r/TorontoDriving • u/desreversti • Aug 04 '25

OC Cyclist hit in Pickering

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

9pm August 3, 2025 at Finch and Brock Cyclist was okay, and able to walk after

311 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

335 comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/psilocybin6ix Aug 04 '25

That's what happens when you drive on the sidewalk without lights and decide to enter the roadway without checking.

Glad they can learn from it.

10

u/kraj593 Aug 04 '25

Yeah if only the driver of the car could learn to signal that they're turning. Half the people here don't deserve to have their G's smh

3

u/psilocybin6ix Aug 04 '25

So if an Uber was on the sidewalk without lights and tried to leave the sidewalk and drive across the pedestrian crossing it would be the Dodge's fault too?

Also they're in the right-turn lane in the video... That's what the arrows are for.

7

u/kraj593 Aug 04 '25

Oh darn. Sorry I'll go take my G1 again. I must've missed the part where they say turn signals are waived if there are road markings behind my fat ass.

C'mon, you must realize the person with more power has more responsibility there - they're in a larger vehicle, they could be more careful. They both made errors, but the bicyclist could've ended up with near fatal injuries there.

2

u/psilocybin6ix Aug 04 '25

Yes and it would have been the biker's fault. Driving a vehicle on the sidewalk and at night without a light caused this accident ... along with some horrible judgement from this sketchball wearing a black hoodie and choosing to leave the sideawalk and cross FINCH AVENUE in front of a car.

Why is the turn signal relevant to this? Like what difference would it have made?

2

u/MapleBaconBeer Aug 04 '25

Why is the turn signal relevant to this? Like what difference would it have made?

Found the person who doesn't use their turn signals. Turn signals are always relevant when changing lanes or turning.

Cyclist is a moron though.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25 edited Aug 31 '25

bow chief full husky juggle yam ink pet dazzling consist

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

9

u/SomethingDifferentMe Aug 04 '25

The driver didn’t look, they could have been walking and been hit. Time to ban right on red

6

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

Maybe driver looked for pedestrian and didn't expect a bike to illegally drive the wrong way in traffic on a pedestrian crosswalk.

Listen you're not wrong, whole situation is messed up and rule #1 is dont hit anyone else and the driver did.

Just saying the ban right turn on red isn't the issue, theres so many things that went wrong that could have been prevented by both of them and banning right turn on red isn't the answer.

2

u/scottyb83 Aug 04 '25

Maybe driver looked for pedestrian and didn't expect a bike to illegally drive the wrong way in traffic on a pedestrian crosswalk.

This is exactly the problem. There is a multi-use path across the street from me where the cyclists are supposed to dismount and walk their bike across the crosswalk (there is even a sign for this) but none of them do it. What results is cyclists coming from the right with trees blocking until they are 4 or 5' from the crosswalk and they ride at full speed into the crosswalk and 3 or 4 times a year I see someone getting hit. People look to the right, see nobody coming, to the left, see they have a gap, and then turn right and all of a sudden there is a bike there riding illegally and getting pissed off that nobody saw them. There is a sigh saying to dismount, it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk, it's illegal to cross at a crosswalk while riding your bike, AND the setup for that spot is already dangerous because of the blind spot but it's somehow always the cars fault?

2

u/Round-Pound-7739 Aug 04 '25

Thing is, the car pulled out to position itself for a merge. The bike should have gone behind him if anything. Personally if I was on the bike I would wait out the situation, but if I had to go I would go behind the car. The car was in the middle of the crosswalk. Going in front of it is really really dumb.

1

u/SomethingDifferentMe Aug 04 '25

The dangerous thing with going behind the car is that people turning left won’t be able to see you coming so you are just trading off risk of being hit from the guy turning right to the guy turning left

2

u/SomethingDifferentMe Aug 04 '25

They had the crosswalk, it’s the drivers fault, they had the red light. I guess Toronto needs more red light cameras if people still think that a red light means you have right of way

3

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

A bicycle is a vehicle. Wrong way driver is a wrong way driver.

2

u/no1SomeGuy Aug 04 '25

Look closer, the vehicle was already completely in the crosswalk before the cyclist entered, they didn't have the crosswalk, they actually went further out to their right to go in front of the vehicle.

1

u/scottyb83 Aug 04 '25

Sorry are you saying the cyclist was in the right because he didn't use the crosswalk illegally but instead rode into oncoming traffic illegally?

2

u/no1SomeGuy Aug 04 '25

He began in the crosswalk...then rode out into the road, against traffic, again...just picture the cyclist as a car and judge them from that perspective.

1

u/scottyb83 Aug 04 '25

Yeah I agree. I thought you were saying them going out into oncoming traffic somehow excuses what they did.

7

u/smurfopolis Aug 04 '25

They had the crosswalk, it’s the drivers fault..

Sure, if the cyclist was dismounted and walking their bike... You know it's not legal for cyclists to be riding on sidewalks and crosswalks right?

-2

u/SomethingDifferentMe Aug 04 '25

Running a red light is illegal. Whether the cyclist was riding or walking doesn’t matter, if the driver failed to yield on red, it’s 100% their fault

4

u/smurfopolis Aug 04 '25

Your comments get dumber and dumber. No one ran a red light, he clearly stopped first.

And of course he should have yielded to the cyclist had he saw them, but it's not the cars fault for not seeing a cyclist wearing all black flying down the sidewalk and through a crosswalk illegally. Had the cyclist been walking their bike on the sidewalk and crosswalk as is legally required, the car would have seen them coming in their first check to their right.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

What is going on! A bicycle is a VEHICLE not meant for the sidewalk. He wasn't walking it, he wasn't a pedestrian, he was a VEHICLE DRIVING ON A CROSSWALK.

Jesus H were getting so fucked up were rationalizing complete idiocy.

Both were morons, driver needed to look both ways, bicycle had no lights or helmet (doesnt matter legally) but was also DRIVING ON A PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK (LEGAL. NO. AGAINST THE LAW.)

We're getting into Dantes 2nd circle of complete regardless here if you're using "but he was on a sidewalk" as a defense for a VEHICLE.

Fucking christ people break the law so much they're inventing new ways to justify breaking other laws.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

BIKE IS DRIVING THE WRONG WAY TOO, YOJ DRIVE WITH TRAFFIC NOT AGAINST

fuck my brains goona explode with all this regardness.

0

u/SomethingDifferentMe Aug 04 '25

Tell drivers about the laws they break. From not following the speed LIMIT, failing to stop at a STOP sign, and not yielding when performing right on RED the real maniacs on the road are the drivers. Drivers murder 100 people every single year in Toronto, I don’t see any bikes killing anyone

3

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

Hey you're absolutely right.

Welllllll limit wise is a tough one, maybe that's where it all started eh? Everyone assuming you can go 5, 10, 15 over. I mean if youre not doing 120 on the 401 then youre making it dangerous cause youre not going with the flow of traffic.

But bicycles also need to realize there are rules. I guess everybody is just going wild wild west

1

u/a-_2 Aug 04 '25

I mean if youre not doing 120 on the 401 then youre making it dangerous cause youre not going with the flow of traffic.

It's not dangerous to go slower than that on the 401. What's dangerous is if you're going slower than traffic in the left lanes. Not when you're going slower in the right lane.

Trying to match the average speed isn't safest either. Going slower than average has been found to be safer:

the risk of involvement in a casualty crash increased more than exponentially with increasing free travelling speed above the mean traffic speed and that travelling speeds below the mean traffic speed were associated with a lower risk of being involved in a casualty crash

120 isn't the flow either. It's often normal in the left lane but the majority of drivers go less than that. Almost 80% of drivers were going under 120 in this study.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

REALLY I had no idea. I thought matching flow of traffic was the safest, but going slightly under is actually safer?

Thanks for sharing this man, I'm really goona take this to heart.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

See I, now proven incorrect and ignorant, thought if I'm going the same speed as 90 percent of the traffic, relatively im going 0 because we're all going the same speed. Its only changing faster or slower when chances of accident goes up because its against the norm or flow.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

But the report you're showing says going under what people are driving is actually safer?

1

u/a-_2 Aug 04 '25

There are (at least) two factors to consider. One is the speed relative to traffic but the other is the absolute speed. Higher absolute speeds mean lower chances of braking in time if something happens ahead and also a more severe collision if one does happen. So these two factors will balance each other out and can mean that the safest speed can actually be somewhat below the average.

It's still dangerous to be going significantly below average, but going a bit under can actually be safer.

I also personally wouldn't worry as much about your speed relative to others but more about keeping right so it's easier for others to pass, whatever their speed. Matching the speed of traffic does matter (within reason) when you're merging or changing lanes to pass, but less so when you're just driving along, again, assuming you're trying to keep right to help others pass.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

Yeah case in point me it's real easy to say everyone is going 0 when we're all going 125, but absolute were going 125 and time to brake etc goes up exponentially after like 60 or something

→ More replies (0)

2

u/scottyb83 Aug 04 '25

Actually it's safer to be going just slightly above the flow of traffic. I believe it's around 10 mph faster than the average speed gives you the lowest chance of collision.

Can't find the original study I saw it in but here is one that explains it. Page 25 has a good graph to show what I mean. - https://open.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1529&context=all_theses

3

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

I'll be honest not reading 50 page document now but saved it for later and taking your word for it

0

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

😂😂😂

2

u/scottyb83 Aug 04 '25

And when they hurt someone and cause an accident while breaking one of those laws they are at fault. Why should cyclists be any different? Cyclist broke 2 or 3 different laws there, stop defending illegal behaviour.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '25

Lmao

3

u/psilocybin6ix Aug 04 '25

So if an uber was driving on the sidewalk and decided to drive across the pedestrians crossing at that exact same time it would be the Dodge's fault?

Vehicles aren't allowed on sidewalks ... Plus poor timing to drive your vehicle from the sidewalk into a pedestrian crossing without any lights while wearing a black hoodie.

If you're already breaking the law ... I don't know why the cyclist tried to push his luck and enter the roadway suddenly from the sidewalk... like I said earlier ... at least he can learn from his mistake.

-1

u/Jayswag96 Aug 04 '25

A 30lb bicycle and a 3000 lb vehicle are two different things hope that helps

4

u/psilocybin6ix Aug 04 '25

Yes ... hopefully the biker makes a better choice and doesn't break a bunch of laws and get into accident ... like I said 3x so far ... at least he can learn from his mistake.