Cyclist killed in SE

Submitted by Richard Z on

Very sad news today.  A cyclist believed to be in his 50s was killed in a collision with a large truck at 52 St and 61 Ave SE today at 2pm.  This is the first cyclist killed in Calgary this year.

Media reports:

http://www.660news.com/news/local/article/375908--one-dead-in-southeast-...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/06/21/calgary-cyclist-h...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Cyclist+killed+collision+with+...

 

Forums: 

Judging from the CBC video, I

Submitted by Richard Z on

Judging from the CBC video, I'm guessing the cyclist was NB on the pathway running along the W side of 52 St, the truck was turning right onto 52 St SB from 61 St.  The truck can be seen stopped at the SW corner of 52 St/61 Ave pointing south on 52 St. The video shows, and the Herald mentions, the empty bottles strewn about the scene.  The victim may have been a bottle collector.  The 2010 cyclist killed on 16 Ave was also a bottle collector, I believe.

I concur

Submitted by RTRT on

I agree, truck driver was probably looking north (left) for traffic, while cyclist was south(right) of the truck. We will have to find out who had the red light. Terrible news.

52 st SE is marked as a regional pathway on the city of calgary map.

The Red Light is not the issue.

Submitted by ivan on

This is a most tragic situation.

Unforutuneatly the red light is not a really the issue.The path comes to a road way and if the cyclist is on thier bike then they have to stop as this situation is viewed the same as a vehicle entering a road from an alley way or parking lot. If the cyclist dismounted and became a pedestrian crossing at a marked legal cross walk they have the right of way and the truck should have stoped for him. The Alberta Traffic Act does say that a pedestrian should make sure it is safe before crossing but that is of little comfort to the deceased. If you have ever driven a semi you know that any thing that comes under the mirrors from the passenger door forward is virtually invisible from the driverss seat. This some thing for all of us to keep in mind while in traffic.

Out of context?

Submitted by DD on

I'm hoping the quote from Staff Sgt Hough in the Herald was taken out of context and not indicative of CPS attitudes, "“I think any area is dangerous if you are riding around on the street,” Hough said."

Yet, proportionably cycling

Submitted by PVarella on

Yet, proportionably cycling is much more dangerous as there are many more pedestrians on the road than cyclists. We strongly need more support from municipal authorities to stop events like this. CPS has to do its work and enforce traffic laws meant to protect cyclists. City hall has to invest, heavily, on infrastructure.

Relevant part of a letter just sent to CPS

Submitted by Richard Z on

"In an interview on the scene with CBC Calgary, Staff Sgt Hough said, "I think any area is dangerous to ride on the bike if you are on the street. Any time you’re involved mixing bicycles with cars, unfortunately in a collision the bike is going to lose whether they’re in the right of way or not the right of way."

Bike Calgary recognizes that Sgt. Hough was attending the scene of a tragic accident and may not have had adequate time to consider how his response about the relationship between cyclists and cars plays against City policy directives to develop a complete streets approach to roadway design and promote more transportation choices, specifically transit, cycling and walking.  Bike Calgary is nevertheless concerned that the wording of the quote suggests that riding a bicycle on Calgary's streets in and of itself is dangerous, with the implication that it shouldn't be done. However, statistics do not bear this out.  Bicycle-involved collisions in Calgary are at a level very much in line with or lower than other comparable cities. Fatalities in Calgary have consistently been low (0 or 1 in the last several years), and about half the number of fatalities in eg Edmonton. Research shows that regular cyclists live longer even taking accident risk into account, and also that cities with higher levels of on-street cycling have lower collision numbers ("safety in numbers effect").  The wording of the quote is especially unfortunate as in the case at hand, the cyclist was not even riding on the street: in fact, research also shows that accident risk is higher at intersections when the cyclist is not using the street but the sidewalk or -- as in this case -- a pathway parallel to the road.  Sidewalk riding is also illegal in most places in Calgary.

In light of this, we would like clarification on whether it is the official position of the Calgary Police Service that on-street cycling in Calgary is dangerous and should be avoided.  If it is not, as we hope isn't, we would appreciate it if future statements by CPS be framed so as not to detract from the safety and legality of cycling nor that they detract from the responsibility of motor vehicle operators to act in a manner that respects the safety of all roadway users."

Well said

Submitted by RichieRich on

well said... would be great if you could get something similar published (print or online) with the Herald, Sun, and Metro in such a manner, and with the support of the CPS, that it gets the message across the although cycling has incidents it is not inherently life-threatening, what is life-threatening may be poor choices by the common person. 

Why do people RIDE across the street on pathways/sidewalks?

Submitted by albertabeef on

This is the most-common area for bike/vehicle collisions:  Bike/Mult-Use-Paths/Sidewalks where they cross the street... The vast majority of the time an incident occurs the cyclist is riding across the street instead of walking the bike...

Sure, it's slower to walk the bike across the street... but you're MUCH more visible, and therefore less-likely to get hit by a 5-ton truck.

... annoyed at the CBC Video "... no word whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet..." ... like wearing a helmet saves you when you're hit by a 5-ton truck... 

Media has a tendancy to always make it sound like the cyclists fault... "Hit by a truck? Should've worn a helmet."  ... right.

Sad news.

Helmet

Submitted by ryker on

The helmet question is just tying into the other contempory story spurred by the coronor's call to increase helmet usage.  To me the question seems neutral.  Maybe a helmet could have saved the rider?  Maybe truck side guards could have saved the rider?  Maybe if we ask questions about the incident we can move forward as constructively as possible.

Outrageous!

Submitted by PVarella on

When will this stop? The lack of respect for cyclists on Calgary roads is ridiculous. I bike to work every day and we need to have a much better support for cyclists. From police officers who do not enforce traffic laws to city officials who drag their feet in approving a safer infrastructure all share some guilt every time something like this happens.

Respect!

Submitted by ivan on

You can not demand respect like this. It has to be earned. I see many instances of lack of respect from both cars and motorists.


I was driving home from down town. I was west bound on river front ave and turned right onto the lower deck of the Centre St. Bridge. I almost hit the cyclist traveling west on the bike path pararllel to the road. He give me the the look as wtf while I was stoped inches from him.  I looked and said hey I think you missed the stop sign. His reply was rather sheepish and was " oh sorry"


You see it is all about respect if you do not show it to others you have no right to demand it, as respect can only be earned.

Really?

Submitted by mercator on

So let me see if I understand your comment Ivan.

Just because some random guy on a bike didn't show you any respect while you were driving your car, it would be ok to run over some other random guy on a bike and take his life. 

Is that what you really wanted to say?

Respect

Submitted by ivan on

Mercator


What I wanted you to see was quite the opposite.


My example was not to demonstrate lack of respect but demonstrate that it is as simple as this incident. No one was hurt and no one yelled or gave any one the finger. The cyclist was genuinly surprised that he missed the stop sign, This is me trying to see the good. If I wanted to see the bad I would have commented  that he was surprised that he got called on the stop sign. (By the way there is a stop sign there for the path user that is run quite regularly that is why I was on guard for this possiblity.)


 


As for taking some ramdom guys life that is a bit extreme and is never anyones intention(I hope.). I routinely see cyclist doing things contrary to the Traffic Safety act. Cyclist are a minority and a very visible minority on the road. When one cyclist does these things it will unfortunatley reflect on the whole commiunity. To be fair I see it with cars all the time and I do not like it either in fact less as they have a drivers license and have no excuse at all.


Hope this clarifies things.

Clearly not.

Submitted by mercator on

You made your comment on a thread discussing a fellow citizen who lost his life, so I think my question was in context.

Your comment implied that since you had seen disrespectful cyclists while driving your car, all cyclists are unworthy of your respect.  Hence my question.

Respect and people

Submitted by DarrenB on

Perhaps, but unfortunately the opposite is not true (do motorists have to earn the respect of cyclists??), so I am not sure such remarks are logically valid.

Motorists are the dominant and most frequent user of our roads, so they set the standard for behaviour on our streets. As a group, motorists also fail to obey the rules of the road (dangerous things, like habitual speeding, rolling stops at stop signs especially when turning right, failure to stop when entering the roadway from a lane or driveway, failure to pass other vehicles safely, failure to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, etc., etc.). 

I am certain that cyclists would behave better if motorists, in their larger and far more dangerous vehicles, set the example on our roadways.

I think what you are asking for here is one-way respect: cyclists must be the examplary users of our roads before motorists will ALLOW them to share.  Unfortunately, that sort of thinking could become a convenient excuse for motorists, because they have the physical ability to bully cyclists, and this sort of thinking could provide a means to justifies it. Bottom line: I hear what you are saying, and I agree that some cyclists do ALL of us a dis-service by disobeyeing the rules of the road (as do motorists and pedestrians), but cyclists already have a legal entitlement to the roadway so we don't have to 'earn' it. Respect on the roads should be a MUTUAL undertaking, and if motorists set that example first we would go much further towards obtaining that respect.

 

 

Cyclist wasn't on the road

Submitted by shirose on

The situation as described indicates that the cyclist was on the pathway, not the road.  And there is a stop sign at that crossing.  The cyclist would not have had the right of way. 


I go that way as well, and right now the pathway is closed, so cyclists are crossing the street by the bridge.  I usually make sure that i slow down and catch the eye of the car driver and most are polite and patient enough to let me pass; riding my bike across the street.


I also don't think this is a matter of cyclists versus motorists.  Some people, some of the time,  don't drive their "vehicles", be it bike or car, very respectfully.  But just because someone else breaks the law, doesn't mean you have to.  Setting the example starts with the individual, not a group, as you can only control your own behaviour.  However, you can set an example for others on the road.  How many times have you been speeding, just because the rest of the cars on the road were speeding too?

Might is Right

Submitted by Gromit on

 

Both the police and media have a pact that they will comment on the existence of a helmet for cyclists who are involved in injury crashes.  What they should be required to report in addition is whether the helmet would have made any difference.

 

For me the troubling comment from Acting Sgt. Les Hough is the last one – “When cars and bikes mix the bike will always loose whether they are in the right or not. or something to that effect.  What he meant: “Cars are typically terribly dangerous—territorially jealous, vindictive, self willed demons who kill trespassers on the slightest provocation, so you must stay out of their way as much as possible.  But when you must get in their way there is nothing you can do but trust to luck”. (For another version of this see the recent AMA magazine article “This Road is Our Road” by Wendy Goldsmith which concludes with a quote from AMA driver educator Rick Lang: “Cyclists may be in the right, but who wants to be dead right”)

This is ‘might is right”, thinly disguised.  If true, the only vehicles truly safe on the road would be gravel trucks and armoured cars.

sad

Submitted by critninja on

Based on what I have read it seems that this was a case of bottle picker on a bike perhaps rolling into an intesection from the sidewalk and being right hooked by a big truck.

This is not a story about helmets.

It is a story about people not paying close enough attention to what is going on around them - driver or bike rider.

I am not at all familiar with the cycling conditions in this area so cannot offer an opinion on whether safer bike/ped infrastructure could have maybe made a difference.

Sad really.

 

Sad and condolences

Submitted by snowandscience on

I had planned to avoid any Bike Calgary things while I'm away in Montreal, but this was too sad to avoid. Terrible to hear about cyclists being run over regardless of circumstances. Rest in peace. 

*Regional pathway, *Sad, *Might is Right

Submitted by JacobVallentin on

  A very unfortunate situation, one a number of levels.
Having been through the area as a driver, and worked in the area repairing damaged signs, I can say this..


One way or another, there is a tremendous amount of damage done to medians, curbs, and sidewalk aprons in this general area.  Businesses have taken to adding boulders to 'encourage' drivers to stay off of the grass.  Some pathway aprons (transitions between pathway to crosswalk) have been repaired in the past after damage done by wheels.  I have replaced signs that are more than a meter in from the curb. 

While blocking traffic today on 52 I saw many examples of aggressive, innattentive, or ignorant driving.

There were a numbers of pedestrians, and a smaller amount of cyclists.

I wonder about the current pathway design / layout along 52 Street, and if there might be room for improvement. 

I cannot presume to know all the facts about the accident. 
Better that I remember this tomorrow when I ride or drive, and I take a second look at that stop sign, or this crosswalk.


It is important to remember...

 

a cyclist and a vehicle were in the same spot at the same time.



That could happen anywhere.



Ride safe.

Ghostbike.org

Submitted by Sean007 on

Why hasn't the media followed up on the story? What was his name? What are the planned improvment(s) to the intersection? Was the driver charged by police? That disturbing quote comes to mind - "Planning the perfect murder...do it while driving a car."

Will the City of Calgary allow a ghostbike.org memorial?

Update

Submitted by Richard Z on

I talked to CPS yesterday.  They will not release any details until the investigation is complete, which will take 1-2 weeks.  At that point they'll issue a press release.  It sounds like what I suspected did happen: the cyclist was NB on the 52 St pathway on the W side of the road.  They also clarified that Sgt Hough's comments were taken out of context: what he meant was that in a collision, the cyclist will suffer the injuries, not that collisions are likely or that cycling on the street is a high risk activity.  They assured me also that the CPS does consider the all road users to have equal importance and that pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists have equal responsibilities for the safety of all road users. They're working with the Transportation department to educate drivers as well as cyclists about proper use of the roads, and we will continue to talk with CPS about possible education efforts as well.  They'll also talk to Roads if the investigation indicates that the layout of the intersection played a role so that Roads can improve it; and I pointed out to them that as the intersection involves a pathway, they should probably also talk to Parks (which is responsible for all pathways).

I'm not sure what the city would do if someone put up a ghostbike.

Sad news

Submitted by Spinner on

 I just found out I used to work with the cyclist involved in ths accedent . Ive known him for about 15 yrs, he rode to work the entire time Ive known him, exept for about a year, when the company he worked for moved south of glenmore trail. He was nervous about riding on 52 st back when it was a 2 lane in that area. He was an experianced rider, but wasn't one to take chances, slow and steady. I dont know the details of the accedent, but the path along 52 has always been a dangerous one. Way to many intersections and farther north in forestlawn there are drivways. I used to use the path, but after too many close calls, began using the street. I know Im late to the party, but if you haven't set out the ghost bike, Id like to help out, or attend.

Login to Post Comments

June

M T W T F S S
 
 
 
 
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 

Sponsors

Alliance for Biking and Walking Member

RSS news feed

Subscribe to Syndicate