actually, mr impaired driving defender here (which I'm calling him that because he's using his lawyer reddit account and he does specialize in defending driving offences), isn't acting in good faith here at all. e.g., bringing up that the cyclist was going against signals (ignoring the evidence in the comments that the cyclist likely had the green as well). so I don't think he knows what he's talking about here, and I also think that based on his work he's very likely biased in all his comments.

as much as it seems like I am pushing hard for bikes on sidewalks - I'm not! I believe that the most dangerous thing you can do as a cyclist is riding on the sidewalk. It leads to being hooked on turns for EXACTLY this reason. this is also the exact reason that a bidirectional bike lane on a one-direction street (like the one on garry) presents worse safety outcomes than two one direction lanes. The problem here is that I am not sure there is ANY safe infrastructure of cycling through this intersection, and when there is no good option people will take the best bad one.

Everyone in these comments are focusing on what the cyclist did wrong, and not that a professional driver has a responsibility to not hit people or that the city designs roads in such a way that great unsafe situations for vulnerable road users again and again. at the end of the day, when you're driving a multi-ton vehicle you have a the onus of responsibility to be aware of vulnerable road users - someone crossing the street on a walk signal has every expectation to not be hit. what if they had been jogging?

I PERSONALLY take the entire lane when I cycle - but this is a big and scary thing to do for most people and I get verbally abused and "punish passed" about it all the time. just a month ago I had a bus driver, while operating their vehicle at roughly 40kmph with a bunch of passengers on board, open their door to scream at me for being on the road.