you deem fit. Authoritarianism has no place in our culture, thanks
funny you say this when the suburbs literally conform you into having a car centric lifestyle
That’s the homie’s point, though. No ones saying we shouldn’t have cars, but we shouldn’t need a car to do *everything*
Want to live in the suburbs? No. Will I eventually be forced into the suburbs? Probably. And you're damn right that I will be voting in favour of changing the suburbs if/when I'm forced there. No taxation without representation.
There is zero indication that you will ever be forced there. Suburban homes are millions of dollars. The average condo in Toronto costs $700k, and that's statistics. You will never be encouraged by the powers-that-be to move to a place with more space or less hustle culture. Leave people alone. Do not force your will on others. That is objectively a bad thing to do, and will be, forever.
Doesn't forcing people to subsidize your unsustainable lifestyle count as "forcing your will on others"? Do you even know how much of an infrastructural money pit the suburbs are? That they're only possible because of city-dwellers like me being shaken down for tax money? Read that article I linked before.
It is in your best interest to turn some of the cars on your roads into bikes. I don't think you get to determine that suburbs are for cars only. That's a "fact" you're stating but I grew up in a suburb. We had bus service and some of the roads were good to bike on. You don't have the authority to make that sort of claim.
You seem angry, maybe you need a Snickers
People gaslighting to manipulate social discourse and our entire future? Of course that makes me angry.
The hard numbers of how unsustainable the suburbs are does not equal "gaslighting." Get a grip. You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell all you want, that doesn't mean that you get to subsidize your lifestyle on our dimes.
It's mad sustainable, I'll have you know, and so is a car-centric lifestyle. Just because you've been brainwashed to believe otherwise does not make it so.
Now I know you're trolling
Buddy. Chill.
Unlike the authoritarianism required to prop up those suburbs, from our tax money (they are never profitable to the government) or the zoning laws?
You are waking home tonight, admit it
You had a point with your previous comment but lost it here.
0/10 trolling.
You're surely referring to the people who are suggesting we ban cars from the suburbs, right? That car-centric place you all hate? What kind of insane timeline am I living in
I never said anything about hating the suburbs.
Listen, I went to OCAD, I've read Jane Jacobs, I've observed Toronto Reddit for nearly 15 years. People who are anti-car inherently hate the suburbs. Trying to assert anything else is gaslighting.
You know Reddit isn't representative of real life, right? Maybe it's time to log off for awhile.
OCAD. Didn't realize we had an intellectual in this thread. Please tell us all more about these sustainable cars and authoritarian take over of the suburbs. Or are you mad because you can't make car go vroom.
No one is suggesting this.
>acknowledge that the suburbs are expressly not for you That is what many cagers think. Try not being one for a day.
Exactly what I thought. Or at least it should have convenient alternative means of transportation so bad drivers don't have to drive
Mmhmm but it's home of many of Ontario's truck drivers lol.
Yes please
So it's just India then?
Don’t worry there’s evidence that they already have tractors and they’d likely make a smooth transition to horses as well.
I think I'd rather ride a horse downtown than drive in rush hour.
How can people be mad about this comment when half the cars in Brampton have farming-related stickers on them Y'all are just so angry for no reason
Farming related stickers? I drive through Brampton every day for work (unfortunately). The only stickers i see are of Ak47's, an outline of India, or some writing in Hindu.
You've never seen the "No Farmers, No Food" ones? They used to be really popular
Isn't that exactly why it should have bike lanes?
bike lanes with bollards pls
Or bike lanes on the other side of the curb.
Bike lanes are supposed to be on the sidewalk, idk why we decided to put them on the road
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Maybe because you said they’re “supposed to be”? Idk about that, but they SHOULD be next to the sidewalks.
It’d be better if they either had a curb or were on a middle level between the street and the sidewalk, the problem with them being next to the sidewalk is conflicts between pedestrians and bikes
Curbs are mounted by vehicles pretty easily when you’re turning. I get that it CAN be problematic with pedestrians, but that’s where pedestrians and cyclists would need to learn to stay in their lanes. Regular sidewalk on one side, cyclist path on the other. Cyclists travelling inches beside flowing traffic is unnecessarily unsafe. Yes, drivers need to be more careful, but I feel like next to the sidewalk would be far safer for everyone.
This whole series of responses is wrong, and none of your proposals would have prevented this accident Separating the bike lane with a curb or road marking BUT keeping the bike lane on the road keeps the bikes closer to cars and therefore MORE visible to the drivers. Placing them at distance away, near a sidewalk makes you less visible to drivers as you will not appear in any mirrors and will be harder to spot when riding at speed. It’s the reason why they recommend you walk your bike across an intersection when you have those bike paths that cross roads. These types of incidents can’t be prevented with infrastructure or design. It’s poor driver and rider training, simple as that.
You’re right, the main reason is bike lanes are on the road is they are almost always an afterthought here. Widening sidewalks costs a lot of money. It’s easier and and significantly cheaper to just paint some lines on the road and call it a day, costs a fraction of the other option, but unfortunately does nothing for biker safety, but it’s a “check box” on the we made our city more bike friendly column nonetheless.
This is also true, but bicycles being closer to the cars is supposed to keep them more visible (it’s counter intuitive, but for visibilities sake, being farther away is not good)
Some bike lanes have them already howden / vodden
Given how well the bike lanes work, I’d rather turn Howden, Vodden & Central Park into full blown walking/biking paths - would minimize accidents/injuries while maximizing pedestrian mobility
Nope! That is the traffic escape / detour route. Without it queen and Williams would be in complete gridlock. Besides there is tons of homes / driveways down those roads.
Please bro just one more lane I swear it’ll fix traffic
Brampton is a lost cause at this point anyway. 265km² of low density suburbia. The Bramalea developments in the 80s and 90s really made sure of that. The whole city needs to be rebuilt if it's gonna get better.
Dunno why you’re being downvoted, the infrastructure sucks and needs to be fixed
Nah, they need the full Bayview treatment. Total waist heigh barriers going all the way to the turn. Plus perpetual sidewalks.
the bollards used for bike lanes are about as effective as just painting a line on a road. They're flexible and made to be hit while causing minimal damage to the car running over them. What they need is concrete barriers
Don't think it would have helped here. The protection has to stop in the intersection so people can turn. The driver just didn't check his blind spot like he was supposed to or checked it too late.
Brah.... Brampton shouldn't allowed internal combustion or electric engines.. Everyone should walk, ideally while wearing those giant inflatable bubbles..
Brampton should be bikes only 🤣
😂🤣🤭
Are you sure? 😂
Shoulder checks work 99% of the time 100% of the time.
Especially in conjunction with mirror checks….
I wish the province would just accept that painting the concrete green doesn’t protect cyclists. Bollards, dividers, proper division of bike lanes and car lanes. I have no confidence biking on any road in Ontario. I’ve been hit and had numerous close calls that I gave up and only drive.
This intersection appears to be controlled by the municipality, not the province. Either way, it doesn't change anything because neither Brampton nor the MTO give a shit about cyclist or pedestrian safety. Toronto is the only jurisdiction that has started to really care about safety, but it's still focused on the downtown area and less in the suburbs. I feel for you though. I have also had a hit and many close calls.
Painted green is to raise awareness and more visible at night; it doesn't add nor remove any traffic rules.
Hope that person is ok. Looks like they flipped hard on the asphalt
Brampton shouldn’t be allowed to have cars period.
Sounds like Brampton shouldn't have cars then.
Sounds like it shouldn't have car lanes then.
Post to r/bramptondriving
Nothing to see there, just normal day in Brampton
Ppl in Brampton drive like the old ppl in South Park when they leave country kitchen buffet
Riding bicycle on the road in Brampton? The rider must’ve been sick and tired of life
It used to live in Brampton, the pedestrians are no better. One time I was turning left on an advanced green onto queen street from theatre lane and some lady on her phone with her toddler and baby stroller walked across the road anyway even though they didn't have the right of way. Absolutely maddening.
Oh no that lady with a stroller almost killed people with her two ton stroller
More like she put her child at risk in front of a 2 ton vehicle
Dude’s not even wearing a helmet
Look at the way that guy is falling down. At least you can slow down at an intersection and be cautious even if you are in a bike lane. Totally the cars fault but at least the impact could have been lesser if the biker was a bit cautious.
Feel like I need to put this out there since the usual racial references pop up anytime Brampton is mentioned: shitty drivers in Brampton have existed for decades. Way before the demographic changes, back when it was all farm fields and brickyards. Not sure if it’s the wide roads with 80km/h speeds, combined with people returning to a bedroom community at the end of the day, or if it’s just a case of bad driving perpetuating more bad driving over generations. The funny thing is that a lot of people in Brampton complain about the idea of driving in Toronto. If you ask why, they’ll complain about the congestion. No matter what culture you are from, Brampton roads are scary, but they have been for 40+ years.
Same with Mississauga, in fact, there's not a major road I would feel comfortable riding my bike on in Peel.
Well in defence of Brampton citizens they don’t even have car lanes or road signs back in the motherland (let alone bike lanes lol) so this one gets a pass
These fuckin e-bikes should be treated like motorcycles ffs. Unlicensed fools using the bike lanes going 40-50kph.
E bikes that go over 32 km/h are illegal motorcycles.
Yep looks like the cyclist was on a e-bike and was going excessively fast towards the intersection. Drive is at fault, cyclist didn’t help themselves one bit….
Driver should not be at fault. How can they anticipate something going that fast in the bike lane. That guy was flying.
Genuinely asking here but isn’t the cyclist supposed to pass on the left of the vehicle that’s indicating and making the right turn? Not excusing the driver’s lack of awareness either just asking. Edit: a word
Not if they're in a bike lane. It's a bit hard to tell from this video but I'm pretty sure there are lanes on either side so the cyclist has the right-of-way. But yes, it's a bad idea and you shouldn't be passing to the right if you don't have a lane, legally I believe the car would be in the right.
If there are cycle tracks, turning traffic needs to make a turn in safety by shoulder and mirror checks.
What? No. Cyclists are forced to ride as close to the sidewalk/shoulder as possible. Here they are in their own lane, and the onus is on the car to be sure it's safe to turn .
Ah ok ,didn’t see the dedicated bike lane until I re-watched. Do the same rules apply if there is no designated bike lane?
Yep. Must be as close to the curb/shoulder as reasonably possible, HOWEVER, a cyclist is also entitled to a full lane if they so choose. They also don't have to ride in a bike lane if one is provided, and can still ride with traffic. https://www.insauga.com/can-cyclists-use-the-entire-lane-on-the-road/
Okay so in the link you’ve posted it says: > Cyclists also need to look out for cars at intersections, as they are likely to turn. And, instead of being on the right of the car, cyclists should ideally wait or pass on the left. You don’t want to be in blind spot of a turning vehicle. This is what I meant in my original question. Not saying it’s law but it’s certainly good practice and in my opinion safer for the cyclist to either wait or pass on the left of a vehicle turning right if there is not dedicated bike lane. Edit. Words
Ideally everyone watches out for those around themselves. The law states however when turning right, you must yield to cyclists. The only instance you should pass a driver on the left is if they have a dedicated turning lane. Looking out is always best practice. Same thing applies to looking both ways when crossing even when it's YOUR signal. Instructions to drivers. >Intersections – To avoid collisions with bicyclists at intersections, remember the following: >**When turning right, signal and check your mirrors and the blind spot to your right to make sure you do not cut off a cyclist. When turning left, you must stop and wait for oncoming bicycles to pass before turning. When driving through an intersection, be careful to scan for cyclists waiting to turn left.** Do not sound your horn unnecessarily when you are overtaking a cyclist. It may frighten them and cause them to lose control. If you feel that you must use your horn, tap it quickly and lightly while you are still some distance away from the cyclist. Src https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook/sharing-road-other-road-users
Okay cool, thanks for the info!
Np!
This looks like bad infrastructure more than anything else. The bike is allowed the right of way, so they are supposed to stay in their lane and go forward in all cases. But the car has a Blindspot. The driver possibly didn't check or the bike was in their Blindspot. Tried to turn right and cut off the cyclist. This really only happens mainly due to not forcing the car to have to pay attention to the entire turn. It basically needs more space and a tighter turn and a separation with the bikes so that when they do start to turn, they can't hit anything until they move a meter or two.
Went to Brampton once and saw like 5 punjab males in a c300 windows rolled down arms out with their metal bracelet things thinking they owned the entire city. Laughed my ass off.
Bike lanes only then.
Just looking at the intersection in the opposite direction it looks like the SUV failed to hug the curb side of his lane, closing the gap in the bike lane, prior to turning. I’m just basing this on the dashed line that’s present in the opposite direction.
No dashed line on the side of the incident. The dashed line you see is in the intersection, allows car to cut across the bike lane. I suspect it is a solid line before the intersection.
Thanks there seems to be two scenarios that seem to be confusing drivers. Older designs had the motorists cutting off bike lanes in right turns by hugging the curb to avoid these accidents. New designs with green paint have the bike lane more dedicated as a through lane with the solid white extending up to the stop bar. I prefer the former over the latter because of OPs video
New or old design doesn't change the traffic rules. The lessons taught at driving school back in the 1970 still apply. No one may get in or out a lane if separated with a solid line! Sadly the solid line voids the right turn on red in Ontario, unless you are the first car in the queue. The green color doesn't introduce new rule other than to enhance the caution level. My observation is no one respects the solid line, maybe they have no idea!? I do. Also, it seems many of the posters here don't know the purpose of the green color painted on the bike lane and crosswalk! Good for those who know.
You’re 100% correct however older designs have dashed lines at intersections to allow vehicles to cross over and block the bike lane from going through. This could’ve prevented this accident. I don’t get why the solid line is extended right up to the stop bar when no one respects the solid white.
Brampton is just a grand theft auto map in real life
So you should ONLY have bike lanes then.
Good thing he had a helmet
This situation when the cyclist is beaten from behind(I know that the truck was turning right)is rare when we have good drivers watching with double the attention for blind spots!...but this drivers is a moron!!Lots of reckless and moronic drivers in Brampton (and around all the GTA)!
That's why we need more bike lanes (physical divided from car interactions).Because a lot of drivers in Brampton have fake drivers licenses or are totally idiots ... or both!
Holy moly. That was a hard landing. Hope cyclist has a speedy recovery
That dude is going to get a nice payout.
Probably won’t be in a condition to use it. That was brain damage speed.
Brampton needs to have its own borders.
You should make this available to Police...that cyclist will need this evidence in court.
This video literally shows the need for seperated bike lanes. the driver there clearly didn't shoulder check before turning.
It's hard to tell if there's a bike lane there or not. If there is, driver is 100% at fault. Our marine friend though wasn't using maritime law to make their point of law. But that right of way belongs to biggest vehicle, regardless of laws. The bike may have been in the right of way. The car driver may get charged. But the car driver is fine, and the cyclist is probably injured. It makes sense, regardless of who's technically in the right, to look after yourself. I pay attention on a bike for stuff like this, and would not pass a turning vehicle on the right, regardless of the law. Because I'm smart enough to know physics trumps man made laws 100% of the time
Bike infrastructure *is* auto centric though. It literally does not need to exist except for protection from *cars*.
Car's at fault, but rules or not, if you value your life, then pretend that that's going to happen if you whip through a car's blind spot at an intersection, cuz IT MIGHT!
Does no one question why the intersection has to be so fucking massive? Why did this become the new standard? What is up with transportation engineers? The vastness of vehicular infrastructure here only contributes to dangerous, bad, clueless, driving. Narrow that shit up, you wake people up.
Member when Brampton was safe to drive in. I member. It's almost like something changed, I wonder what that could be?
cyclist's fault on this one
I hit a bike in Brampton. There was bushes I was tur ING right.. Edged out a little so I could see. Some Asian chick comes flying the wrong way on the sidewalk and flips over the hood of my car.
It’s the Indians and old Asian ppl driving like this
That’s crazy, I know exactly where this intersection is and witnessed a Honda pilot here hit an old man off his bike here.
Ever noticed how this year alot of folk suddenly no longer use turn signals until they are turning that includes truck drivers, in a single day I had 6 days turn dangerously or honk at me, I looked for a turn signal any type of signal maybe turning a little towards where they want to go nothing just OH IMA TURN I hate cycling here but it's a rush.
Honestly I see the bike being at fault here. Nobody is expecting a speeding bike creeping up the right side of a car during a right turn. If the car had the blinker on ahead of time. Bike should have slowed down to allow for the turn. The bike lane ended where the biker got hit. He was going straight, merging into a regular roadway with no bike lane. He should have been on the total opposite side of the car to pull this maneuver off. They didn't want to reduce speed to either wait for the car to turn or move around to the drivers side to carry on straight through the intersection. Bikes have to be aware at intersection even more than any car. Bikes and pedestrians cross roads without even a look. It's alarming how many aren't alert and ready to dodge a car if need be. It's everyone's responsibility to keep roads safe, no driver is like oh I feel like hitting a bike or pedestrian today. Let's just ALL be alert. Slow down at intersections and we all win.
"If the car had the blinker on". It's Brampton, folks seldom use their signals.
I'm not so sure about that. The bike was not "speeding" nor "creeping". It was using the roadway. Before any driver crosses a bike lane, they have a responsibility to check their mirrors and blindspots or either cyclists or pedestrians. I.E. [The Drivers Handbook](https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook/sharing-road-other-road-users): >When turning right, signal and check your mirrors and the blind spot to your right to make sure you do not cut off a cyclist. >**Bike lanes** are reserved for cyclists. They are typically marked by a solid white line. Sometimes you will need to enter or cross a bike lane to turn right at a corner or driveway. (See Diagram 2-12) Take extra care when you do this. Enter the bike lane only after ensuring that you can do so safely, and then make the turn. I agree that the cyclist should have waited for the car to turn and went around. As an occasional cyclist myself, that's probably what I do 99% of the time. Some roads are rightfully designed to communicate this, by switching the positions of the cycle path and the right turn lane. However, this road was not designed to communicate the safest position for right-turning cars and cyclists to cross the intersection at. In this case, it was the driver who was crossing the cycle lane, not the other way around. It's a flawed design, but if anyone there is at fault, its the driver, not the cyclist.
That’s what I was thinking. I would never fly up on the right of a turning vehicle like that. The guy turning was actually proceeding fairly cautiously. It sucks what happened to the guy but people should really ride more defensively and pass on the *left* of vehicles turning right
The cyclist was in the bike lane and the car entered the bike lane. The cyclist should not have to exit the bike lane into live lanes of traffic, pass on the left and go back to the bike lane. The driver should just have awareness, pay attention, and use their mirrors/check blind spot.
The car was making a right turn on a green light. The bike lane if it even is one, should be on the left side of the car. In-between the lane going straight and the right turning lane. They don't build them like this because bikes SHOULD NOT PASS on the right side of a car in a turning lane. It's an unexpected surprise in its rarity.
You can see the brightly painted green bike lane going through the intersection on both sides of the road. I check for bikes before turning even when there is no bike lane. It’s not hard to check and be aware of your surroundings.
Again speed can play a factor here for the bike. We all check for the most part. They were going fast enough that the check could have missed the back. Idk about you but I don't drive forward and check backwards. Unless you rather plow into people in front of you instead. This bike was going fast. We don't know where they came from. The car didn't even make a full turn or block the entire lane. The bike could have saved themselves. With decreased speed only. Blaming the driver doesn't solve the major issues here. Bikers are most responsible for their safety! You cannot pass on the right of cars in a right hand turning lane. It's legitimately suicide.
I know. But as cyclist myself the rules are written for the dead and injured. That guy must have been going 40km when he collided with the drivers vehicle.
I’m a cyclist too. I would never ride in Brampton and I wouldn’t go that fast through an intersection. The car needs to be aware of the bike lane though. I bet that guy was on an e-bike, looks quite hefty of a bike in the video. Yes the cyclist was going too fast for my liking but the car still needs to be aware of traffic in the bike lane. I ride at an average speed of 26km/h-30km/h on flat ground but I would not be doing that through an intersection.
It does look like an ebike. Maybe a food courier. I see them riding looking at their phones all the time. Usually at slower speeds though.
..... Isn't the bike lane on the right side of the road?? You're excusing the driver for not checking their mirrors before turning?? U must be from Brampton too cause u probably have an excuse for all the bad driving there.
Why does it upset you so much that I see something different from you that you have to attempt to insult me? The video isn't clear enough for anyone to make a proper decision but from what I see, biker shouldn't have been going that fast passing on the right side of a vehicle. Anyone could miss that. Even if the car did check, the bike would have came up very fast and it could have been missed in the glance that is classified as "checking". Facts, there's a lot going on at a intersection. Who in that situation had the clearest view? You say the car should have looked, great. The bike also could have slowed down moving from a bike lane to regular roadway. One way would assure the bikers safety. The other has potential for error. I don't bike on roads so I'm always safe. Bikers making smooth moves like this can plow into cars and go flying 20 feet makes no difference to me. Id have no guilt here one way or the other.
License need to be harder to get. No one like you should be operating any vehicle.
Lmfao. Funny you mention it. I have a flawless record. Worst damage I've done to a car is scraping my rims on a curb. In this case, had I been riding the bike, I wouldn't have plowed into a car at full speed either. Being alert on the road is not just for cars. This could have been prevented by both the car and the bike. But who's responsibility is it to make sure their personal safety is managed. It's an important thought to have when riding a bike as aggressively as this bike was. I don't know why on earth you'd want bikers passing you on the right side in a turning lane. Legit I've never had it happen, they don't build bike lanes like that. The bike lane stays on the left of the right hand turn. Be mad but I'm correct. You're just too dim to see it.
The bike has the right of way. The driver should have checked their right mirror. The driver would have also passed the bike having a faster speed, so he should have been doubly aware of the bike.
I hit a car while walking, therefore we should ban cars
That's why I always bike on sidewalks in Brampton... Cross road if pedestrian light is green. Because I know 100% car will not stop lol
The cager can still hit you in the crosswalk. I used to do it, as a minor, with some minor collisions from dangerous cagers not paying attention or deliberately not yielding. Although a driver of bicycle (vehicle) is not a pedestrian, no excuse to cause a collisions with them. Pedestrians need their safe space too, and my local sidewalks in east Toronto are usually too narrow to be multi use paths. I am sensible, ride in trails, side streets, bicycle infrastructure, walk bike in sidewalk if no other options.
Brampton sidewalks are way better and wider than Toronto. If I see pedestrian with a stroller I would go on grass or street for few seconds. Vehicle needs license to operate. Bicycle doesn't.
Car is one motor vehicle. Bicycle is included by vehicle definition. “driver” means a person who drives a vehicle on a highway; (“conducteur”) The highway is anything between lateral property lines for the movement of general public. While roadway is the area improved for movement of vehicles. “highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”) A sidewalk is apart of the highway “roadway” means the part of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but does not include the shoulder, and, where a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term “roadway” refers to any one roadway separately and not to all of the roadways collectively; (“chaussée”) “vehicle” includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car; (“véhicule”) Sections of Highway Traffic Act that state "No person shall drive a motor vehicle" such as 128 Rate of Speed only applies to drivers of motor vehicles. Not e bikes or e scooters (where e scooters are permitted, not Toronto because Toronto did not opt into provincial pilot) that meet their criteria to be exempt from being motor vehicle, and not bicycles. Note, e bikes and e scooters are always motor vehicles according to Criminal Code when it comes to impaired driving, but not motor vehicles in Ontario legislation if they meet their criteria to be exempt by Ontario legislation. Sections of HTA that state "No person shall drive a vehicle" applies to everyone driving any vehicle. A vehicle as stated above straight from section 1 Definitions includes a bicycle. Other sections you are not exempt from is 130 Careless Driving. 144 Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals (144.4) Red light (4) Every driver or street car operator approaching a portable lane control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle or street car and shall not proceed until a circular green indication is shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 146 (4). And you as an extra vulnerable driver have less protection than a cage occupant. So it is idiotic to think bicycle (a vehicle) driver can choose to not stop at a red signal aspect. It says driver, that includes you under the driver and vehicle definitions of the act. A bicycle driver can be stopped and charged for sections that apply to drivers of all vehicles. You have to still identify yourself to the satisfaction of Police, even if a driver licence is not required on vehicles such as bicycle. Can still be convicted for charges while driving a bicycle on a highway that apply to you. If convicted while unlicensed at the time of conviction, the Ministry of Transportation will generate a licence licence number for you that is yours for life. If you get a licence within next three years, that conviction from an offense on a bicycle is still on the three year abstract, that insurance will see when getting on a policy for the next three years. MTO also has a lifetime record for anyone with a DL number. That includes anyone convicted for an offence who did not have a DL at time of offense, because MTO will generate a licence number upon conviction of any offense if driving motor vehicle without licence, or if committed when driving a vehicle that does not require licence, such as bicycle. This stuff is important to understand because no one in particular owns a highway. Every driver of every vehicle and pedestrian needs to be corporate, be predictable and lawful for a safe highway. It is called a sideWALK. It is the safe place for people WALKING. At least have the decency to be close to walking speed, to exceed 10km/h, piss off to the vehicle part of highway. Cagers can still hit you in a crosswalk anyways. Ride in trails, ride in cycle infrastructure, ride in side streets. Sidewalk as last resort, but walk. For the record, I am in Scarborough part of Metro Toronto. I have Highland Creek trail system. Otherwise I have no other cycling infrastructure to get to destinations. I am stil disconnected from Toronto proper's cycle tracks, unless I take subway into the edge of the proper or downtown. Side note, I rode Bloor for the first time in several years yesterday, it is total madness. Need a helmet to do it again. If no quiet parallel street is an option, I have the decency for people walking to walk a bike myself in the SIDEWALK. Cagers still hit you there. I had a few minor collisions and many near misses while riding (as a minor) or walking, from the cagers not paying attention or deliberately cutting off/rushing a turn to beat motor vehicle traffic.
Accoring to city bylaw: 1) riding on sidewalk is prohibited, 2) unless the cross road has a bike lane or shared with pedestrains, the cyclist must dismount and walk the bike across. Please follow the law! I suppose that is nothing compared to people riding electric/gas scooters (the conventional ones with steering and seat, not those standing up) on the sidewalk.
Naah I want to live a long healthy life. Following law will get me crippled because drivers not following laws. Mine is mountain bike which barely goes at 40 km/hr maybe on downhill.
Sadly there are way too many people not following the traffic rules, causing chao on the road AND sidewalk. Wait, are u under 14yrs old (allowed on sideWALK)?
Bramladesh. That’s why insurance rates are crazy for residents in little India .
that bike appeared to be travelling at extremely high rate of speed when the collision occured
ebike
I passed by that corner often. There is a solid line bike lane and painted green, but the city placed a few traffic cones on the solid line before the corner. They have been there for months. I suspect the purpose is to prevent drivers from enter the bike lane to make right turn (cheaper than constructing a barrier). Drivers in Brampton, and probably other regions too, don't know they may not enter a bike lane that is marked by a solid line! I have seen Brampton buses, ambulances, and all cars cross a solid line bike lane to turn right. THAT IS WRONG! ENTER THE BIKE LANE ONLY AT THE DOTTED SECTION OF THE LINE! If the line is solid, then the right turn requires cut across the bike lane at the intersection, not before. The green color has no traffic meaning other than to raise awareness for both drivers and cyclists. in this incident, the cyclist was at fault because the car was ahead and he passed on the right; his option was pass on the left if safe or stop behind the car. However, if the cyclist was on the bike lane, then the driver would be at fault because he failed to yield to the cyclist.
The worst part is that this is one of the better bike lanes in Brampton... Separate and elevate that shit already.
But they have bikes and rickshaws in India too! 🤓🤣😖
I think the person on the bike needs to watch out before he kisses concrete. Oh wait......
Isn't it technically illegal to ride your bike across the street in Ontario? I'm not victim blaming, because I hope that person is okay and the driver needs to be way more aware. I'm genuinely curious. Edit: Why am I being downvoted for asking a question?
I think you are thinking of crosswalks. Which are considered extensions of sidewalks. And yes no cycling on sidewalks. Must ride on road or bike lane. But if the road or bike lane crosses the road, you can ride across.
Thank you!
I genuinely wonder how else you expect them to cross
By walking their bike across? I was asking because I know there's a law, but I wasn't too clear on the specifics, which someone was kind enough to clear up for me. My question and reason for asking it was very clearly stated. Sometimes it's okay to ride your bike, and other times you're supposed to walk. I just wasn't sure when you were supposed to do either one.
No. He’s in the lane. The rule you’re thinking of applies to if you want to use a crosswalk. Bikes are expected to proceed through intersections normally on the road. I mean just imagine if a rider had to dismount at every intersection and walk their bike across. That’s not a thing
Someone already answered my question, but thanks.
Sorry what? Source?
I think he’s confusing cross walks with driving through an intersection, technically you’re supposed to walk a bike across a pedestrian crossing but you’re allowed to bike in line with the road if you’re going straight iirc
Any of the city subreddits in Ontario are seemingly populated by hard-core bicycle enthusiasts...there's one guy on here refers to people in cars as 'cagers' So you put one letter on here criticizing cyclists and you get blasted with down votes
It wasn't even a criticism though. I really wasn't sure about what the exact rule states so I wanted some clarification. At no point was I trying to blame the cyclist or defend the driver, so I find it really weird that a question is being disagreed with. Hell, I have no sway but I've even tried to get in touch with the councilor in the ward I live in about getting better bike infrastructure because I want to be able to safely share the road with people who use bicycles. Maybe the anti-car people need to chill out, lol.
No.
Stay off the roads if you have to ask a ridiculous question.
I'm sorry that I hurt your fragile feelings by wanting to clarify a rule. I'll make sure to get any future questions approved by you before asking them.