« Vancouver charter on children and cycling | Main | Rolling out the arguments for the rolling stop »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I've seen the stats from WRPS on the 618 collisions involving bicycles between 2006 and 2010. They claim that in 73% of the cases, the cyclist is in some way violating the HTA. However, the violation for 252 of those cases is 'other' which in most cases means that fault was assigned without a reason given in the report. If we have fault being assigned to cyclists in 41% of all collisions, (or over half where the cyclist is deemed at-fault) without explaining the reason why, that suggests to me that our police might be failing to apply reverse onus.

Contrast this with the overall stats for drivers - 45% of drivers involved in collisions were deemed 'driving properly' and the 'other' category for driver action contribution is only 10%. If we ignore the 'other' cyclists for a moment, we find that 46% of the remaining cyclists were riding properly.

I'm not saying that we should expect these figures to be exactly the same between modes, but the huge discrepancy seems very fishy to me. Reverse onus definitely needs more teeth.

Evan Rosamond

I notice that the WRPS's time to lay a charge against a motorist who has rear-ended (and killed) a cyclist is improving. A few years ago it was 6 months. Lately, it was only 1 month. Still, if a motorist rear-ends a car he will probably be charged within an hour. I think there's still a lot of bias in their investigations.

The comments to this entry are closed.