Should Leiper Be The Councillor For Kitchissippi?
“I’ll take the car lane rather than the bike lane where bike lanes are present.”
Kitchissippi Councillor Jeff Leiper
I hope Leiper got the licence-plate number and the type of car that is involved in the incident.
If he needs help in this regard, the licence plate number is Ontario CVDJ 092 and the car is a red Nissan Versa. If you stop the video at various points after the car passes Leiper, those identifications are very clear.
Has he reported the incident to the police? If not, why not?
A number of cars crossed the yellow no-passing line so his positioning was not optimal. At the time of the incident, Leiper was about one-third of the way across the lane on the right-hand side. However, he might have been on a street where bikes can occupy the whole lane.
So let’s see. Leiper, after advocating for bike lanes all over the city, chooses to not use them when they are present. That is hypocritical, dangerous and wasteful of taxpayer money. Does Leiper want bike lanes or not? Or does he just want the whole damn road. Or a bunch of votes from his bike-zealot followers?
Furthermore, Leiper’s bike-handle camera was set up to film left which, in preparation, would be anticipating something happening, accidentally or otherwise.
So Leiper in his actions flew in the face of a city bike-lane policy he supports. He purposely drove in car lanes when a safe alternative was available that had he had supported. He contributed to cars crossing a yellow centre line on the road. His action was deliberate. He showed intent in his post. And the red Versa came precipitously close to a head-on collision. That doesn’t happen if you use the bike lanes.
And the big question is, with his camera at ready, was this whole thing orchestrated?
We don’t know the answer to that question but Leiper has some explaining to do.
If he is concerned about bike safety, why is he biking dangerously? If he has not reported the incident, why not? Is he not concerned about the safety of others?
And finally, are these the actions of a responsible councillor and do his actions reflect the opinions of his law-abiding constituents?
Should he be the councillor for Kitchissippi?
Ken Gray
For You:
Why Was Leiper Filming His Bike Ride?
Did Jeff Leiper Provoke Cycling Incident?
Leiper Takes Car Lane Instead Of Bike Lane
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
– The Bulldog – News Feed Enter 
You may recall the premier announced he wants to remove all bike lanes. Leiper is demonstrating what impact that decision would make.
You need to read the councillor newsletter of councillors you choose to report on.
Miranda:
I’ll read what I damn well please, Miranda and Leiper’s blog should have a disclaimer running on it…. Do not read while operating heavy equipment.
cheers
kgray
Ford never made such an announcement Miranda. He has said that bike lanes belong on secondary streets and are a non-starter if installing them removes traffic lanes.
There are better ways to get your point across than hurling stones, especially when it’s in the wrong direction.
What body takes charge of making politicians responsible for their actions and what are the consequences for misbehaviour? Leiper has overstepped his bounds of someone who should be acting responsibility and performing as a role model. What happens when young people decide this type of irresponsible behaviour is acceptable/cool and put their lives at risk? Jeff’s soapbox can be a dangerous place upon which to stand; as an avid cyclist I’m not going anywhere near it. If Leiper wants to tempt his own fate so be it.
Miranda,
If Ken or any of the other people who comment here read every councillor’s newsletter, there wouldn’t be much time left over to contribute to The Bulldog. As it happens, I read Leiper’s as well as the one from my own councillor, the councillor in the adjoining ward (for things like road closures and community events in that ward) and a few from other wards that I have or had a connection with. That takes a fair amount of my time but is something I choose to do to keep up with what’s going on in my community.
I do. of course, filter what I see in those newsletters with a bit of scepticism since, unfortunately, not everything you get from a politician is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
First of all, his constituents – of which I am one – are the people who get to decide whether he should be our counsellor. And if I recall correctly he got well above 90% of the vote in each of the last 2 elections.
Second, bikes always have the right to take the lane, and often should because of potholes, maintenance covers, glass, and other obstructions cars can’t see. They should be travelling in a straight line, not weaving into and out of the parking lane, and need to be far enough away from parked cars that they can’t get doored. Leiper is cycling correctly and safely. Any driver who thinks otherwise, and especially one who thinks an aggressive response is appropriate, should turn in their licence. Clearly driver education is failing to teach people that bikes should ride straight and aren’t required to stay in the gutter.
Third, even if bikes were required to stay in bike lanes – which they aren’t – there isn’t one on that road. There probably should be. Many parts of Wellington do have sharrows and markings showing the dooring zone, reminding drivers that they have to share. That stretch of Wellington is all small local businesses, with cars pulling in and out of parking spaces and lots of bikes and pedestrians. No one should be driving on it expecting to go quickly so the road rage is especially misplaced. As someone who lives nearby and walks, bikes, and drives that stretch all the time, I want menaces like that terrible driver off the road.
Finally, if you were any kind of “journalist” you would know that Leiper records and posts lots of his rides. And many cyclists have cameras positioned to record potential accidents, as they clearly need to.
It’s ridiculous that you’ve made MULTIPLE posts defending a driver pissed off that he couldn’t use my neighbourhood as his personal racetrack. Maybe we should close Wellington to car traffic altogether if drivers can’t control their impatience well enough to use a shared road.
Andrea:
Thank you for this.
Closing Wellington to traffic is not a bad idea.
cheers
kgray
Ken; And Bank St and Rideau St should also be closed? talk to the owners of the establishments and see if they would be happy with bike and pedestrian traffic only.
Andrea, you should familiarize yourself with the legislation (sections 147 and 148 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act). I don’t know if Ken will allow me to post them here but I include a couple of relevant sections below since I suspect you think you’re right and won’t look (and yes, for the HTA, a bicycle is a vehicle). Slow moving vehicles have a duty to ride to the right ‘where practicable’. So yes, the middle of the lane is sometimes appropriate, but not always. You are correct, there is no legislation mandating the use of bike lanes. Jeff can be as foolish as he pleases by not using them; that’s his choice.
In this particular video, both the driver of the red car, and Jeff were unsafe. The driver tried to pass when he didn’t have space, and I suspect Jeff was trying to pass the other biker he was approaching on his right (seen very late in the video). A perfect storm of messiness. The problem seems to be that bikers are going to defend their own (Jeff being the cycling lobby poster boy) rather than ascribe any blame to him when he clearly wasn’t being safe either. It’s not always only the car that is at fault (although in this case it certainly was part of the picture).
*****
147 (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).
148 (1) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting another vehicle shall turn out to the right from the centre of the roadway, allowing the other vehicle one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (1).
(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).
Same
(6.1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle on a highway who is overtaking a person travelling on a bicycle shall, as nearly as may be practicable, leave a distance of not less than one metre between the bicycle and the motor vehicle and shall maintain that distance until safely past the bicycle. 2015, c. 14, s. 42.
Nicholas;
Thank you for this.
The problem with bike zealots who see cycling as the way to nirvana is that many are not interested in the truth.
They are, however, interested in strongly (often too strongly), pushing their agenda forward.
The truth is inconsequential compared to moving the cause forward by any means.
Thus people who rationally look at these issues are ridiculed. What is most important is peace and harmony through pedalling.
That is why your comment is so refreshing. It deals with the truth.
cheers
kgray