Who poses more of a threat to safety, cyclists or motorists?

Which is worse, for the safety of others?

  • Cyclists

    Votes: 3 8.3%
  • Motorists

    Votes: 32 88.9%
  • Other (Please State)

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • Total voters


Leg End Member
Cyclists or Motorists

You know the heart-stopping feeling you get watching a cyclist fly through a red light, forcing drivers slam on their brakes.

And you know the feeling you get watching a car speed by a schoolyard as a kid chases a ball towards the road.

"The City Matters survey, conducted for Metro by MQO Research, asked Torontonians questions about city life, including “Which is more of a safety hazard: a cyclist who disobeys signs or traffic lights or a speeding car in a school zone?” Slightly more than half of respondents — 53 per cent — said the car speeding in the school zone is more dangerous, and 42 per cent of Torontonians chose the cyclist who disobeys signs or traffic lights. Five per cent weren’t sure.

Driver Naveed Rathore, who commutes to Etobicoke from Scarborough, said he sees both sides.

“If a car is going five or 10 kilometres over I wouldn’t see it as dangerous as the cyclist, but if it’s a madman driving 50 over the limit, of course it’s the unsafe driver,” he said. “Driving in Toronto, I see (cyclists) going on a one-way in the wrong direction, disobeying red lights and it can lead to cars getting into accidents.”

And the vote over licensing cyclists, is pretty much even. 46% For, 43% Against. 10% Undecided


Active Member
Can we have any more options please ? I'd say both, but I'm not given the option.
It's a stupid question, or at least badly put. You can't talk about a "safety hazard" without consideration of (a) who is exposed to the hazard in question and (b) what is the nature of danger they are being exposed to.

And then, what criteria are used to rank one hazard relative to another? Is "more of a hazard" one that is more likely to result in an incident? Or one that could have more serious consequences? Or one that certain groups (children, for example) are more vulnerable to?


Europe Endless
Simple. motor vehicles kill about 1700 people a year, in the UK, and seriously injure another 21 500.
Cycles kill about 2 people a year, and seriously injure about 90.


Is a bit like asking , What is worse , Cancer or a cold and nearly half saying the cold:wacko:


Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Simple. motor vehicles kill about 1700 people a year, in the UK, and seriously injure another 21 500.
Cycles kill about 2 people a year, and seriously injure about 90.
And 1700 is only direct deaths, isn't it? If you include other unsafe aspects such as pollution, it may be as high as 48000


Rollin' along
Manchester way

Other: the general police & judiciary response and reporting of court cases? gives a very clear message that cyclists are by and large considered a disproportionate menace and nuisance for annoying and occasionally dangerous activities (RLJers, pavement warriors-as opposed to considerate pavement wheeled pedestrians) for which they should rightly be taken to task vs the every day real lethal danger in motor vehicles of speeding, inattention, tailgating etc which is trivialised in comparison and that cyclists lives on the road are largely worthless and readily forfeit for very little in the way of significantly frightening legal consequence for the wrecker or taker of that life.
Last edited:


Riding anywhere along Oxford Rd then its cyclists, more accuratly students....on my commute its cars.
Top Bottom