"Road Terrorist"

MONTREAL – After yet another serious car-vs.-bike collision Monday, Quebec is struggling to come to terms with safety issues involving bike paths, roads and highways.

Between Friday and Monday, four cyclists died and another was critically injured in crashes involving cars and trucks. Each incident happened under different circumstances.

There are no simple solutions to the potential danger of mixing bikes and cars, said Jean-François Pronovost, director general of Vélo Québec Association, which represents 5,000 cyclists.

He said well-designed bike paths and paved shoulders on highways can save lives, but there are other variables.

“It’s a question of infrastructure and behaviour,” he said in an interview. “You can have good infrastructure with bad behaviour, either from cyclists or motorists, and there will be an accident.”

The three crashes:


* Friday morning, three female cyclists, members of the Club de Triathlon de St. Lambert, were killed after a pickup truck plowed into them on Highway 112 in Rougemont.

* Saturday night, a cyclist was struck and killed by a car on a rural highway in Val Morin. The motorist faces an impaired-driving charge.


* Monday morning, a cyclist in his early 60s was involved in a crash with a car in Trois Rivières. The cyclist was riding against traffic and was not wearing a helmet. The road featured a city bike path but the cyclist was not on it, Trois Rivières police said. Doctors fear he won’t survive his head injuries, police said.

On Monday, friends and strangers continued to post sympathy notes on the triathlon club’s Facebook page and planned to remember the fallen triathletes at a vigil Wednesday for cyclists killed on public roadways.

The husband of one of the Rougemont victims sent a letter to media outlets Monday.

“Today, I struggle to find a reason to go on without my wife who was unjustly taken by a ‘road terrorist,’ ” Patrick Lacroix said in the letter.

“If we were in the United States, the driver responsible for destroying our lives would already be before the courts. The simple reality is that we are responsible for the safety of others when we wield a weapon, the automobile.”

Lacroix’s wife, Sandra de la Garza Aguilar, 36, was one of three women killed Friday on Highway 112. Three other cyclists were injured but survived. All six were on racing bikes whose tires are not made to roll on the gravel found on highway shoulders.

Police say the cyclists appear to have been riding in single file on the highway, near the shoulder. The shoulder on that section of Highway 112 is not paved.

“By pure chance, work was just about to start on this stretch of road,” Lacroix said, referring to Quebec’s plan to repave that stretch of highway and add a paved shoulder.

“The Quebec government is criminally responsible for negligence,” Lacroix added.

Quebec coroner André Dandavino has said he is looking at whether cruise control was a factor in a lack of attentiveness by the truck driver, who was headed home after working a night shift.

In his letter, Lacroix said he was surprised to learn police did not administer an alcohol test on the truck driver. “If we add the fact that the driver is a young volunteer firefighter, so a colleague of the police, I won’t be surprised that the file will be closed quickly,” Lacroix said. “The next time you kill someone while driving your car, invoke fatigue.”

Last week, a Sûreté du Québec spokesperson said police did not suspect alcohol was a factor. On Monday, SQ spokesperson Ronald McInnis confirmed the truck driver was not tested for alcohol.

Under the Criminal Code, before they can administer an alcohol test, police must have reasonable grounds, such as alcohol on a driver’s breath or erratic behaviour by the driver, McInnis noted. He said the driver in the Rougemont crash exhibited no symptoms of alcohol consumption.

Police are still investigating the crash, McInnis said.

In 1995, Quebec said it would pave all unpaved highway shoulders, but only when the roadway itself is due to be repaved and only in cases where the highway is used by 5,000 or more vehicles daily.

Transport Quebec is responsible for 21,507 kilometres of roadways where the shoulder is not paved, said spokesperson Mario St-Pierre. He said he could not say how many of those kilometres cover roads used by 5,000 or more cars daily.

Another 15,688 kilometres of Transport Quebec roadways have paved shoulders, St-Pierre said.

Vélo Québec helps oversee the development of the Route Verte, a 4,100-kilometre bike route network, much of it in rural parts of the province where bikes must share the way with cars and trucks.

Pronovost said if a highway is used by more than 1,000 cars daily, it won’t be included on the Route Verte unless it features a paved shoulder.

But he said cycling on a highway can be safe, even without a paved shoulder. “It’s a question of the period of the day, the quality of the pavement, a lot of factors. It’s like every road. It’s impossible to have a patrol every day of every week on every stretch.”

ariga@thegazette.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Paid a fine.

By The Canadian Press via Yahoo

CALGARY - The driver of a school bus involved in a crash that killed a Calgary girl says her personal life was in turmoil before the accident
Louise Rogers is testifying at the fatality inquiry into the death of nine-year-old Kathelynn Occena.
Kathelynn died in October 2007 when the school bus sideswiped a parked gravel truck on a busy thoroughfare.
Rogers says she had tried to commit suicide the month before and had taken stress leave the previous spring because she was overwhelmed by the number of children on her route.
She says she had been seeing the school psychologist following the breakdown of her marriage and her supervisor was aware of her struggles.
Rogers pleaded guilty to careless driving and paid a fine.

more from cbc

Open Letter

--an open letter to the motorist who nearly killed me last Friday morning, from a bicycle rider

Dear Ma'am,

We first met at a four way stop in suburban Burnaby. It was Friday morning and, I guess, we were both on our way to work. As I was to your right, I proceeded to turn right, while you waited your turn and proceeded straight. We were both headed down the hill, we both had to stop at the bottom to wait for traffic to clear. I was in front of you, but surely not blocking your view. You could not have failed to notice there were cars parked along both sides of the narrow street, allowing a space where only one vehicle could safely travel at a time.

When you leaned on your horn I was not too upset. Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence, usually a sign of ignorance and impatience, no matter what vehicles we choose to drive. However, when you revved your engine and proceeded to illegally pass me within four inches of my elbow, that is what upset me. Your choice to dangerously pass me was as much a threat as you pointing a gun out your window. Your choice to deliberately endanger my life raised my anger. Go figure.

Perhaps you were unclear about why I was in the middle of the travel lane. As I cannot trust that people will look before opening their doors into traffic, I cannot be as close to the parked cars as you might like. Should someone fail to check and open their door in front of me, my choice is to crash into a hard sharp metal object and the person exiting their vehicle, or swerve out into traffic, right in front of you. Sorry, but neither of these is good, so I will always choose the third option--to be in the middle of the street where I can see and be seen, where a car door heedlessly swung open will have no effect upon me.

I am not in the middle of the lane to show off the beauty and superior efficiency of my vehicle. I am not there to deliberately slow you down. My reason for being there is purely selfish I will admit, it is for my own safety. I am in the middle of the road because it is not safe for you to pass. When it is safe, I will most certainly pull to the side to allow you by. Until then, please be patient.

If you would have exercised two seconds of patience, I would have turned left at the next intersection. I did not want you tailgating me any more than you wanted me slowing your progress. Maybe you were running late, but if I ended up under the wheels of your truck due to your reckless negligence, what delay would that have caused you? Would you have even stopped?

If you had exercised two seconds of patience, we would have both arrived at work happier people, instead of being angered and frustrated for the duration of our commute and beyond.

When you stopped and rolled down your window, I enquired if you were deliberately trying to kill me. From my perspective this is what you were attempting to do. I seriously doubt this was your intention; I'm sure friends and family regard you as a nice person. However, for a lack of two seconds of patience, you could have negatively changed both our lives forever.

Your only reply was, "Share the Road." Perhaps you are confused about what this means. It does not mean I should cower in the gutter and allow your environment killing dinosaur to roar by heedlessly. It does not mean I should put my safety in jeopardy so that you can arrive at the next stop sign two seconds earlier.

Bicycle riders have no choice but to share the road, so this is mostly a plea to motorists. Just because you choose the most selfish of transportation options does not mean your time is more valuable than mine, it does not mean you have any more right to the road than I do, and it certainly does not give you any right to deliberately endanger my life.

yours,
on two wheels,
David

Couldn't Have Said it Better

Craig McInnes

Vancouver Sun


Thursday, August 11, 2005

VICTORIA - Dear motorist:

Excuse me for not addressing you by name, but given your rage the other day when you wanted to talk to me about my riding habits, I thought it best to press on rather than exchange formal greetings.

My first inkling that you were somewhat irate came when you stomped on the gas as you squeezed by me going down the hill on Fort Street across from the Royal Jubilee Hospital.

I didn't realize your anger was directed at me, however, until you narrowly avoided being run down by that pickup truck after running out on to the road, where I heard you explain heatedly to the driver that you were trying to get to the cyclist who was taking up most of a lane coming down the hill.

As I left the scene of your narrowly avoided accident, I was sorry that we could not have chatted, since although I suspect something else was going on in your life to leave you so tightly wound, you are not alone in your misunderstanding of the rights and responsibilities of bicycle riders with whom you reluctantly share the road.

In fact your reaction reminded me of the caution in the excellent primer on cycling in traffic contained in the British Columbia Bicycle Operator's Manual, which is available on the web at www.bikesense.bc.ca.

"Be prepared for the occasional frustrated driver who is not familiar with the safe and legal operation of a bicycle."

Before you fly off the handle again at what you may perceive will be another attack on drivers, let me add that there are as many cyclists who are ignorant about the safe and legal operation of a bicycle as there are motorists.

That shared ignorance is not helped by grey areas in the law where what is safe and what is legal are not always the same.

The first thing you should know is that under the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, "a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle." So whether you like it or not, bicyclists have a right to use the road. They also have a responsibility to obey all the rules of the road that you do, in addition to a few others.

For example, they can't pretend to be pedestrians. They can't ride on the sidewalk or across crosswalks. They can't ride side by side, blocking the road. They have to wear a helmet, even though police in Victoria appear to ignore bareheaded bikers, and they have to keep one hand on the handlebars.

Unfortunately, the situation in which you and I first met is one of those grey areas I mentioned.

The Motor Vehicle Act requires a cyclist to ride "as near as practicable to the right side of the highway." If we had been in Vancouver, we would have also been subject to a bylaw that requires slow-moving vehicles to drive "as close as possible" to the right hand edge or curb. Under that bylaw, bicycles are always considered slow-moving vehicles, even when they are not.

Hence the conflict between safety and the law. At times, such as when you found yourself behind me, they travel at or near the speed of cars. Regardless of how the wording of the Motor Vehicle Act is interpreted, it is a violation of my law of personal survival to hug the curb when I am flying down a hill at or near the speed limit.

It may be counter-intuitive to you -- it was to me at first -- but there are times when riding at the speed of other traffic, it is safer to be out in the middle of the lane where other motorists can see you and will be less tempted to squeeze by when there is really not enough room.

Finally you can be sure that if it comes to a choice between claiming my rights or staying alive, you will always have the upper hand. I hope, however, with a little civility on both our parts, as fellow commuters we can learn to share the road.

Sincerely yours,

Craig


© The Vancouver Sun 2005

Tell me why

                   Why is it that if I am crazy enough to take a large and powerful weapon out of my house, travel for a short while and then begin to target individuals out enjoying their day; peaceable law-abiding people causing no harm to no one, if I should target guys wearing hats, or kids playing basketball or any random assortment of people engaged in a mutual activity like walking down the street or riding bicycles, if I should maliciously and willfully try to cause grievous injury or death--why is it that the consequences of this certifiably insane act of mayhem should be weighed in the balance of my choice of weapon?

Now to create mayhem without consequence, the choice of weapon is one to be pondered before a hasty decision is reached. Maximum effectiveness might be realized through the use of an M1A1, a highly efficient and manoeuvrable killing machine. The trouble is that deniability is hard to  claim as they drag your smoking corpse from the hull of your shattered tank. Besides, those babies are really hard to get a hold of.

No I'll need something more practical, more personal, more American--I need a gun. Not just any gun. I need a big gun. A really big gun....

So now that I got my Mr.Keaton giant earthworm killin' death bringer loaded, one must decide upon a target, say, bicyclists...NO--short people. Yes that's it, short people. They are always getting in front of you when you're walking and because they have small little legs they take short little steps, so they're slow as jam and you're in a damn hurry and why are you so slow??!  They usually wear weird clothes too, a fine enough reason right there.

--But wait.

I must admit that I have been watching a lot of  NCIS on the tube lately and you know them crafty coppers have a million and one ways to tie you to a gun like that. Shoot a bunch of people down and  your options become few--a bullet self administered, die in a hail of police gunfire, or spend the rest of your mortality swapping out brutality, sodomy and boredom.

--There must be a better way. Hmmmm, there must be a better way. Think think think.

--I know. I've got it! I've been overthinking this all along. The answer is sitting right there. Right there in my driveway.

I can get behind the wheel and for the most part can give my attention  to my cell phone, changing the CD, making a grocery list, checking my email, balancing a cup of coffee, burning a cigarette, swattin' the kids--anything and everything expect paying attention to actually driving. This is viewed and is fully accepted as normal and rational behavior.

I can get behind the wheel and injure, maim and kill others, usually with minimal consequence. The word "accident" will be falsely applied to many of my sins, so long as I keep it alcohol free (cuz those Muthas will put a quick end to all the fun) . When the accident excuse fails, it is of little matter, for remember always that it is very rare that you will be labeled as "killer" or "attempted murderer"  because first and foremost you are a "driver", and that supercedes all.

I can kill a man with a gun and receive twenty-five years to life as punishment, kill the same man with my car and, most often, I'll see NO jail time.

Routinely we view a driver's license as a right and not a privilege. Driver's licenses are handed out to wild-eyed sixteen year olds like ritalin is handed out to their little brothers. At the other end of the scale, old men who can barely walk and barely see still motor around in their oversized ancient automobiles, yet it cannot be argued that those whose wisdom has increased are shown to have decreased reaction times. 

All organisms degenerate, all systems will slow to zero. 

How do we acknowledge this fact when it comes to making the tough decision about our very old relatives, within our families and within our societies, about their "right" to drive? We rely on self-assessment, or more often, wait for the inevitable "accident" to happen.