by

Tags

by

June 18, 2012

Comments (3)

Comment Feed

ignore the report

In this coroner's report, these individuals all with the title Dr. preceding their names are also recommending helmet laws for Ontario, using their statistical evidence from deceased individuals and completely disregarding the mechanics of, and real causes of the accidents. They quoted Denmark in the study in the study as far as the three feet passing rule, but yet they completely ignored the great cycling safety success in Denmark in the complete absence of helmets and helmet laws. I suggest the coroner and cronies are not qualified to make recommendations on cycling safety, since they are unable to consider all the facts and interpret them in the appropriate context of the real world. Their ignorance should not rule our lives.

ch1 more than 2 years ago

ignore the report

In this coroner's report, these individuals all with the title Dr. preceding their names are also recommending helmet laws for Ontario, using their statistical evidence from deceased individuals and completely disregarding the mechanics of, and real causes of the accidents. They quoted Denmark in the study in the study as far as the three feet passing rule, but yet they completely ignored the great cycling safety success in Denmark in the complete absence of helmets and helmet laws. I suggest the coroner and cronies are not qualified to make recommendations on cycling safety, since they are unable to consider all the facts and interpret them in the appropriate context of the real world. Their ignorance should not rule our lives.

ch1 more than 2 years ago

Ontario Coroner's Report Investigating Cyclist Deaths.

Your article shows how the truth can so easily be distorted. The Ontario Coroner's Report stated that the most common impact points with fatal bicycle motor vehicle collisions were Bumper 53%, Hood 41% and Windshield 34%. Some collisions involved all three impact points. The Coroner's report concluded that "This pattern suggested that the majority of collisions took place when the driver was attempting to pass the cyclist." The report did not indicate that the individual accident reports were examined in detail to see if this presumption was in fact correct. I would suggest that the above impact points suggest that the motor vehicle did the hitting rather than the cyclist, but do not necessarily suggest the motor vehicle was overtaking. An impact point on the side of a motor vehicle would suggest that the bicycle did the hitting rather than the motor vehicle. Typically a motor vehicle doing the hitting would involve a higher impact speed than when a bicycle did the hitting, hence the grater number of fatalities. None of this suggests blame as either party could be at fault. A couple of years ago I did witness a collision between an adult female cyclist and a motorist. The female cyclist was doing nothing wrong, she was simply waiting on her mountain bike at a stop sign until it was safe to make a left turn. A car travelling in the opposite direction to the one I was a passenger in turned in front of our car, cutting the corner and as a result hitting the cyclist. This was almost a head on collision. The front wheel of the mountain bike took the initial impact, after which the cyclist rolled on to the hood of the car and then impacted the windshield which was destroyed. Fortunately this was not a fatal collision and the lady still rides a bicycle. My point is that the above impact points could occur regardless of whether the cyclist is hit from the rear, the front or either side. A combination of all three impact points i.e. bumper, hood and windshield suggest a car rather than a taller vehicle such as a four wheel drive truck. One should remember that while a coroner can be expected to examine the injuries to a deceased human being and decide the cause of death they are not necessarily qualified to determine the mechanics of a collision. This possibly should be the field of a qualified accident investigator.

Denis Baldwin more than 2 years ago