Woman struck by bicycle on sidewalk

This is exactly the sort of thing we don't need happening and being all over the papers.
Riding on the sidewalk can be perfectly safe, you just need to be careful and pay attention to what you're doing, just like with anything else.
Clearly this kid wasn't doing either of these things, and someone got seriously injured because of it.

[Editors: removed insults. See moderation policy.]

Hey Sgt.Tim... It was a 15-year-old misbehaving! Not relevant to concerns about bikes on the sidewalk. If the kid had been misbehaving on inline skates would this be a news item about the dangers of skates? Can't recall actually. When was the last time there was an incident like this (Toronto pedestrian badly hurt from a cyclist on a sidewalk)?
tks
lock

As much I cannot condone side walk riding, the risks for cyclists on those roads are far too severe to ride on.

We need safer streets, slower streets, better drivers.

But right now, as this event clearly shows, we need cycling infrastructure.

Having driven in that area I can confirm it's a traffic nightmare. So i can see why a 15yr old would be scared sh*tless to cycle on 6 lanes of kennedy rd traffic and instead opt for the sidewalk.

Anyways, pedestrians and cyclists mix ALL the time, Sgt Burrows, maybe you've heard of a mixed use trail like, ohhh, the martin Goodman trail? It's not a sidewalk(because it has lines and isn' t concrete) but, it's darn close to one.

I hope this woman pulls through and I can somewhat relate to the randomness:

I've had a teenager on a bicycle collide with me head-on. Said kid was riding no hands up the middle of the road and turned(read:wobbled and trying to regain control) straight across my path. It hurt. At the time he was talking to his buddies who were also allover the road - nobody paying attention to anything but the conversation.

I digress.

The risks of riding on the sidwalk are pretty severe, too, given the number of cyclists hit riding across crosswalks.

And this doesn't "clearly" show the need for infrastructure. It could just as clearly show that some people are going to be irresponsible and reckless - I've seen plenty of people riding on sidewalks on streets that have bike lanes or aren't particularly busy. And even if you are riding on the sidewalk for "safety's sake", there's still no excuse for carelessness, no excuse for not slowing down when passing a pedestrian.

bad cycling doesn't do us any good, particularly when it involves injury to pedestrians (an group at least as vulnerable as cyclists). I didn't see this incident, so I have nothing to say about this particular situation. But I do insist on this: it doesn't hurt the cause of cycling to admit that some people do behave irresponsibly on bicycles. It hurts us a lot more, in fact, when we minimize or excuse actions that cause injury to other people. It also doesn't do any good to fault the police for simply stating the law, which forbids riding a full sized bicycle on sidewalks.

I hope that, as in any traffic accident, the police take all mitigating factors into account. And I agree with Anthony that when we have roads that endanger cyclists (and goodness knows the roads in that part of Toronto do) the dangers tend to affect everyone. But that doesn't change the basic principle that cyclists, no less than motorists, have a responsibility to get where we want to go without hurting people.

IF police were less reactionary and more engaging in accepting bicyclists as entitled road users entitled to safe use of the roadways instead of users to be discouraged despite their legal standing, motorists would be less willing to marginalise bicyclists as they would be aware driving at bicyclists in a threatening manner would put them at risk of prosecution for their actions.
Using a motor vehicle to assault a bicyclist is assault with a weapon. Charges must reflect this.

If all things were equal a bicyclist would prefer riding on the roadway. That they are not reveals we live in a culture that accepts marginalising bicyclists is acceptable.

...by not following the law and not avoiding the pedestrian.

Yes, cycling Kennedy is a nightmare, specifically at that stretch, and I doubt that not using the road makes it a "safer" choice. By the way, it is quite common for cyclists up here to use the sidewalk.

To understand what exactly was going on, two questions stick to my mind:

• where exactly was this collision? The west side of Kennedy south of Sheppard is mostly residential (with few folks walking), much different from the side north of Sheppard where a large mall with a busy driveway entrance borders the road.
• usually pedestrians step aside when a bike approaches carelessly. What happened here? I say this because I get run into by pedestrians occasionally as I walk in local malls - my tactics to counter those somnambulics is to stop and let them walk into me. That wouldn't work too well against a cyclist but I use this as an indication that even pedestrians in NE Toronto can be quite reckless themselves.

So, I hope tonight's Scarborough Mirror has a bit more detail.

The cyclist was wrong - The End

This is not the catalyst for anything more than the legal consequences that the cyclist now faces.

I don't understand why anyone here would blame the victim.

I hope the cyclist gets nailed for his actions.

The cyclist was wrong

No one said differently.

I don't understand why anyone here would blame the victim.

No one is.

I am trying to make clear to you folks that cycling and walking in the burbs can be different from downtown. There are different issues, but the law is not one of them.

A cyclist hit a pedestrian, that is it.

So even if the pedestrian threw themselves into the path of the cyclist, it wouldn't matter, because you can't legally ride a bike (26" wheels) on a sidewalk.

This has nothing to do with cycling infrastucture, or the age of the cyclist, or the police, or anything else for that matter, so let's cut the crap.

A 57-year-old woman is in critical condition after being hit by a cyclist on a sidewalk in Scarborough.

The accident happened on the west side of Kennedy Road near Sheppard Avenue at 3:35 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 6.

Police said the pedestrian was walking south as the 15-year-old cyclist, travelling in the opposite direction, approached.

"They identified each other. When they took evasive action to avoid each other, they ended up going in the same direction," said Sgt. Tim Burrows of the traffic services unit. "The cyclist struck the pedestrian, who fell backwards and struck her head on the concrete sidewalk."

The pedestrian, a mother, was taken to hospital where she was placed on life support.

"When you get onto an adult-sized bicycle, you're not allowed on the sidewalks and this is a stark reminder of why," Burrows said. "If the person (cyclist) is not comfortable on the road, find a side street, find an alternative route, find a path through a park system."

The victim doesn't live in the area of the accident.

This is the first serious collision involving a pedestrian hit by a cyclist in Toronto this year.

"It's too early to say if there would be (charges laid)," Burrows said.

http://www.insidetoronto.com/article/73800

Let's hope the woman comes out of it OK.

Yo Seymore,

No one is disputing who was at fault.

But wouldn't it be nice if this was less likely to happen in the future? Maybe if there was a bike lane next to the sidewalk the cyclist was riding on we wouldn't be hearing about this.

This post sounds like victim blaming to me. I guess she was too reckless?

usually pedestrians step aside when a bike approaches carelessly. What happened here? I say this because I get run into by pedestrians occasionally as I walk in local malls - my tactics to counter those somnambulics is to stop and let them walk into me. That wouldn't work too well against a cyclist but I use this as an indication that even pedestrians in NE Toronto can be quite reckless themselves.

To understand what exactly was going on, two questions stick to my mind:

* .....
* .....

So, I hope tonight's Scarborough Mirror has a bit more detail.

No slight to the woman intended. I wanted more details and explained why. Now we've got them, via the Mirror. Two folks came across each other and collided because they both dodged each other on the same side. Just like it happens occasionally when you walk...

Okay, that's clearer for me.

Sometimes when you try to avoid, the other person does the same and accidents can happen.

A cyclist needs to take a wider berth to anticipate unpredictable pedestrians or come to a full stop if they insist on riding on the sidewalk illegally.

i sincerely hope she will be ok. maybe next time she will wear her helmet.

Global news to report on licenses for cyclists again.
The segment:
http://www.globalontario.com/video/index.html?releaseid=1208510568

Yup, victim is partially to blame for being an irresponsible pedestrian and not wearing proper safety gear.

If this was the UK we'd throw out any case brought against the cyclist for damages because the un-helmeted pedestrian wasn't taking proper sidewalk safety into account(contributory negligence) and therefore was behaving dangerously so they're not entitled to reparations.

Sincerly though, a speedy recovery to this woman.

Yeah, they're always following the rules and never hurting any innocents...

I can just see it now, coppers on every corner lighting up the cheeries to pull over 7yr olds popping wheelies - over the megaphone "no stunt driving!!"

Let me measure the diameter of those wheels son, are those sidewalk legal? Hazard to society u are, your parents should be ashamed! You're lucky they're only 25.75" or i'd write you up!

Yesterdays cyclist/pedestrian collision (Kennedy Road near Sheppard) has turned fatal.

Damn.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the woman's family.

from http://www.thestar.com/article/678179

Woman, 56, dies after being struck by bike on sidewalk
Aug 07, 2009
THANDIWE VELA
The woman who was struck by a cyclist on a sidewalk Thursday evening has died.

This tragedy is a "stark reminder" that bicycles should not be used on sidewalks, police say.

At about 3:30 p.m., the 56-year-old woman was walking south on the west sidewalk of Kennedy Rd. near Sheppard Ave. E. while a 15-year-old boy was cycling north on the same sidewalk. The cyclist may have made a move to avoid the pedestrian, while the pedestrian made a move to avoid the cyclist, police said.

The two collided head on.

The Toronto woman, whose name has not been released, struck her head on the sidewalk and was rushed to Sunnybrook hospital with head trauma. She died just after 5 p.m.

"This is exactly why we don't want bikes on the sidewalks," Sgt. Tim Burrows of Toronto police traffic services said. "They really are made for pedestrians."

The teen cyclist was not injured and did not commit a criminal offence, Staff-Sgt. Brian Bowman said, although the investigating officer will be sitting down with a prosecutor to see if there is any interest in laying charges under city bylaws.

"It's not a good idea to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk but not strictly illegal," Bowman said.

"It's just a tragedy all around."

Truly tragic... i'm sorry for the family's loss and the victim most of all. :(

Life is so fragile.

Cyclist struck by car outside Yorkdale Mall

Aug 07, 2009 09:01 PM
Thandiwe Vela
Staff Reporter

A cyclist has suffered major head trauma after being struck by a car at Yorkdale Mall Friday evening.

Emergency crews were called to the mall parking lot near Dufferin St. and Yorkdale Rd. at about 5:30 p.m., Toronto police Sgt. Tim Burrows said.

The 44-year-old cyclist was riding south on Dufferin St. on the east sidewalk while a motorist was travelling north and turning into the mall parking lot.

The cyclist was rushed to hospital with life-threatening head injuries.

The driver remained at the scene and was being questioned by Toronto police

Please slow down, drivers and cyclists alike, you have a moral responsibility to your fellow that is above the letter of the law!

...the cyclist was permitted to use the sidewalk, after all.

The teen cyclist was not injured and did not commit a criminal offence, Staff Sgt. Brian Bowman said, though the investigating officer will be sitting down with a prosecutor to see if there is any interest in laying charges under city bylaws.

"It's not a good idea to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk but not strictly illegal," Bowman said, adding that the tire size (less than 61 cm) of the teen's bike would allow him to ride on the sidewalk.

http://www.thestar.com/article/678257

The trouble with the wheel-size bylaw at http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/sidewalk.htm is that BMX bikes have small wheels. A few weeks ago I dodged a stupid teenage punk weaving along the sidewalk on Lake Shore on a BMX bike as fast as he possibly could.. This is a section with buildings right up against the sidewalk, so anyone coming out of a store could get hit and killed by punkboy riding at 20+km/h.

Of course whatever the law says is pretty much moot, because there's no meaningful enforcement of the existing law anyway--I've had to dodge, or at least watch out for, several bicycles (with large wheels) on the sidewalk recently, and not on bicycle-unfriendly streets either (the cyclist might ride on the sidewalk for a block or two, then switch to the street).

While the City's page does say: "The fine in downtown Toronto for not following this bylaw is $90 and aggressive cyclists can also be charged with careless driving.", I bet that the "careless driving" charge is never laid, except in case of an accident, and that apparently isn't being considered in this case. (Likewise, I expect that the vast majority of "careless" charges for car drivers are a result of an accident, not just for bad driving but no accident [yet].)

I suppose that, as I jump out of the way, I could yell "ride on the road, not the sidewak!", but I'm not really interested in finding out if the punk wouldn't mind a bit of a rumble. I do know someone who just stands in the way of sidewalk cyclists. He also knocked off the side mirror of a taxicab making a pedestrian-ignoring turn at Queen and Spadina. Taurus mirrors come off real easy it seems.

`Fraid my camera misfired... two weeks ago in Downsview... when a group of six police officers rode past my windows... all riding their bikes on the sidewalk...
tks
loC

The percentage of cyclists in Toronto who ride not just recklessly but aggressively is at least as great as the percentage of motorists who drive that way. I walk almost everywhere I go within a substantial radius of downtown, and there isn't a day that I'm not almost hit by a cyclist. Many of them strike me as being deliberately aggressive. They whip up behind you and pass within inches of one side, playing chicken with you. (This happens very, very frequently.) They ride through red lights and zip in front of your path as you're crossing intersections on green lights. They speed around, "changing lanes," amongst pedestrians. They speed along sidewalks and out into roadways. They ride the wrong way up the middle of one-way streets.

Sorry, but you guys need to get your act together as a community. Lots of you are perfectly fine, just as lots of motorists are. But the more you indulge in your self-righteous anger, the more you seem to take it out on pedestrians. You should be forced to stay on the roads and ride on them according to the same rules that motorists have to obey. You are not half-pedestrian, half-motorist. You are wheeled and fast vehicles and should both act and be treated as such. It's ludicrous to think that pedestrians should have to be watching out for you on sidewalks and park paths when you're as reckless as you often are.

More accidents like this are going to be happen as you guys clamber up more and more onto your wheeled high horses and ride them through pedestrian paths.

This is the first serious collision involving a pedestrian hit by a cyclist in Toronto this year.

Right. So, how many pedestrians and cyclists in Toronto? And what are the odds when averaging less than two serious collisions a year?
tks
lLok

I'd bet "we guys" have our act together - you can't hold us responsible for the actions of people who won't follow the rules.

The underlying issue that you're faced with is that North Americans, Canadians in general here, have a childlike or immature perspective on cycling.

People grow up riding their bikes on the sidewalks. This will continue because adults in our culture, generally, switch the automobile. So many people never learn to cycle on the road, because they learned as a child that once you "grow up" you get a car. So these people never matured past sidewalk riding into a more rule-abiding and mature mode of cycling. It is mostly these people who take a bicycle out, perhaps the same one they rode as a child, and ride on the sidewalk, like they did as a child, except faster and harder because they are a teenager or adult now.

So, I think until cycling becomes even more popular and viewed as a respectable adult behavior, these kinds of childish artifacts will remain. How does that happen? Well people here set good examples, i'm sure but, it is an issue involving more types of people than just those who are interested in cycling.

As for the rest of your post, take your browbeating elsewhere, this isn't the complaints dept.

A Walking Helmet is a Good Helmet from www.copenhagenize.com (2009-08-05)

Some more facts have come to light...

1. He was legally allowed to be riding on the sidewalk, his bicycle tires were less than 61cm.
2. He hasn't been charged with anything if there were a clear case for aggressively running down this woman police likely would lay a charge.
3. According to witnesses both pedestrian and cyclist tried to avoid each other but were unsuccessful. The woman was then knocked backwards and hit her head on the sidewalk, tragically resulting in her eventual death.
4. We have no right to say "clearly this kid wasn't paying attention or being careful" because we weren't there. I'm pretty sure both people now wish or would have wished that they had paid even more attention but, it isn't clearly the kids fault as many people are saying.
5. Nothing is perfectly safe, riding on the sidewalk or a multi-use pathway is not perfectly safe. Real accidents occur due to all sorts of causes and you can only behave in a reasonably safe manner. Sometimes you're not prepared for what randomly happens, such as people continually blocking each others attempts to avoid the other.

Cycling in the suburbs is different due to the intensity of the car traffic - it's faster, and more lethal. So it's self-preservation to be riding on sidewalks, which tend to be under-used compared with the core.
There is systemic and widespread breaking of speed limits on these carterials, and often the wide roads have left turn lanes instead of wider curb lanes - often a deliberate choice by the City.
The former Metro government had a project called the Metro Marker program - using rose-coloured concrete to demarcate the splash zones alongside their carterials. It helped make the Metro roads visible as Metro roads from the traffic helicoptors, and grind up the Niagara Escarpment and keep our emissions growing while using up more concrete in makework projects, but to use coloured concrete for bike paths and bike strips alongside sidewalks for instance - even in the same width of c. 1 foot - was too expensive, and besides, cyclists aren't supposed to be riding on the sidewalks.
It would be an interesting research project for TCAT or the CU to calculate how many hectares of Marker program concrete there are vs. coloured bike paths - and the only one that readily comes to mind is a pretty useless upturn for bikes onto Cambridge east of Broadview from Danforth.
So in my view, the City deserves a good proportion of blame for this situation as they have very high standards for safety in some areas but when it comes to riding a bike, they have persistent and long-standing ability to look the other way and avoid providing safety on the public road for an entire class of road users, Bloor St. being the prime example of avoiding doing the obvious even though there are provincial laws and guidelines.
Another example of this denial of reality of traffic is at the site of the Galen Kuellner tragedy where there was fresh sidewalk installed without putting in a ramp ahead of going through the underpass - so one couldn't readily take refuge on the sidewalk because cyclists aren't supposed to ride on the sidewalk. (A bit of asphalt has now been installed)
This is clearly a tragedy; but it's also a reminder that cyclists can kill pedestrians, though it's more from the fall onto hard concrete than direct physical injury. I've forgotten the name of the one bike-ped fatality maybe 12 years ago at Bloor and maybe Montrose - at lights near the Korean mart.
But for me - while the teenager obviously had something to do with it - it's civic failure to make cycling safer and reduce risk. (Not that I really want to use up more Escarpment and adding more concrete everywhere in the name of cycling safety,)

Particularly in view of facts which have subsequently come to light about this incident, I have to mostly agree with Geoffrey:

1) except for the park/bike paths and the pedestrian/bike path at Yonge, the roads under the 401 range from intimidating to lethal for cyclists.

2) Assuming the accuracy of these reports, we have a young person riding a bike legally on the sidewalk

3) Again assuming the accuracy of the reports, the cyclist in question apparently made an effort to avoid the pedestrian.

4) I know that many of the adults in North York and Scarborough consider the arterial roads far to dangerous to cycle on,and actively encourage cyclists in these areas to use the sidewalks.

In short, like many bicycle accidents, I would assign the greatest share of the fault to Toronto traffic planning. In this case, if we can judge by the recent accounts, the outcome seems a product more of sheer bad luck than anything else.

park paths have dual uses; the designers intended them for cyclists and pedestrians to share. Certainly both signs and publications indicate that pedestriand and cyclists should share the Don Valley park paths and the Lakeshore park paths. The paths themselves should have the width appropriate to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians as long as both behave prudently, although as always, we could easily improve the infrastructure. But pedestrians on park paths signed for bicycle use have a responsibility to stay alert for the presence of cyclists, and to remember to behave in a reasonably predictable manner.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2009/08/11/10421651-sun.html#/news/columnists/2009/08/11/pf-10424506.html
and the comments - 231 or so - are raw.
Some are reasonable, but the SUN isn't renowned for being reasonable. But it's still read, so those with a bit more time might be advised to monitor what's said.
If one writes in to torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca and if one gets printed, be prepared for a snarky wisecrack comment at the end of it.
That's the style.
Of course it's a tragedy, and I'm quite sure that the younger cyclist isn't doing well, and of course the family of the victim is badly harmed.
But the roads aren't safe to bike on in much of Caronto.

Hey I'm the father of this 15 year old Kid...!!!!!! YOU might wanna check out the WHOLE story before you make Your NARROW minded ONE sided comments....!!!!!!!
it was an ACCIDENT You ever go anywhere near that area and know what it like to ride a bike there, if you did by chance you would know it is very bad for riding any bike on those roads that are bad and not to mention the drivers in Scarborough are nuts no Care or Concern For Pedestrians let alone people on bikes.........!!!!! I've lived in Scarborough 40 years and I dont even dare ride my bike on the roads .......I'd rather live longer the get ran over by the inconciderate MORONS that some how got a Valid Drivers Lic.......
SO CUT THE KIDS A LITTLE SLACK........

Here's one for you, you ever walk down the side walk, through a busy mall or even in the down town core....????? your just walking along and some one is walking towards you and as the other person gets closer you try to move out of the way and you do the LITTLE Waltz/ Dance to move out of the way of the OTHER PERSON and they go the Same Way As YOU..........
and if you say it has NEVER Happend to you YOUR A LIER......... or the people just bowl you over..........
Guess my son should have done the new cool thing in Scarborough " JOIN A GANG AND PICKED UP A GUN, stole a car and just became a statistic like many of the youth today.....
forgot it was better to choose that instead of staying out of trouble by riding a bike.

Hell I'm sorry for the other person and their Family members I really am but there were more then 20 witness to verify that it was an ACCIDENT...........and imagine this out of all the witness's he was the only one who RAN for HELP Bet you DIDN'T Know that EH.......
I'm sure you have more important thinks to worry about or ever speak out about like all our BS Politics going on..........How do you like your taxes, garbage strike, corrupt politicians....Hhhmmm....

Thanks from the Father of one messed up kid thats in search of a good shrink for him since he's all bent out of shape because of the ridicule and finger pointing " That's The Kid "

So just remeber if your ever the victim of some punk kid doing what ever criminal towards you or someone you know NOT to complain because it could be WORSE the kid could have been riding a bike......LMAO

[Editors: removed insults. Still powerful comment, no? See our moderation policy.]

My condolences to both the family of the pedestrian and the cyclist and his family who will have to live with the aftermath...

The roads being too dangerous to ride on does not condone riding in a way that endangers the lives of pedestrians. Sidewalks simply are not designed in a way that people can bicycle on them at speed and avoid pedestrians who may be walking in either direction, and may unexpectedly step in any direction. People may make the same claim about bikes and cars mixing at different speeds, but I disagree. Bikes and cars on the roadways are following a rigid set of rules and travelling in the same direction in (relatively) straight and predictable lanes/paths.

I believe changes need to made to the sidewalk riding law. Since the intention of the law was to allow children to learn to ride it should be limited to wheel size and under age 12. There should also be a guideline low speed limit for the sidewalk. There are already laws requiring cyclists to yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk where they are permitted to ride.

But we need also to slow down the roadways, and make it safer to bike on them.

Parents need to teach their children that biking safely on the roadway is safer for them as well as others than biking on the sidewalk. I suspect many teens are on the sidewalk because their parents told them that's where they should ride their bike, even on roads that are low traffic and/or have decent bike lanes on them.

What happened in last weekend's sidewalk-pedestrian collisions is a tragedy, and of course will be used in MSM (mostly in blog comments) to collectively demonize cyclists as a dangerous nuisance. But cyclists on sidewalks is the wrong whipping boy.

The truth is cycling on the sidewalk, in most circumstances, does no harm - despite the unrealistic and unenforceable law against it.

Far more people are in fact trampled to death by rampaging pedestrians - yes, pedestrians - than by errant cyclists. Think stampedes at soccer games, or the Hajj to Mecca -- yes, I'm afraid those are all pedestrians doing that massacring.

And yet, I see no petition circulating to punish those walking in narrowly enclosed spaces, or to ban gatherings of potentially lethal groups of 500 or more.

Decry the behaviour, please, but don't confuse it with the location of the behaviour!

The actual problem is, of course, dangerous idiots who don't watch where they are going. But such a group is not so easy to label and discriminate against - unlike the knee-jerk discrimination we have ready to fire against cyclists.

would a cease and desist order written by a legal authority not be in order? the sun appears to be inciting hatred with these (and other) editorials directed against an identifiable group/minority particularly bicyclists. Is there not legislation forbidding this activity?

The responses to my previous post just reinforce my growing conviction that cyclists think they get to set individual rules for themselves, moment by moment. Pedestrians on shared pathways should behave "reasonably predictably"? Give me a break. What's that mean? That we should never veer around an object or dog or something else that suddenly appears in our path so that the cyclist speeding up behind us with inches to spare won't have to hit us? You guys (yes, you guys) just refuse to take responsibility as a community. You think you're special and everyone should follow rules to watch out for your well being and you should then get to make up the rules, as they suit you at the moment, regarding others' well being.

I live in a very busy part of downtown. I cycle (not on sidewalks), I walk (mostly), and I drive. Cyclists, by my observation, are the most out of control lot of people trying to get around in this city. Talk about a sense of entitlement. The poster who talked about learning to ride as children had it right: many of you still ride as though you're precious children, about whom everyone else should be concerned but who have no concern for anyone else, wheeling your former toys that are now potential weapons blithely about.

I'll take my grousing elsewhere, as someone else suggested. There's nothing here but a bunch of narcissists.

Bye Nellie.

I don't have any stats on pedestrian-cyclist collision accidents for Toronto... but from the UK:

Figures released by Transport for London, covering the years 2001-05, show that a pedestrian in London is over 100 times more likely to be injured in collision with a motor vehicle than a cycle.  During that period there was no upward trend in the number of London pedestrians being injured in collision with cycles, despite a 72% increase in cycle use on London’s main roads.
 
The figures show that, in London during the period 2001-05:
There were 101 times as many reported pedestrian injuries due to collisions with motor vehicles than with pedal cycles (there were 34,791 pedestrian injuries involving motor vehicles, compared with 331 involving cycles).

Motor vehicles were involved in 126 times as many fatal and serious pedestrian injuries as cycles (there were 7,447 fatal and serious injuries involving motor vehicles compared with 59 involving cycles).

534 pedestrians were killed in collisions with motor vehicles, compared with just one killed in collision with a cycle.  That one fatal collision with a cycle occurred neither on a pavement nor a pedestrian crossing point.

Even on the pavement, there were 2,197 reported pedestrian injuries arising from collisions with motor vehicles, including 17 fatalities.  These injuries outnumbered those involving cycles by a factor of 42 to 1.

The total number of reported pedestrian injuries in London due to collisions with cyclists on pavements was just 65 in the year 2001, and 69 in 2005.  In the meantime, the figure went down, up and back down again, showing no clear overall trend.  This was despite a 72% increase in cycle use over the period.

On average just under 18% of cyclists ran red lights, whereas over a third of motorists encroached into cyclists’ “Advance Stop Lines” (cycle boxes at traffic lights).

--- end of stats from London ---

BTW, in England, "pavements" means sidewalks...

Personally I thank the Gods for every person I see riding on two wheels instead of four, whether they are on the road OR the sidewalk.

tks
LloK

From what I have read, it was an accident meaning that the kid didn't intentionally hit the poor woman and he made an effort to avoid the collision and he made effort. On the other hand, as other people have pointed out, it is illegal to ride a bike with wheels larger than 24" on sidewalks inToronto. That TO roads are "full of" dangerous motorists doesn't give you right to violate other bylaws. OK, I can accept the fact people still ride bikes on sidewalks (as I did, still do, myself) AS LONG AS you ride appropriately: ride as fast as you want when there are no people around but SLOW DOWN when approaching pedestrians. Otherwise after fatal incidents like this it is too late to regret it.

It is sad to see your attitude towards the incident: no self-criticism, just denial. Please, you can't deny this: he was fast at the time of the collision. Can you tell people your kid didn't do anything wrong? How would you expect your kid to seriously think about this and take corrective actions: taking responsibilities for his actions( not just for now )? You can't just comfort him telling it was just an accident,.

I've reviewed what I wrote and I do not accept your criticism. As you can verify by a little Internet research, many of the paths in our parks do have a dual use, and cyclists and pedestrians have to share them. That means that if you walk on a dual-use path, you have a responsibility to behave prudently and walk in a predictable manner. If you choose (and you don't have to walk on the paths in most public parks) to use a shared-use path, your choice has consequences, just as when you choose to use a cross-walk, you have to follow the rules there too.

This matters precisely because I do try to follow the actual traffic laws, and I encourage other people to follow them as well. But I can't make that case as long as people insist on confusing the law with what they just consider a good idea. It may not fit your personal prejudices that shared use paths exist, or that where signed or marked shared use paths exist, pedestrians have a responsibility to share them. But if you take offence and accuse anyone who points out that the laws say what they say and not what you might prefer they say a "narcissist", I can only say, with apologies for the irony: look in the mirror.

belong on sidewalks. The law says so, and I agree with that.

Leave aside the tragedy this particular discussion deals with, in which a young person riding a young person's bike got in a tragic accident (and I do regard this as an accident). We have traffic laws, and one of them says we ought not to cycle on the sidewalks, and that law does protect pedestrians. I don't think that law should need enforcement, because I think that in most cases adult cyclists do have a responsibility to follow it. Pedestrians have the same inherent right to the road that we do; we have the same inherent vulnerability.

We have traffic laws, and one of them says we ought not to cycle on the sidewalks, ....

....as Toronto allows cycling on the sidewalk as long as your wheels are small enough. You must have missed some of the comments that were made correctly further up in this thread.

but plenty of people in the comments called the young man a "murderer". Alleging a criminal offence against someone who has not committed one technically constitutes actionable libel. I suspect the Sun might claim that since they have not named the yong man in question, their commentators have not libeled him.

The Star's 'green" columnist (who is good, and does bike) calls for licensing of cyclists in his column today.
http://www.thestar.com/article/681600
This will increase pressures for licensing etc.
There will also eventually be a meeting of the City's cycling cttee, all put off from the strike. One item apparently on the agenda will be this cycling on sidewalk issue, raised well ahead of this latest tragedy. The respect given to cyclists is perhaps apparent with the referral of the licensing effort by Mr.Walker to the PWIC and likely bypassing of the TCAC given timing etc.
(If the city doesn't make its quote of bikelane kms this year, will the TCAC be pruned again?)
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2009/agendas/cy.htm

but enough people have pointed out that city council intended to restrict the use of the sidewalk to children that I consider my summary of the law essentially accurate.

As a community, we ought not to forget that we do have an obligation to cycle in a manner that does not endanger other people or violate their legitimate rights. Since we have to fight for our own rights on the road, and since we routinely deal with people who attack cyclists for violating "laws" and "rules" which exist in their own imaginations, we constantly face the temptation to assert that everything goes. I don't believe this. I think that I as a cyclist have an affirmative obligation to look out for pedestrians, road users at least as vulnerable as myself. While I will stand up and denounce the conditions that make it difficult to do this, such as road conditions that gave a fifteen year old a choice between riding on the sidewalk and risking his life, I insist that we also have to respect, if not the law, then certainly other people's lives. So I don't ride on the sidewalk, and I respectfully urge other cyclists not to as well.

... we routinely deal with people who attack cyclists for violating "laws" and "rules" which exist in their own imaginations,

Well observed - and of course we'd never stoop that low! ;-)

but I do conflate. Toronto bylaws ban sidewalk cycling. They contain an exception for bicycles with wheels under a certain size, with the stated purpose of allowing children to learn to ride in safety. I have already said that a fifteen year old on a BMX bike who rides on the sidewalk hasn't done anything wrong. If, on the other hand, I at my advanced age, claimed that I had a right to ride a folding bicycle on the sidewalk, I think that would violate the spirit of the bylaw, even if I do not think anyone should charge me for violating the letter of it.

However, I do think that I and all other cyclists have a moral obligation to look out for the safety of pedestrians, road users as vulnerable as ourselves, regardless of what the law says, and I disagree with mixing with pedestrians on narrow sidewalks.

Yes the boy was riding a legal bike
Yes the boy was trying to avoid the pedestrian
Yes the boy called for help after the accident

But I see 2 obvious mis-behaviors on this boy:
The boy was biking in high speed
The boy was careless biking otherwise he could've reacted earlier and avoided the collision as he was moving much faster than the pedestrian

If we let this boy escape the charges for his mis-behavors, other kids and their parents will tend to be more careless about the pedestrian's safety when biking on sidewalks, and it can only make our sidewalks become dangerer for pedestrians.

for politicians, you're not their tool are ya?

the boy was biking at high speed?

don't recall anybody there with a radar gun, what is high speed on a sidewalk, how many km/h was he going Joe?

The boy was careless biking otherwise he could've reacted earlier and avoided the collision as he was moving much faster than the pedestrian

See above post, he did react in time. So much time that the woman also reacted and moved right into his corrected path.

Anyways, Joe, sidewalks are safe places for pedestrians. Compare how many people are run over in the road with this one death. If you're really concerned you can wear a helmet on your next trip out onto the sidewalk.

If that 15 yr old kid had been riding at a SLOW speed, NO ONE would have been hurt!!!!

But no, they ride FULL speed ahead, MINDLESS of anyone walking around them. They come up right behind you at HIGH speed, weaving in and out and around unsuspecting pedestrians.

SIDEWALKS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS-- NOT BICYCLES!!

I am sorry a woman was killed by a cyclist while on the sidewalk. My heart goes out to her family.

The comment that SIDEWALKS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS-- NOT BICYCLES!! is wrong. A 15 year by law is allowed to ride on the sidewalk, as is anyone whose tires are below a certain size.

I agree the cyclist shouldn't have been riding at a high speed. Of course 15 year olds are always known for being careful prudent people who always follow the law.

I would like to start off by saying, don't call the 15 year old boy, a kid. If you have never met a 15 year old for the past year, you have no rights to call them "kids". Some of them are very mature for their age, while others are not but that can be said to "adults" as well.

We also can't exactly say that the 15 year old male was going "fast", I am pretty sure that none of us were at the scene. If you read carefully, the lady was knocked over and then hit her head, which in return lead to a serious injury. You can be going at 5 KM/H and knock a women over, if not less. There are also many things to be factored into this situation, so it can be a tough case, depending from where you look at things.

Oh and if you haven't noticed, most bicycle trails are shared by pedestrians and cyclists, especially the waterfront trails. We just all got to play our part to avoid future accidents and a good way to start is to make sure both brakes are always in tip-top shape.

I don't understand how a simple act of negligence can be churned into a myopic stew of moral confliction. Many of the posters on this thread need to give their heads a shake!

The law that restricts bicycle use on sidewalks applies to children who are learning to ride a bike and (1) are not yet skilled enough for road travel, and (2) are not a physical threat to pedestrians.

In my opinion, the cyclist had no business being on the sidewalk, and failed to reduce their speed resulting in the collision that killed a pedestrian.

It is tragic and sad, and I feel horrible for both this ladies family and the cyclist, but I can't overlook the obvious.

No, this tragic event is displaying the reason why mandatory bicycle education is so important. That kid had every right to be on the sidewalk. That woman had every right to expect that kid to know how to handle himself.

Obviously there is a gap here that needs to be filled.

Most 15-year-olds are adult height, and therefore riding adult bicycles, and not allowed to be riding on the sidewalk. So if someone is riding a BMX bike, or a small folder, then they are technically allowed on the sidewalk but that was not the spirit of the law. The spirit was for YOUNG children to learn how to ride bicycles at a speed that poses little danger. (obviously we do not know the speed in this collision but I'm going to assume it wasn't a slightly faster than walking speed a 5-year-old may generate)

Other municipalities for example base their laws on wheel size AND age, ie. under 12. Which may be useful here.

As well, these rules should ideally also be followed for safe sidewalk riding:
I believe these are already in the law:
- dismount and walk bike across all intersections
- yield to all pedestrians (parents really need to instil manners into their kids who are riding on sidewalks with them riding on the road! excuse me would be nice...)

And set a maximum speed for sidewalk riding - probably most kids aren't riding with a computer, but its easy to tell if you are generally too fast for the guideline (15 kph?)

The average 15 year old boy weighs more than 125 pounds, so I strongly disagree that he should be allowed to ride the sidewalk, because it's a place designated for WALKing.

The first problem is in the confusion of what type of cyclist is legally allowed to ride on a sidewalk. The current restriction applies to anything with 26" wheels and over - and that obviously leaves room for anyone to ride on a sidewalk.

The second problem is that people allow a legal loop hole to over rule their sense of reason. I weigh about 220 lbs – and to suggest that I would be legally allowed to ride a bike with 24” wheels on a sidewalk is ludicrous.

525 articles on varying amounts of pedestrians being killed by cars

Want todo a search of how many cyclists were killed by cars about 500 articles there.

I can think of only one accident where a cyclist killed(hard to say killed is even accurate since investigators never charged anyone) a pedestrian.

So, one accident - it's tragic... but lets not ignore the elephant in the room.

usually means a flaw in the law which defeats its essential purpose. In the case of actual adults riding on the sidewalk, I agree the law in this case may have a loophole. But a fifteen year old? If fifteen year olds try to get work, they will find themselves barred from most work by the child labour laws. If they have a serious conflict with their parents, the children's aid society gets involved. So how do you expect a fifteen year old to appreciate that in the case of cycling, one commenter on a web log message board defines childhood not by the otherwise universal method of chronological age, but by weight?

I have already written that I don't ride on the sidewalk myself, and I urge other adult cyclists to avoid it also. But I don't live in Scarborough, and I don't have to contend with Finch, Bayview, or Kennedy Road traffic on a regular basis. I know highly responsible adults in those areas who would not think of allowing their children to ride those streets. I would rather fifteen year olds did not ride on the sidewalk as well. I would rather make the streets safe. I'd appreciate any solutions for doing that.

you don't like the law, blame the politicians, not the cyclist. The law aimed at children; like it or not, we define (and treat) fifteen year olds as children for most purposes. The law aimed to protect children not skilled enough for road travel; I know highly responsible parents in that area who would never think of allowing their children to ride on the arterials. Having ridden Finch and Bayview, I can't honestly say I blame them. A fifteen year old does not have the skills and judgment of an adult, and even adult cyclists do our share of dying on those bloody streets.

As for whether the cyclists reduced their speed, only those who saw the tragedy know his exact speed. The police investigated carefully; we can assume they spoke to witnesses, and found no grounds to lay a charge. I don't think that most of us will ever have better information that that about how the collision happened.

Clearly all joggers should be banned from our sidewalks... What is our city doing about the dangers of joggers that run too fast around pedestrians? Perhaps the ban could only apply if their shoe size is six or larger.
tks
loc

At the risk of repeating myself.....a previous post seems in order

So even if the pedestrian threw themselves into the path of the cyclist, it wouldn't matter, because you can't legally ride a bike (26" wheels) on a sidewalk.

This accident has nothing to do with cycling infrastucture, or the age of the cyclist, or the police, or anything else for that matter, so let's cut the crap

....and it certainly has nothing to do with Joggers too

that the police have not charged the cyclist in this incident, and given the investigation into the situation, we can only conclude that he didn't actually break any laws.

I don't think adults should ride on sidewalks. I would welcome any clarification to the rule about who an ride on sidewalks that city council can come up with. But that doesn't change the weight of the published evidence or the police conclusions in this particular case.

Actually, licensing for car drivers has worked out pretty well. Considering there are about 8 million vehicles in the GTA, the number of injuries from accidents is pretty small.

I am not from Toronto so I am wondering why wheel size is the determining factor as to what's legal to ride on the sidewalk. It sounds ridiculous to me that you could legally run an entire Tour de Cabbagetown bicycle race on the sidewalk as long as you were riding bikes with small wheels. You guys keep electing bozo politicians who create bizarre laws, thats for sure. Maybe you want to call in the army to protect you on the sidewalk.

Shouldn't the rider's age be the important thing? Where's the bike Union on this issue or are they in favor of anyone and everyone riding on the sidewalk as long as they have small wheels?

Despite driver licensing there are still many accidents. My previous sarcasm is directed at the fact that people think just because you and everybody else owns a shiny laminated card accidents won't happen. Here is a shocker, licenses mean nothing. Most commuting motorists would be failed by a driving examiner on any give day of the week - they'd probably cut up a few people's licenses right on front of them!

Respect from motorists, proper education for motorists and cyclists and better infrastructure is where cycling in Toronto has lots of growth potential.

As well as licenses meaning little, education is over-rated and doesn't stick to most. What medium can the government use to reach a wide range of adults these days?
If we're taught as children in school, those lessons would fade as well.

Sven asked:
"What medium can the government use to reach a wide range of adults these days?"

Kevin's answer:
SInce we are talking about car drivers, one medium would be a mandatory road test every five years. With failing the test meaning an automatic and instantaneous driver's license suspension.

I believe that that would ensure that car drivers would acquire the necessary education to enable them to pass the test.

Now that any kid can pilot up to 120kg(265lbs) of solid steel on the sidewalk, legally, thanks to the final ruling by the Ontario gov't defining an e-scooter as a bicycle.

If you're wondering how it's legal, the e-scooter wheels are less than 26" and the scooters are defined by law as a bicycle.

How the province solves this will be interesting, ban all bicycles from sidewalks? ban all kids on bicycles from sidewalks? Create a seperate legal code for e-scooters, "bicycles", hah, well guess they're not really bicycles if they require their own separate set of definitions and regulations.

The proverbial cat is crawling out of the bag.

And the City of Toronto has the legal authority to ban e-bikes from sidewalks.

Electric, you're wrong on several counts. First, any kid can not legally ride an e-scooter on the sidewalk. They must be 16. But then, that little fact would have gotten in the way of your ongoing diatribe against legal behavior so you just lied to make your post look more alarming.

Second, e-scooters are not solid steel, mostly they are ABS.

Third, the province doesn't decide how sidewalks are used, that's a municipal responsibility.

Fourth, "separate" is spelled with two A's, not three E's.

Fifth, no one says e-scooters are "bicycles," any more than anyone says a pickup truck is a car. But they are covered by the same laws. E-Scooters and bicycles are different but covered by the same category of laws.

But thanks for lending your credible and literate opinion, it certainly adds choler to the discussion.

You still haven't said if you think e-scooters on the sidewalk will make these accidents more common. As i figured getting hit with 250 odd lbs of scooter frame plus 180lbs of person on the sidewalk has far more potential to cause the sort of injury that took this woman's life.

It's untrue an e-scooter is mostly abs plastic by weight. It is mostly steel and battery unless they're making the frames out of abs plastic and the batteries out of abs plastic also... In fact the only thing that is abs plastic on a scooter are the outer moldings.

I'm glad you agree it is an absurd idea to call a scooter a bicycle. We both know e-scooters aren't bicycles, but they're legally defined as a bicycle now(something the e-scooter community fought for). Now we have legal problems from the ensuing chaos caused by this misnomer. If only e-scooters had been legally declared as scooters. Defining e-scooters that way seems a much better fit and we wouldn't have to rewrite and reconsider many of our bicycle laws to make them safe.

Anyways, it takes a credible and literate opinion holder to recognize another one so please pass on any of that free choleric spellin' advice... i'll be sure to give it due attention.

Not sure what difference it makes to the current situation though... the only thing that needs to be banned from sidewalks are e-scooters which are those very heavy "e-bikes." The typical e-bike(one you can still pedal) isn't allowed on the sidewalk because it's wheels are 26" or larger.

If we're lucky we'll just see e-scooters redefined as, well, scooters.

The Bike-Sidewalk Bylaw is getting amended by City Hall, in the meantime common sense should preceed the legal loop hole - but I don't see this as worthy of debate.

So Electric believes that "the only thing that needs to be banned from sidewalks are e-scooters which are those very heavy "e-bikes."

In this we will never find common ground because I don't believe adults or teenagers should be riding any kind of cycle on the sidewalk and you won't ever steer my thinking to his statement that ONLY e-scooters need to be banned.
.

The intention of the sidewalk bylaw pertaining to bikes, is to allow children to develop some cycling skills before taking to the road.

My kids ride with either my wife or me, wear their helmet, have bells and orange safety flags fixed to their bikes. They did learn to ride on the sidewalk, but that ended when they were about 9-10 yrs. old.

Uh, no, riding your bike on the sidewalk is ILLEGAL. Yes, maybe because it's DANGEROUS?

See, people walking on sidewalks have rights. All the selfish, stupid, Biking Nazis should stay on the road. In 90 percent of the cases, the street is EMPTY, yet these dumb fools use the sidewalk.

Just a case of spoiled, dense, entitled brats (of all ages) who have no concern for anybody but themselves.

Fine, I hope some bike then runs into YOU or YOURS and then maybe, just maybe, you'll gain some sense and have some consideration for pedestrians who just want to WALK on the sidewalks.

Whoops, I don't give a fuck about your family. My bad.

Right, you are SO sorry and feel SO bad, right?

Uh, Bike Nazi, get your sorry bike OFF the sidewalk. Yes, grow a brain.

This guy's comments are the most offensive of all (and some are pretty bad). IF he'd blow all his hypotheses out his ass, he'd shit better. He MIGHT also realize there's no connection between what this young rider did, and everything else (most of it paranoid delusional: the cop was REASONABLE).

Not a word of concern for the woman, who DIED! JERK!

I'm referring to comments headed "IF police were less...." So we'll know who I mean! I concur: BIKE NAZI!

Riding on the pavement is not a right. It is illegal and dangerous. Due to the increase of road traffic bike riders have migrated on to the pavement for safety from road traffic and convenience of journey time. A fifteen year old child riding into a pedestrian was not an accident, nor was it the cyclist right of way. Get off and walk your bicycle. The public have rights of a Citizen Arrest on the perpetrators.