Death of Rosemont cyclist “an accident”?
The coroner’s report is in on the death of cyclist Valérie Bertrand-Desrochers more than a year ago on St-Zotique in Rosemont and it’s a shitshow. “The coroner’s report found that the collision was mainly due to the way Bertrand-Desrochers was cycling, and that the truck was driving in an area where trucks are prohibited.” This may be an inexact translation from French, so grain of salt, but if the truck driver had no business taking his vehicle onto that street, how was this an accident? The item goes on to say he “was en route to his home to retrieve his cellphone at the time of the collision.” How is this death a random chance, and how was the cyclist supposed to look out for heavy vehicles in an area where they’re prohibited, and why was the driver not being more careful on a street with a cycle path?
Blork 23:53 on 2019-09-09 Permalink
FWIW, the CBC article says “Trucks are not allowed in the area, except for making local deliveries.” So trucks ARE allowed there as long as they fit the bill of making a local delivery. My point is only that since some trucks are allowed, it can’t really be thought of as an area that will never have any trucks. That’s just one piece of the puzzle of course. (And I’m not saying that to point fingers, just to be clear on the circumstances.)
Kate 07:52 on 2019-09-10 Permalink
The article says a dump truck, Blork. Not a cube van or other similar delivery vehicle. The driver presumably was making a quick detour home to get his phone, but that put a heavy vehicle on a street where it didn’t belong.
Bert 08:38 on 2019-09-10 Permalink
It i entirely plausible that a dump truck could be delivering a load of dirt/stone or was being used to remove soil from a work site.
Phil M 11:02 on 2019-09-10 Permalink
It was an accident because he didn’t intentionally try to kill the cyclist, regardless of whether or not he was supposed to be on that road.
Kate 11:19 on 2019-09-10 Permalink
Is there not some area between “freak, unpredictable accident” and “deliberate lethal intention” that we enshrine in law, something to do with negligence?
Blork 12:15 on 2019-09-10 Permalink
That’s a good point. The problem is that virtually all “accidents” contain some level of negligence.
There’s the idea of “recklessness,” which might apply here, but I’m not convinced that the truck driver simply turning onto a street that is only partially restricted constitutes recklessness. After all, he only needed a slip of paper with the right delivery address for that restriction to not apply, so the restriction wasn’t due to an inherent danger of trucks on that road (otherwise all trucks would be banned always), rather an arbitrary restriction based on local residents not wanting trucks on their street.
Since, then, it is entirely possible for a large vehicle (whether dump truck, cube van, whatever) to turn onto that street, and since there is no way to know if the cyclist was even aware of the semi-prohibition (there are no signs indicating the semi-prohibition, so I think it’s unlikely the cyclist even knew the truck wasn’t supposed to turn), I don’t think that the truck’s turning without the correct bureaucratic permission is a key factor in deconstructing this collision. It is a factor in determining liability, because the law was broken, but that’s not the same as determining causation.
There is evidence that the cyclist was riding recklessly. I haven’t seen that evidence, so I’m not going to hang my whole argument on it (given that car drivers tend to inflate their view of the riskiness of cycling behaviour they see), but the coroner believed the cyclist was blowing through red lights and stop signs before the collision happened.
So what is it when both parties are negligent?
As Magali Bebronne from Vélo Québec said in the article, cyclists are ultimately responsible for their own safety. As a cyclist myself I totally believe that. That doesn’t mean measures shouldn’t be taken to make things safer, but there is no room for risky or reckless cycling around large trucks. That doesn’t absolve the truck driver, but I think it’s wrong to place all the blame there.
It’s wrong to speculate on what happened given what little information I have, but when I look at that intersection, I cannot imagine how this collision could have happened if (a) the truck had come to a full stop at the stop sign and had put on its turn indicator, and (b) the cyclist had stopped at the stop sign. Given that a large dump truck pulling away from a full stop is going to do so slowly, any cyclist at the same stop sign will see the truck turning. The only way I can imagine this happening (given my limited information and based only on the setting and my experience) is if the truck did not fully stop and made a sudden turn, and if the cyclist did not fully stop.
Meezly 13:08 on 2019-09-10 Permalink
I remember analyzing that intersection and trying to visualize how that would theoretically happen to me if I were in the cyclist’s shoes. I had to refresh my memory with some quick research – so both cyclist and truck were heading east along St-Zotique, then the truck turned right onto 9th Ave and struck the cyclist, who was on a painted bike lane. Based on witness accounts, she had blown through the stop sign at the intersection. Perhaps she assumed the truck would be aware of her, or she wasn’t paying attention. In any case, neither cyclist nor truck driver were following the rules but it was the cyclist who paid the price. I admit as a cyclist I don’t always stop at stop signs, but if there are pedestrians or vehicles around, I do. I feel Bertrand-Desrochers would not have died had she stopped at the intersection, doesn’t matter if the truck had the right to be there or not. So I felt the report was quite fair.
mare 20:09 on 2019-09-10 Permalink
Dump trucks have a HUGE blind corner next to them, you can put 5 bikes in there without the driver seeing anything. If the truck came to a full stop (unlikely in the East end of Montreal, cars and trucks look if there are no cars or police at an intersection and rarely fully stop but just slow down). But assume the truck di stop, because there was another car at the intersection. When he waits for that car to clear the intersection the cyclist catches up with him and passes him on the right and when she’s next to his cabin he accelerates and mowes her down. He probably only noticed if after he felt a bump. Trucks also have a large turn radius.
If the truck had better mirrors, and if the driver had looked into them this could have been avoided. A skirt to keep pedestrians and bikes away from the wheels might also have helped. Unfortunately those things are not required in Quebec.
As a cyclist I never pass cars to the right at stop signs, I only do that at solidly red traffic lights, and after passing I position myself in front of the first car, making sure the driver can see me. Never next to cars, as I’m supposed to do, because it’s not a safe place to be.
As a driver I always go all the way to the edge of the curb before I turn right, so there’s not even room for cyclists. Also not allowed in Quebec, but the habits after 30 years of driving in the Netherlands, where you’re taught to do it that way in your lessons and driving test, can’t be undone. Cyclists might be angry if I do that in front of red lights, but it’s just so much safer for them.
This kind of situation happens so often, but we only hear about it when there are collisions where people die or almost die. The broken bones don’t shop up on our radar.
Tim 09:39 on 2019-09-11 Permalink
When driving, I always go over to the edge of the curb when turning right so that I don’t block cars behind me needlessly. I never thought of it as a strategy to prevent a cyclist from coming up beside me, but it definitely accomplishes that. Why would that not be permitted in Quebec?
mare 14:32 on 2019-09-11 Permalink
@Tim You have to leave room for cyclists to pass, certainly when there is a bike path like on St-Zotique. And in turn, cyclists aren’t allowed to weave between cars, so they can’t pass cars on the left.