Michael Bryant

[Velvet]

I think it makes sense to view it as three different lanes, a pedestrian one, a bicyle one (the side of the road), and a car one, non?

[Davey Boy 2.0]

I think Dinghy touched on this a while back, namely that if a bike runs into a bus turning right then the cops will write the cyclist a $200 ticket for passing on the right

or something like that

[Booche]

I think it makes sense to view it as three different lanes, a pedestrian one, a bicyle one (the side of the road), and a car one, non?

No, unless otherwise dictated.

2 different lanes. A pedestrian one and a vehicular one.

[Velvet]

Well, that explains why we don't agree.

[Booche]

Would you suggest that cars turning right be on the lookout for motorcycles/scooters who are going straight that they might run into?

[Velvet]

I've never heard it suggested that motorcycles have their own lane.

Again, I'm not 'proposing' anything, I'm saying how it worked in Scandinavia and how I assume it's supposed to work here, given that dedicated bike lanes painted on the side of roads emerge and disappear randomly on Ottawa streets.

[phishtaper]

everyone should just try to drive as perfectly as chris lambert, then there would be no problems.

[Booche]

When you get on your bicycle and get on the road, you are then officially classified as driving a vehicle.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

::diverts conversation::

[Velvet]

Ya got me there. Is it the same if there's a dedicated bike lane?

[dimafleck: the living legend.]

i'm fairly sure its illegal for a cyclist in toronto to squeeze through when a driver is turner right on a green.

they are supposed to pass on the left.

[Velvet]

I'm pretty sure I'm making all this up as I go along.

[hamilton]

Another view:

Why traffic signs can make streets more dangerous

When our rights are defined, we tend to assert them. Life could be better if rules were less clear and we gave more thought to our obligations to the people around us

Sep 05, 2009 04:30 AM

Kenneth Kidd

Feature Writer

That a tragedy unfolded on Bloor St. this week is undoubted. A mindless case of road rage has ended one man's life and turned another's upside down.

Fingers have been pointed and there is anger on the streets. Cars versus cyclists. Pedestrians versus cars. Cyclists versus pedestrians. We have gone tribal. Why?

Part of the answer may lie in a single word – entitlement – and in traffic rules that, paradoxically, may bring out the worst in all of us, make us all less safe.

As a society, we champion rights, enshrine them in documents and constitutions. But the path to anger at any perceived breach of these entitlements can be short.

We defend rights, but what tends to get left out of the equation are any associated responsibilities. We have a right to vote, for instance, but no real sense that we also have a responsibility to make a serious study of the issues at hand.

We don't much like obligations, whether it's to drive safely, be considerate, or ponder the vantage point of someone else. We're seeing that all-take, no-give attitude on the streets of the city.

But here's what's scary. The North American approach to regulating traffic, rules that are supposed to ensure safety, may do just the opposite because they emphasize rights and diminish individual judgment and any consideration of others.

Compared with most places in Europe, North American cities are crammed with traffic lights and signs telling us what we can and can't do. They confer rights, which we've been conditioned to assert.

That's the subtext every time a driver races through the intersection on a green light and honks loudly at any pedestrian who has lingered too long in crossing.

It's there when a cyclist blocks an entire lane or a pedestrian marches onto a crosswalk without checking to see whether an oncoming car or cyclist can safely stop in time.

John Staddon, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Duke University who's lately been turning his attention to traffic, argues that the plethora of signs is actually the key reason North American roads are more dangerous than European ones.

We look to signs to give us instruction – tell us our rights – rather than making decisions based on the actions of other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.

Staddon notes, for instance, that some studies have found drivers actually give cyclists a wider berth in the absence of marked bike lanes. In other words, drivers are using their discretion, rather than looking for a line on the road.

An experiment now sweeping Europe is the removal of as many signs as possible, and sometimes even sidewalks. It seems to be working. In some neighbourhoods that have tried this approach, pedestrian accidents have fallen by 40 per cent and the traffic moves no more slowly than it did before.

Would Toronto's streets be safer and more civil with fewer signs and a greater reliance on the collective judgment of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians? It's possible.

There would at least be the refreshing appearance of niceness on our roads, which in some small way might actually lead to the real thing.

Link

[nibbler]

r.e. too many signs / not enough brains

Im impressed at how traffic in huge cities like Saigon and Bangkok, flows along as if its alive- people, animals, cars, mopeds, motorcycles, taxis, buses, trucks, rickshaws, bikes; all flowing together like a giant river- with far fewer and less serious accidents than we have in North America per capita. Definitely something to the argument that signs are a terrible substitution for overall driver awareness.

.

[MoMack]

r.e. too many signs / not enough brains

Im impressed at how traffic in huge cities like Saigon and Bangkok, flows along as if its alive- people, animals, cars, mopeds, motorcycles, taxis, buses, trucks, rickshaws, bikes; all flowing together like a giant river- with far fewer and less serious accidents than we have in North America per capita. Definitely something to the argument that signs are a terrible substitution for overall driver awareness.

.

Not my experience at all - in Bangkok and Malaysia I saw numerous accidents (I admit no serious ones, but thats probably because I wasn't there long). Accidents were constant at large intersections because all the bike/motos would fill in all the spots.

The difference is they don't seem to have the same insurance compensation system so its more of a "tough luck" situation then a lets get off and exchange contact information situation.

[ollie]

Another view:

That's pretty damn good. Certainly made me reflect on some incidents where I didn't have to be such a high and mighty pedestrian myself.

[Velvet]

r.e. too many signs / not enough brains

Im impressed at how traffic in huge cities like Saigon and Bangkok, flows along as if its alive- people, animals, cars, mopeds, motorcycles, taxis, buses, trucks, rickshaws, bikes; all flowing together like a giant river- with far fewer and less serious accidents than we have in North America per capita. Definitely something to the argument that signs are a terrible substitution for overall driver awareness.

.

Pardon my french, but are you fucking kidding me? I'll concede that traffic in Saigon is organic and approaches the artistic, but to suggest that it's safe is absurd.

[AD]

i especially liked the line about the giant river

[nibbler]

velvet- not to say its "safe" to ride a motorbike without helmet through Saigon, but if you take the airbags, working seatbelts, mandatory helmets for motorbikes and mopeds out of the Canadian equation, not to mention the medevac helicopters etc, I reckon our road safety 'statistics' would be dismal in comparison to Viet Nam's...

Edited September 5, 2009 by Guest

[nibbler]

Saigon intersection

15 out of 100,000 deaths per year caused by traffic accidents in both the United States and Viet Nam; Canada ranks slightly safer at 9.6 per 100,000 a year

[AD]

that's a significant difference! over a third.

[nibbler]

If a high ranking justice department official was the cyclist killed and not the driver in this situation, I doubt the motorist involved would still be free to walk out of jail the next day without a bail hearing.

[Giggles]

My best-friend of 16yrs owns likely Toronto's #1 bike shop and I work there. I knew Allen as an acquaintance frequently stopping by the shop for tubes or whatnot...it is a sad outcome for certain and I am very surprised that I'm even reading the comments of "understanding" as to how Mr. Bryant could just murder someone...oh, it's understandable?

When this story first hit the news before ANY knowledge of who Mr. Bryant was, there was a group of individuals interviewed, those being the construction workers with the first-hand view of this horrible event. Anyone happen to see/hear those first hand eye-witness accounts? Not ONE witness stated anything besides the fact that the cyclist was nearly rode off the road by the car in which case the cyclist was forced to grab onto the car for his fear of being run over. I have found myself on the hood of a Toronto cab after his decision to side-swipe me while trying to squeeze through a space my bike couldn't even fit.

From there, the accounts continued in the manner that the driver then rode into on coming traffic and even hopped the curve trying to knock the cyclist (now brought from the passengers side to the drivers side area in the insane driving commotion) off of trees, mailboxes and fire hydrants. No one spoke any word of fault of the cyclist, were dumbfounded at the actions of the driver and all interviewed had no idea how anyone would be able to explain what they were doing driving in such a manner...

The following day it's announced that it's Bryant and something MAY be fishy with what happened...BULL SHIT!

2 days after the tragedy, CityTV released the footage from the security cameras of the INITIAL confrontation between the 2...where it started near Bay. They were both seen waiting at the light, Allen seems to flip Bryant the bird and Bryant proceeds to REAR-END his bicycle. CityTV was forced to remove the video for "legal reasons", that being Bryant instigating the events.

OK, so Bryant was scared. REALLY? He was afraid his car was going to be destroyed by the bike? He was worried for his life with all the people that are on the streets at Bay/Avenue-Bloor at 9:30pm? He has no faith in humanity and is of the assumption this craized cyclist will kill him or something in front of all these people? I guess the media can make some simple minds think in very simple ways if anyone actually believes that story.

Don't believe the hype. Someone was murdered, those are the facts. Did it come out of a terrible situation that there was really no need for? Of course but a man is still dead and another needs to be held accountable for his actions.

[phishtaper]

im sorry for your loss, giggles. this is truly a tragic situation. i do not think anyone is saying it is understandable that bryant murdered sheppard, giggles. i would like to think noone would say that. i think they may have a different interpreteation and understanding of the events and they do not see it as murder.

i did see one of the surveilance videos of the second confrontation. it seemed to show the car pulling to the side and stopping on bloor. the cyclist immediately came up from behind, rode in front of the car, threw his bike down in front of the car and then approached the car's drivers side. it certainly appeared that the cyclist was engaging the driver at that point in time. the car then took off with the cyclist hanging on to the side of the car. the tape did not show the fatal impact

i sense the police will have spent considerable time looking for fingerprints within the car. if it can be established that Sheppard's prints are on the steering wheel, it may indicate that during what was likely a struggle he may have inadvertently contibuted to the steering of the car towards the mailbox and lamp posts. that would seem to be a probable defense argument.

[StoneMtn]

You mean this topic continued, even though we cannot possibly know the "entire story", other than what is reported, yet? People are still posting opinions?

Oh no.

Davey Boy must be very upset.