Cycling in Waterloo Region

[danbrotherston]

c) I try not to ask such questions, I'm sure the police will. But unlike the police, I don't believe a cyclist not having lighting really justifies hitting a person in all or even most circumstances.

The question is clearly asked too much. For example, a car could run a red and hit a cyclist, and people would probably still be asking whether the cyclist had a light, as if a driver who ignored a giant red light would have been more careful if the cyclist had been wearing a tiny little light.

But on the other hand, light are required, by law, for good reason at night. To take the question to the extreme, I hope it’s clear that if the cyclist is completely invisible it can’t possibly be the fault of the motor vehicle operator for not seeing them. And depending on atmospheric and road conditions and what the cyclist is wearing, they actually could be effectively invisible even if not literally Invisible Man invisible.

This is why I think that strict liability for hitting non-motor traffic goes too far. If on a foggy night I turn left off a dark road and hit a cyclist driving the wrong way in the bicycle lane while wearing all black with no lights, that’s not really my fault: they need to drive legally and be at least somewhat visible.

To disagree with this is basically to say that motor vehicle traffic is illegitimate. Whatever the rules are, they have to make it feasible to do legally the things that people do, without fear of randomly incurring legal liability for the reckless behaviour of someone else.

That being said, the actual problem in most cases here and now is that people assume the cyclist was behaving irresponsibly when in fact most of the time it is the operator of the large, heavy, and fast motor vehicle who was doing so.

And just to inject some factual information into the discussion, I took a look in Google StreetView, and the section of road in question appears to have gravel shoulders. So I speculate that if the road had paved shoulders, this collision would not have occurred. Of course paved shoulders cost more, but they make the roads much more useable by cyclists and pedestrians, which is something we’re supposed to be encouraging.

I mean, even if cyclist literally had a cloak of invisibility, and the driver could not possibly see them, the driver still could be partly at fault for the collision, if they were driving in the bike lane, or on the shoulder, or ran a light or stop sign.

As for strict liability, I'm not sure why you think it goes too far, we already have it, the police do an incredibly job of defending drivers. But in general, why should it not fall on the operator of a dangerous piece of equipment to prove they were doing so safely. I disagree with what you claim about strict liability, it does not make other's transgressions your fault, it merely means that in the event of a collision, you must prove you were operating safely, rather than it being the presumption.

I do of course agree that proper infrastructure solves most of these problems.  I wouldn't actually support paved shoulders, what I would prefer: 
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.6354938,5.8374536,154m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e3

Many rural highways--certainly all cycling routes along main highways, have a separated path.

Also, I believe improving safety is important for drivers as well, I prefer this:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@56.7003818,14.3609264,3a,75y,271.12h,72.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbbcY_eOEYjIG_OqPeVMa5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


Used in Sweden as part of vision zero, basically most (at least starting where collisions are common) highways are divided, this pretty much prevents crossover collisions.

I am curious though, our road engineers seem to feel that wide (at least a lane width) gravel (or paved) graded shoulders are necessary, but I don't see them in Europe, what do shoulders actually achieve?