2.jpg&contenttype=jpeg)
loading...
Contributed
At 10:32 a.m., police were called to a collision between a Blue Suzuki SUV and a cyclist that occurred at the intersection of KLO and Gordon. The SUV was making a left turn, from KLO to Gordon, on a yellow light. The cyclist was cycling southbound on KLO through the intersection in the oncoming lane, also on the yellow light. Witnesses stated that apparently neither driver saw the other.
The 21 year old male cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, rode into the rear passenger door of the SUV as it was turning. The cyclist received minor injuries and was taken to Kelowna General Hospital for treatment. The bicycle was a write off. The 26 year old female driver of the SUV was not injured and her vehicle received minor damage.
The weather was rainy but visibility was good. The cyclist was wearing dark clothing.
Neither driver will be charged. Alcohol was not a factor.
loading...
How can neither driver be charged?
The cyclist is required to wear a helmet. There is a law. As for bright or reflective clothing, if there isn’t a law, “there outta be a law!”
This is ridiculous. I’ll bet the SUV rider was wearing a seat belt. I’ll also bet that the SUV had automatic driving lights on the front. But the bike rider…nothing.
Auto drivers can do everything they can to be safe. In fact, some of these things are mandatory. But bike riders, heck, do whatever you want. Don’t even wear a helmet–the most basic form of protection–and one that is enforced by law.
The inequity here is alarming. A recent survey in Kelowna showed that 80% of bike riders did not wear helmets. How come we have to wear seat belts?
loading...
Why wasn’t the driver cited? Isn’t there a law that requires left turning vehicles to yield to oncoming traffic?
As for the helmet strawman, bicycle helmets are designed and tested for a 20 km/hr impact without any additional vectors, or basically falling off the bike and hitting your head on a curb while stationary. At speeds higher than 30 km/hr a bicycle helmet just becomes a convenient container for the remains of your skull. Would you require your local constabulary to wear “bullet proof” vests that stopped a BB but didn’t protect from even a .22 cal bullet, with the law only requiring manufacturers to protect to that level to be certified as “bullet proof”? There are cases of people getting shot with BB guns and dieing from the injury.
Clothing, would you also have laws dictating the choice of color from which you can purchase your car?
It boils down to the driver of the SUV did not keep adequate lookout and cut the cyclist off causing impact with the rear door of the vehicle.
loading...
Why was the driver let off free? He totally violated the cyclists right of way and hurt him badly. And Mike, the things you cite are mandated by law for manufacturers to do to protect drivers instead of pedestrians and cyclists. By your list of items, drivers do absolutely nothing to be safe. And certainly not for others.
loading...
As a cyclist myself, the cyclist was at fault as he was also riding against traffic, instead of with the flow of traffic. There is a bike lane that he should have been riding in with the flow of traffic.
loading...
Cyclist Dwayne apparently misunderstood the article. I take it that the SUV was making a left turn from a northbound lane while the cyclist was crossing the intersection properly in the southbound lane. “I didn’t see the cyclist” is a poor excuse, irrespective of the dark clothing–that’s essentially an admission that the driver isn’t taking proper care to operate her vehicle safely. I don’t see why the driver was not cited.
loading...
Dear Opus the Poet.
The article doesn’t clearly provide any “facts” on who was to blame. You will notice I wasn’t talking about blame for the collision, only the safety features designed to reduce self-injury. The eye-witnesses appear to blame both for not seeing the other.
As for your use of the term “strawman,” it refers to someone arguing a weak position. That’s funny, my comments deal with the facts in the story, yours deal with assumptions and excuses. Which one is weak?
The facts about helmets are likely true. But the only fact about helmets in the story is that the cyclist was not wearing one. Helmets are law for cyclists. If you get on your bike in the morning wihtout your helmet,you are choosing to break the law–on purpose.
If the driver of the SUV was to blame, she should be punished. But, well, here’s another example of arguing a weak position. The law that would punish the driver comes from the same set of laws that tell the cyclist to wear a helmet. Now you’re picking and choosing which laws you will observe and which ones you won’t. It doesnt’/can’t/shouldn’t work that way. If one of them (or both) were to blame or were breaking the law, then they should be punished. But according to the facts in the story (the strong position), the only law broken here, for sure, was the cyclist refusing to wear his helmet.
How did this cyclist know, ahead of time, that his accident was going to be at a speed over 20 km/hour; thus leaving his helmet off because it wouldn’t be completely effective? Also, just because a helmet won’t protect as well at higher speeds, it is stupid to not wear the helmet in the first place. Did I already mention that it is also illegal?
Your use of big words doesn’t impress too many people. It’s the quality of the comment that matters. Your remark on clothing is incongruous. Try that big word.
Please continue discussion on the forum: link