Cyclist hit by car en route to support bike lanes
Michael Woods, Staff Reporter
An ironic twist delayed Shawnte Clow’s arrival at Wednesday’s council vote that scrapped the Jarvis St. bike lanes.
Biking to City Hall to oppose the lanes’ removal, she was sideswiped by a car and thrown onto Queen St. E., just west of Greenwood Ave.
She emerged with only scrapes and bruises. The woman who allegedly sideswiped her apologized and offered her money, but Clow declined and called police. The driver was charged with careless driving, she said.
Clow, a theatre technician who lives in the Beach, said she and the car lined up side-by-side at the stoplight before the crash
“There’s no way she didn’t see me,” Clow said, adding she thinks a designated bike lane would have prevented the crash. Queen St. does not have a bike lane.
“Drivers of cars are naturally taught to respect lines on the pavement.”
Clow was too shaken to ride her bike after the crash. She locked it up and was offered a free ride to City Hall by a sympathetic streetcar driver.
I cycle to work every day. I try to do my part to keep the air clean in the city but why? The city turns around and removes bike lanes for more traffic and MORE expense to taxpayers. Where is the logic???? Sorry Clow, our efforts are useless to keep our lanes. Vehicles rule
Posted by: Kevin Tomlinson | 07/14/2011 at 08:10 AM
I wouldn't be trying to cycle on Queen St. when I could use the bicycle lane on Dundas St., but I guess that's just me.
Posted by: Tiger | 07/14/2011 at 08:26 AM
As a cyclist, I never creep through the gap between cars stopped at a traffic light and the curb. I stop and wait behind the car ahead of me. As a driver, I loathe cyclists who do. Few drivers check their blind spots when pulling away in a straight line from a red light and I've been given a start a number of times to suddenly discover there's a cyclist hiding in my passenger-side blind spot who wasn't there when I pulled up to the light.
Not saying this is what happened here, but it sounds possible, and it's something that really shouldn't be done. If it is done, don't expect to blame the car's driver for not seeing you sneak up from behind while they're stopped. The amount of space between that car and the curb is going to change as soon as they start moving again.
Posted by: Smitty | 07/14/2011 at 08:34 AM
I'm just wondering, if they were lined side by side at a red light, and the car went straight forward - assuming it is faster than a bike, how did she get side swept? The only way I can see this happening is that the bike started to move forward first (during a red light) and once the car was passing it, she got hit.
Posted by: Checkitout | 07/14/2011 at 08:49 AM
Though it is a good thing she was not hurt badly, there are bike lanes on Eastern Ave and Dundas...the two streets that run parrallel to Queen St. East. If she was really worried about drives, she could have taken one of those roads instead.
Posted by: Justsayin! | 07/14/2011 at 08:54 AM
Bike lanes are needed where bikers are at the most risk like in the core.
Posted by: Jayson Osmars | 07/14/2011 at 08:56 AM
Having seen the aggressive nature of bike riders who do not feel they should slow down while they are in motion I wonder how much of this was caused by the rider. Not wanting to belittle the accident, I witnesses last night two taxi drivers standing out side of their cars talking and two bike riIders ringing their bell and hollering to the drivers to move. Why would that be necessary. Slow down go around the obstacle when it is safe.
Posted by: Wayne G | 07/14/2011 at 09:03 AM
unfortunately Rob Ford will not listen public. He will listen only his friends and his relatives.
Posted by: raj | 07/14/2011 at 09:10 AM
I was hit by a Taxi on my bicycle on Queen St yesterday as well on my way to work. He sped off and although there was a witness neither of us got his cab number. I bike to work every week day and I have always found cabs to be the most dangerous and inconsiderate drivers towards bicycles.
Posted by: Tom | 07/14/2011 at 09:27 AM
"she and the car lined up side-by-side at the stoplight"
You mean; the cyclist pushed her way illegally next to the car stopped at the light. Legally, they are both vehicles, and the cyclist would have to wait behind the stopped cars at a light, and the next car would wait behind the cylist, etc etc
Posted by: Darren | 07/14/2011 at 09:33 AM
Not surprised, I've been hit 3 times in 3 years biking in toronto. One of these days I'll be dead or severely handicapped the rest of my life.
These fat politicians from the burbs need to get outside their box and put SAFETY first.
Posted by: joe | 07/14/2011 at 10:28 AM
Who's going to pay for the damage to the car? Cyclists have no liability insurance. If we're all sharing the roads, then we all should share the financial liability.
Posted by: Thai | 07/14/2011 at 10:45 AM
Second attempt here at saying this, but I don't believe the story. The cyclists said she was next to the car. How did she get there? Both are vehicles. At a traffic stop, vehicles wait behind each other, not next to each other. I never ever go next to stopped car on my bike. Its dangerous due to blind spots and it can also damage the car, scratches etc
Posted by: Darren | 07/14/2011 at 11:03 AM
"last night two taxi drivers standing out side of their cars talking and two bike riders ringing their bell and hollering to the drivers to move. Why would that be necessary. Slow down go around the obstacle when it is safe."
It's called common courtesy, by standing in the road blocking where the cyclists are passing, they are making it more dangerous for the riders who will now need to cut into the second lane of traffic, especially if they have to stop. It's not like being in a car where you accelerate from 0 to 60 in a couple of seconds and merge with traffic easily.
Maybe the cab drivers shouldn't be standing in the road to conduct their conversation, if anyone is in the wrong here it is the cab drivers.
The cyclist that blow red lights, ride the wrong way, switch from sidewalk to road and creep up on the right side of the lane at a red light(this should be against the law, it's dangerous for cyclists). Are the ones being two aggressive and should be punished.
Posted by: Hrothgar Naud | 07/14/2011 at 11:14 AM
I'm sorry to read all the comments that assume the cyclist was the one at fault. True accidents don't really exist. Someone, usually all parties involved, hold a degree of blame. Many people (cyclists and drivers alike) are not defensive enough while driving. Bottom line is, big car hit little bike. A driver must always be aware of what is around them while driving and so must a cyclist. Having the 'right of way' doesn't excuse you from looking around. It is unfortunate that the cyclist did not have time to foresee the car coming in and correct her route. It is unfortunate that the car driver did not acknowledge what must have been a moment of a tight squeeze to fit beside a cyclist and plowed through without waiting to ensure there was adequate space for both cyclist and driver. We all live, work and commute in the city of Toronto. It is impossible to not be aware of the potential volume of cyclists on each and every city street these days. Ignorance is no excuse for failure to drive and ride safely and responsibly.
Posted by: Beans | 07/14/2011 at 11:18 AM
A cyclist was struck in the bike lane yesterday on Greenwood Ave just one block south of Gerrard. Is this the same incident and a case of inaccurate reporting or were there two incidents in the same area yesterday.
Confounded
Posted by: Judith Plankton | 07/14/2011 at 11:20 AM
Most of you on bike riders think you own the road. Ban all bikes off the road as they pay no insurance so they should not have the right to use them. Ban all bike lanes. Rob Ford is hopefully just getting started and will get rid of them all.
Posted by: speedy | 07/14/2011 at 11:21 AM
You cannot call a common occurrence in Toronto ironic.
I was sideswiped on Dupont when I was pregnant last year. I have been doored two times in one bike trip along Bloor. These are just a few examples. Lets talk about how many people have been hit and how many close calls there are?
Posted by: Allison | 07/14/2011 at 11:31 AM
I drive as well as bike and drivers need bicycle lanes too. More bikes, less traffic, less traffic jams. It is easier to drive on a road with a defined bike lane than on a road without a defined bike lane. The bike lane defines expectation and reminds drivers to check their blind spots.
The big slow down in Toronto is (1) traffic lights not alined (2) cars that weave in and out of lanes trying to get one car ahead at a time (3) streetcars (4) too many cars at all hours of day (5) not enough designated left turn lanes (6) unpredictable public transit (6) lack of bike lanes which encourage cycling.
Posted by: Allison | 07/14/2011 at 11:34 AM
Bikers think they rule the road. They expected drivers to notice everything around them. That is just ignorance.
Posted by: Ryan | 07/14/2011 at 11:43 AM
Posted by: Checkitout | 07/14/2011 at 08:49 AM
"Though it is a good thing she was not hurt badly, there are bike lanes on Eastern Ave and Dundas...the two streets that run parrallel to Queen St. East. If she was really worried about drives, she could have taken one of those roads instead."
------------------------
You've never ridden a bike before, I take it. Bicycles are much faster off the line than a car. Unless, of course, the motorist is slamming the gas down and trying to act like it's in a race. Even then, the car might clear the intersection faster, but the bike will be ahead of it - or I should say, under it.
Posted by: ZAPSO | 07/14/2011 at 11:57 AM
what is funny about these bike lane removals is that the third lane that was removed is not being put back - they will remove the bike lanes but the road will remain two lanes each way. no one wins - stop wasting money!!! 200k to remove them and repaint the lines can keep 3 police officers in their jobs!
Posted by: Ike | 07/14/2011 at 12:07 PM
Let's all blame the victim here without a shred of proof.
Bikes are not relegated to those few streets with painted bike lanes. Dundas is not close to Queen (might seem that way by car though) and Eastern won't get you to City Hal. Why should she bike up to Dundas, then back down to Queen to get from the Beaches to City Hall on Queen Street?
Posted by: One Less Car. | 07/14/2011 at 12:09 PM
I was crossing the street with my sons yesterday. The light was red and all cars have stopped. A cyclist ran the light and almost hit us. If he hit us, I will sue him till he broke. Would I also feel sympathy if he got hit? What do you think?
Posted by: CKHY | 07/14/2011 at 12:13 PM
to those suggesting that she should be taking a different route: if you live on Queen St. E or if you are shopping there, you can't just automatically appear on Eastern Ave or Dundas. Most of the time you have to ride on streets without designated bike lanes to reach a bike lane or leave a street with a bike lane to reach your destination.
Posted by: Cmmr. G. | 07/14/2011 at 01:44 PM