My son, the 16 year old teenager, was cycling along the road and saw a car slowing down ahead of him without showing any turn signals. Unsure of the driver actions, my son turned to the deserted sidewalk on his right where he continued biking for some time until car turned sharply right to his driveway just a meter in front of my son without seeing him. To avoid a collision my son turned right but car continued moving since the driver still didnt notice him and the collision occurred. My barely managed to keep control of his bicycle and avoid a serious injury, however his left leg was hit. He was in such shock and pain that he couldnt think clearly and was not able to use right judgment and tried to distance himself from the collision scene to check his hit leg. This accident was investigated by a police officer who granted my son with "Fail to remain" ticket. He told us that the driver would be charged for careless driving since he didnt notice cyclist on a sidewalk and collided with him when making a right turn to the driveway if my son did not leave the scene. In spite of the "Fail to remain" ticket the car driver (plaintiff) wants us to pay his full damage ($1122.04) as this according to plaintiff this will not be reimbursed by his insurance company making a statement that the plaintiff should not have to make a claim for repairs on their automobile insurance when the individual responsible for the damage is known and bring this issue to the small claims court. Is this legal as the bicycle is covered under my home insurance company? The plaintiff has to prove one of three things: Negligence, intentional tort or strict liability. Can it be the case?
My son, the 16 year old teenager, was cycling along the road and saw a car slowing down ahead of him without showing any turn signals. Unsure of the driver actions, my son turned to the deserted sidewalk on his right where he continued biking for some time until car turned sharply right to his driveway just a meter in front of my son without seeing him. To avoid a collision my son turned right but car continued moving since the driver still didnt notice him and the collision occurred. My barely managed to keep control of his bicycle and avoid a serious injury, however his left leg was hit. He was in such shock and pain that he couldnt think clearly and was not able to use right judgment and tried to distance himself from the collision scene to check his hit leg.
This accident was investigated by a police officer who granted my son with "Fail to remain" ticket. He told us that the driver would be charged for careless driving since he didnt notice cyclist on a sidewalk and collided with him when making a right turn to the driveway if my son did not leave the scene.
In spite of the "Fail to remain" ticket the car driver (plaintiff) wants us to pay his full damage ($1122.04) as this according to plaintiff this will not be reimbursed by his insurance company making a statement that the plaintiff should not have to make a claim for repairs on their automobile insurance when the individual responsible for the damage is known and bring this issue to the small claims court. Is this legal as the bicycle is covered under my home insurance company? The plaintiff has to prove one of three things: Negligence, intentional tort or strict liability.
Can it be the case?
Last edited by piezomot on Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sidewalks are for walking pedestrians only. That's why they're called pedestrian sidewalks, not bike paths. Motorists should only expect to encounter walking pedestrians when exiting a street. Perhaps the law sees it different. This is just my opinion. If a cyclist, skateboarder, roller-blader, etc. hits me, I too would sue for damages.
Sidewalks are for walking pedestrians only. That's why they're called pedestrian sidewalks, not bike paths. Motorists should only expect to encounter walking pedestrians when exiting a street.
Perhaps the law sees it different. This is just my opinion. If a cyclist, skateboarder, roller-blader, etc. hits me, I too would sue for damages.
Driver's Handbook notes: Motorcycles, bicycles, limited speed motorcycles and mopeds often need to pull to the right or right side of their lane to avoid dangerous road conditions or to be seen by other drivers. When turning right, signal and check your mirror and the blind spot to your right to make sure that you do not cut off a cyclist. It is clear the car driver fault in my opinion.
Driver's Handbook notes:
Motorcycles, bicycles, limited speed motorcycles and mopeds often need to pull to the right or right side of their lane to avoid dangerous road conditions or to be seen by other drivers. When turning right, signal and check your mirror and the blind spot to your right to make sure that you do not cut off a cyclist.
It says road, lane and not sidewalk! I do hope your boy is ok!
piezomot wrote:
Driver's Handbook notes:
Motorcycles, bicycles, limited speed motorcycles and mopeds often need to pull to the right or right side of their lane to avoid dangerous road conditions or to be seen by other drivers. When turning right, signal and check your mirror and the blind spot to your right to make sure that you do not cut off a cyclist.
I do not agree! According to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act the same rules are for the sidewalk as for the road. In other words the Ontario Highway Traffic Act is extends on the sidewalks.
hwybear wrote:
Have to agree with Bel and Book on this one!
I do not agree!
According to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act the same rules are for the sidewalk as for the road. In other words the Ontario Highway Traffic Act is extends on the sidewalks.
piezomot, please remember that we are trying to help you. We are objective in the sense that we only read what you wrote. If you think a court is going to see it your way, you've got a very hard lesson coming. I don't know your location but the City of Toronto has a pretty good page on cycling in the city here, including accident scenarios and suggestions on how to avoid (read who caused) the accident. Bicycles are regulated like other vehicles under the highway traffic act. Bikes with wheel diameters greater than 24 inches are not permitted on sidewalks (Toronto by-law). And the HTA doesn't like cars driving on sidewalks either! A good rule of thumb is to never approach or overtake a vehicle turning right from the right side. Your son didn't know what the car was doing but he was approaching it, it wasn't overtaking him. And he chose to ride on the sidewalk. Did he have a bell on his bike? Now let's get to your problem. You haven't stated how the cop found your son if he rode away. If he merely stopped some distance away then you've got a pretty good shot at fighting the ticket. (I'm assuming your son has a driver's license.) As for the car driver, he's in trouble too. He's looking at a major charge and a major insurance hit. That's why he's trying to sue you and not let his insurance company find out. You both want to avoid costs and legal fees which should be the starting point of negotiations. You son is not 100% guilty, but he's also not 100% innocent. You need to man up your share of the costs. And one other important point to remember: the prosecutor needs both of you to testify at each other's trial.
piezomot, please remember that we are trying to help you. We are objective in the sense that we only read what you wrote. If you think a court is going to see it your way, you've got a very hard lesson coming.
Bicycles are regulated like other vehicles under the highway traffic act. Bikes with wheel diameters greater than 24 inches are not permitted on sidewalks (Toronto by-law). And the HTA doesn't like cars driving on sidewalks either!
A good rule of thumb is to never approach or overtake a vehicle turning right from the right side. Your son didn't know what the car was doing but he was approaching it, it wasn't overtaking him. And he chose to ride on the sidewalk. Did he have a bell on his bike?
Now let's get to your problem. You haven't stated how the cop found your son if he rode away. If he merely stopped some distance away then you've got a pretty good shot at fighting the ticket. (I'm assuming your son has a driver's license.)
As for the car driver, he's in trouble too. He's looking at a major charge and a major insurance hit. That's why he's trying to sue you and not let his insurance company find out. You both want to avoid costs and legal fees which should be the starting point of negotiations. You son is not 100% guilty, but he's also not 100% innocent. You need to man up your share of the costs. And one other important point to remember: the prosecutor needs both of you to testify at each other's trial.
First of all thank you all for your help and comments! My son was with his co-student from his school who was a good citizen :) and did not leave the scene. When police came the poor guy wrote down exactly what police officer wanted from him to hear i.e. that they did not stop on the stop sign, which is by the way 150 metes away and is not related to accident circumstances and that the car driver was not yelling. But I have not seen any person who would be happy after the car accident and would not use any "F-words"... Following the above mentioned paragraph I would like to add that the car driver decided to chase my son in the car and cut him off on another driveway – potentially dangerous behavior that could have resulted in another collision and injury. Car driver exited his vehicle yelling and repeatedly using obscene language and was trying to detain my son by grabbing onto his shoulder. This aggressive behavior of the car driver scared and shocked my son even more and caused him to leave the scene of the accident for his own safety. We were trying to dispute this aggressive behavior of the car driver with the police officer but he told us that it is normal and acceptable in such situations- it is called making a Civil arrest. Also the police officer was trying to threaten us with demerit points (was pushing to pay to the car driver on spot, and offering not laying any charges), perfectly knowing that there are no demerit points for cyclists... (For more information on the fines for cycling offenses visit http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/pdf/hta.pdf) My question is why the Toronto police officer was in kahoots with the car driver and did not lay any charges against him in this situation...
First of all thank you all for your help and comments!
You haven't stated how the cop found your son if he rode away.
My son was with his co-student from his school who was a good citizen and did not leave the scene. When police came the poor guy wrote down exactly what police officer wanted from him to hear i.e. that they did not stop on the stop sign, which is by the way 150 metes away and is not related to accident circumstances and that the car driver was not yelling. But I have not seen any person who would be happy after the car accident and would not use any "F-words"...
Following the above mentioned paragraph I would like to add that the car driver decided to chase my son in the car and cut him off on another driveway – potentially dangerous behavior that could have resulted in another collision and injury. Car driver exited his vehicle yelling and repeatedly using obscene language and was trying to detain my son by grabbing onto his shoulder. This aggressive behavior of the car driver scared and shocked my son even more and caused him to leave the scene of the accident for his own safety.
We were trying to dispute this aggressive behavior of the car driver with the police officer but he told us that it is normal and acceptable in such situations- it is called making a Civil arrest.
Also the police officer was trying to threaten us with demerit points (was pushing to pay to the car driver on spot, and offering not laying any charges), perfectly knowing that there are no demerit points for cyclists...
A couple of things. There are demerit points for cyclists if they have a driver's license. The City of Toronto info you quote is confusing and the writer is making an inaccurate conclusion based on a deferral to a regulation. Second, are you now saying the other driver wasn't charged? Finally, look at it from the driver's perspective: some kid hits your car and then tries to ride off. If the kid was injured, the driver would be in serious trouble even though the kid took off. He was trying to keep him at the scene of the accident. Your son should have stayed there like his friend. His leaving was wrong. He panicked. We understand why he did it but that doesn't make it right. Every parent is going to defend their kid. OK. But the "my son didn't do anything wrong" position is preventing you from getting into the negotiations which is where you need to be.
A couple of things. There are demerit points for cyclists if they have a driver's license. The City of Toronto info you quote is confusing and the writer is making an inaccurate conclusion based on a deferral to a regulation.
Second, are you now saying the other driver wasn't charged?
Finally, look at it from the driver's perspective: some kid hits your car and then tries to ride off. If the kid was injured, the driver would be in serious trouble even though the kid took off. He was trying to keep him at the scene of the accident.
Your son should have stayed there like his friend. His leaving was wrong. He panicked. We understand why he did it but that doesn't make it right. Every parent is going to defend their kid. OK. But the "my son didn't do anything wrong" position is preventing you from getting into the negotiations which is where you need to be.
No ticketcombat, you are wrong here, read this note below: The HTA defines bicycles are defined as vehicles. As vehicle operators, cyclists are subject to most of the same HTA requirements as drivers of motor vehicles. However, there are some important differences. The application of demerit points is an important difference. According the the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, "the demerit point system only applies to certain offenses committed in a motor vehicle. However, I understand that on rare occasions demerit points are in error assigned to the driving record of an individual for an offense committed on a bicycle. When the Ministry of Transportation is notified of such occurrences, the error is immediately corrected." (1993 letter from Ontario Minister of Transportation to the Chair of the Toronto Cycling Committee) We continue to hear that cyclists are being charged with demerit points in error. If you are being given a summons by a police officer ask them to clearly indicate that the "vehicle type" is "bicycle" on the Provincial Offenses Notice. If the notice is submitted to the Ministry of Transportation without a bicycle being indicated then it could be mistakenly coded as a motor vehicle offense. I have called to MTO and they removed demerit points. Another thing is that I was not happy with one of these Traffic Tickets companies. I paid them $500 to help me in court with this case and they did not do anything... First they did not know anything about demerit points for cyclists as you do and second they have done what I could of done by myself- speak to Justice of Peace and reduce this (pleaded guilty) from "Fail to Remain" to "Fail to Report", saying to me that it is "better deal". I could not see this being better deal as both of them are Major Offences and both stay 5 years on driver record... There is a saying exist- if you want to do things properly- do it yourself!
There are demerit points for cyclists if they have a driver's license.
No ticketcombat, you are wrong here, read this note below:
The HTA defines bicycles are defined as vehicles. As vehicle operators, cyclists are subject to most of the same HTA requirements as drivers of motor vehicles. However, there are some important differences. The application of demerit points is an important difference.
According the the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, "the demerit point system only applies to certain offenses committed in a motor vehicle. However, I understand that on rare occasions demerit points are in error assigned to the driving record of an individual for an offense committed on a bicycle. When the Ministry of Transportation is notified of such occurrences, the error is immediately corrected." (1993 letter from Ontario Minister of Transportation to the Chair of the Toronto Cycling Committee)
We continue to hear that cyclists are being charged with demerit points in error. If you are being given a summons by a police officer ask them to clearly indicate that the "vehicle type" is "bicycle" on the Provincial Offenses Notice. If the notice is submitted to the Ministry of Transportation without a bicycle being indicated then it could be mistakenly coded as a motor vehicle offense.
I have called to MTO and they removed demerit points.
Another thing is that I was not happy with one of these Traffic Tickets companies. I paid them $500 to help me in court with this case and they did not do anything... First they did not know anything about demerit points for cyclists as you do and second they have done what I could of done by myself- speak to Justice of Peace and reduce this (pleaded guilty) from "Fail to Remain" to "Fail to Report", saying to me that it is "better deal". I could not see this being better deal as both of them are Major Offences and both stay 5 years on driver record...
There is a saying exist- if you want to do things properly- do it yourself!
I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. Like my friends who received tickets while on bikes and got demerit points, I too was not aware of the "bicycle" designation rule on the vehicle type box. As there is no actual citation of an act or regulation in the http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2311 blog, and they don't name the minister or provide the date or a copy of the 1993 letter; and the City of Toronto (bastion of accuracy) vaguely references section 56 of the HTA, the only thing left to assume is that this is an MTO internal policy. I also note one comment to the blog dated June 19th, 2008; So you can understand why this is a common misunderstanding if 15 years after the minister's letter, it's still happening! UPDATE 10:44 pm This bicycle demerit point issue was irking me so I called the MTO Driver Improvement Office (they're the ones you meet with before they suspend your licence) to get to the bottom of this. It turns out the City of Toronto was correct in referencing section 56 of the HTA where it states that a demerit point system is for drivers of motor vehicles while bicycles are considered vehicles. Riders are still subject to fines, but not demerit points. MTO also stated they cannot reverse demerit points. The issue has to go back to the court to issue a correction. They also indicated this error happens mostly in Toronto.
I am more than willing to admit when I am wrong. Like my friends who received tickets while on bikes and got demerit points, I too was not aware of the "bicycle" designation rule on the vehicle type box. As there is no actual citation of an act or regulation in the http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2311 blog, and they don't name the minister or provide the date or a copy of the 1993 letter; and the City of Toronto (bastion of accuracy) vaguely references section 56 of the HTA, the only thing left to assume is that this is an MTO internal policy. I also note one comment to the blog dated June 19th, 2008;
The officer clearly marked that the no motor vehicle was involved, and yet 3 demerit points have been deducted.
So you can understand why this is a common misunderstanding if 15 years after the minister's letter, it's still happening!
UPDATE 10:44 pm
This bicycle demerit point issue was irking me so I called the MTO Driver Improvement Office (they're the ones you meet with before they suspend your licence) to get to the bottom of this. It turns out the City of Toronto was correct in referencing section 56 of the HTA where it states that a demerit point system is for drivers of motor vehicles while bicycles are considered vehicles. Riders are still subject to fines, but not demerit points.
MTO also stated they cannot reverse demerit points. The issue has to go back to the court to issue a correction. They also indicated this error happens mostly in Toronto.
Last edited by ticketcombat on Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is the answer I have on this incident from allexperts.com Answer The ticket that your son received has no bearing on the facts of loss and the fact that an insurance company would attempt to use that as part of their liability decision absolutely disgusts me. Your son is not liable for any of the damages to the other driver's vehicle. The other driver should be 100% liable for any injuries that your son suffered along with any damage to the bike. Additionally, this insurer has thrown the practice of "good faith" claim handling out the window and is setting themselves up for a "bad faith" claim from their own insured as they are failing to protect him from the potential lawsuit that your son could bring. It is VERY, VERY rare that I advise someone to get an attorney before they've at least attempted to get a fair settlement offer but in this case, you need to find the meanest S.O.B. personal injury attorney that you can. Don't worry about small claims court as these idiots have likely taken things to another level. Going back to my original post, isn't it illegal for the car driver to sue me? First, his car is covered by his insurance and he must report accidents to his insurance company first and get reimbursement, second my son bicycle is covered by my home insurance and this incident was reported to them. How come we have the car insurance required by law and at the same time it looks like people can completely ignore this fact and sue each other for vehicle accidents damage in spite of the insurance? Anybody can answer this question?
This is the answer I have on this incident from allexperts.com
Answer
The ticket that your son received has no bearing on the facts of loss and the fact that an insurance company would attempt to use that as part of their liability decision absolutely disgusts me.
Your son is not liable for any of the damages to the other driver's vehicle. The other driver should be 100% liable for any injuries that your son suffered along with any damage to the bike.
Additionally, this insurer has thrown the practice of "good faith" claim handling out the window and is setting themselves up for a "bad faith" claim from their own insured as they are failing to protect him from the potential lawsuit that your son could bring.
It is VERY, VERY rare that I advise someone to get an attorney before they've at least attempted to get a fair settlement offer but in this case, you need to find the meanest S.O.B. personal injury attorney that you can.
Don't worry about small claims court as these idiots have likely taken things to another level.
Going back to my original post, isn't it illegal for the car driver to sue me? First, his car is covered by his insurance and he must report accidents to his insurance company first and get reimbursement, second my son bicycle is covered by my home insurance and this incident was reported to them. How come we have the car insurance required by law and at the same time it looks like people can completely ignore this fact and sue each other for vehicle accidents damage in spite of the insurance?
First off, I would much rather be a "pedestrian who was hit by a bike" rather than a "bycyclist who was hit by a car" (ie a dead cyclist). Having once been cut off by a BUS (realize how angry I was - these are supposed to be the safest drivers!) while I was in cycling lane, and I can tell you for sure that there is no safer spot for a cyclist other than a sidewalk. If there is an idiot on the road and I'm on my bicyle - forget the law, bylaw, and posted bilingual sign, I'm going on the sidewalk. Quite obviously in this case there was such an idiot on the road. Bad example of "pedestrian sidewalks" because there are motorized vehicles (wheelchairs) on it. Some are a lot less considerate than most cyclists. Also, what about pedestrians crossing a road? Are pedestrians confined to the limit of their block and when they need to go they must take a car? Now, the driver has a careless driving charge. Meaning his driving caused the accident. His afterwards behaviour chased away your son, thus causing his "Fail to remain at the scene". He is at fault 100% here on both counts - "preventing an injured party from remaining at the scene of an accident". What his insurance is trying to do here as admission of guilt - if you pay him, therefore you are at fault, and thus he no longer has a careless driving ticket, because you proved him not guilty by paying his damages. Dirty, dirty tactics, what is his insurance company (I want to make sure not to use them). Making a "Civil Arrest" shouldn't include bodily damages, no matter the circumstances.
Bookm wrote:
Sidewalks are for walking pedestrians only. That's why they're called pedestrian sidewalks, not bike paths. Motorists should only expect to encounter walking pedestrians when exiting a street.
First off, I would much rather be a "pedestrian who was hit by a bike" rather than a "bycyclist who was hit by a car" (ie a dead cyclist). Having once been cut off by a BUS (realize how angry I was - these are supposed to be the safest drivers!) while I was in cycling lane, and I can tell you for sure that there is no safer spot for a cyclist other than a sidewalk. If there is an idiot on the road and I'm on my bicyle - forget the law, bylaw, and posted bilingual sign, I'm going on the sidewalk. Quite obviously in this case there was such an idiot on the road. Bad example of "pedestrian sidewalks" because there are motorized vehicles (wheelchairs) on it. Some are a lot less considerate than most cyclists. Also, what about pedestrians crossing a road? Are pedestrians confined to the limit of their block and when they need to go they must take a car?
Now, the driver has a careless driving charge. Meaning his driving caused the accident. His afterwards behaviour chased away your son, thus causing his "Fail to remain at the scene". He is at fault 100% here on both counts - "preventing an injured party from remaining at the scene of an accident". What his insurance is trying to do here as admission of guilt - if you pay him, therefore you are at fault, and thus he no longer has a careless driving ticket, because you proved him not guilty by paying his damages. Dirty, dirty tactics, what is his insurance company (I want to make sure not to use them). Making a "Civil Arrest" shouldn't include bodily damages, no matter the circumstances.
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
Something about the insurance company's response does not add up. Insurance companies are supposed to assess fault and payouts based on the Insurance Act of Ontario, not the Highway Traffic Act. The fact that the driver says that his insurance company is using a "fail to remain" charge as the basis for determining that your son (or you) has to pay is very unorthodox, for lack of a better expression. If that is the case (which, truthfully, seems very unlikely), they have essentially told him that they are not going to comply with the Insurance Act. He should take up that issue with his insurance company, or report them, because they have committed an offence. Sometimes people will get in an accident but try to settle it outside of insurance, which helps keep their premiums a little lower than they would if they filed a claim. I find it hard to believe that a licensed insurance company would tell him "yeah just go use small claims court, we don't have to pay." Riiiiiiigght. The fact that he so readily complied with their advice, if that's indeed what they told him, is also strange. There is a possibility that he might be trying to avoid telling his insurance company, or maybe he just didn't want to file a claim. He does not have to file a claim for the damages, even if he reports the accident, but unless you've agreed to settle this outside of insurance, that's his problem, not yours. He can legally file a lawsuit, (he can sue for anything he wants) but whether or not it will be successful is an entirely different issue. That's where laws and statutes kick in. When it goes to discoveries he'll probably be in for a surprise. My suggestion is to counter-sue. Have you told your insurance company that you are being sued?
Something about the insurance company's response does not add up. Insurance companies are supposed to assess fault and payouts based on the Insurance Act of Ontario, not the Highway Traffic Act. The fact that the driver says that his insurance company is using a "fail to remain" charge as the basis for determining that your son (or you) has to pay is very unorthodox, for lack of a better expression. If that is the case (which, truthfully, seems very unlikely), they have essentially told him that they are not going to comply with the Insurance Act. He should take up that issue with his insurance company, or report them, because they have committed an offence.
Sometimes people will get in an accident but try to settle it outside of insurance, which helps keep their premiums a little lower than they would if they filed a claim. I find it hard to believe that a licensed insurance company would tell him "yeah just go use small claims court, we don't have to pay." Riiiiiiigght. The fact that he so readily complied with their advice, if that's indeed what they told him, is also strange. There is a possibility that he might be trying to avoid telling his insurance company, or maybe he just didn't want to file a claim.
He does not have to file a claim for the damages, even if he reports the accident, but unless you've agreed to settle this outside of insurance, that's his problem, not yours. He can legally file a lawsuit, (he can sue for anything he wants) but whether or not it will be successful is an entirely different issue. That's where laws and statutes kick in. When it goes to discoveries he'll probably be in for a surprise. My suggestion is to counter-sue. Have you told your insurance company that you are being sued?
Yes I did, they asked me to send them the plaintiff claim and they will do somthing about it, I do not know what... I know that insurance companies do their own investigation, even if police say no one is at fault that may decide who is at fault. Also I would like to mentioned that I came to plaintiff (car driver) house and was trying negotiate, but driver wife opened her mouth very widely as it was her car, plus they did not want to admit their fault at all...
Have you told your insurance company that you are being sued?
Yes I did, they asked me to send them the plaintiff claim and they will do somthing about it, I do not know what...
Insurance companies are supposed to assess fault and payouts based on the Insurance Act of Ontario, not the Highway Traffic Act.
I know that insurance companies do their own investigation, even if police say no one is at fault that may decide who is at fault.
Also I would like to mentioned that I came to plaintiff (car driver) house and was trying negotiate, but driver wife opened her mouth very widely as it was her car, plus they did not want to admit their fault at all...
Last edited by piezomot on Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If there is an idiot on the road and I'm on my bicyle - forget the law, bylaw, and posted bilingual sign, I'm going on the sidewalk. Quite obviously in this case there was such an idiot on the road... Right-rear of any car usually has a pretty significant blind spot. Cars are equipped with outside mirrors to assist with lane changes and other circumstances directly beside the vehicle. These mirrors typically do not assist in seeing what's up on the sidewalk, a good distance from the car. So how are drivers supposed to monitor cyclists scootin' around on the sidewalk. I'd be interested to know just what you feel the speed limit should be for bicycles on the sidewalk. At what bicycle speed should a motorist be expected to accept fault?
racer wrote:
Bookm wrote:
Sidewalks are for walking pedestrians only. That's why they're called pedestrian sidewalks, not bike paths. Motorists should only expect to encounter walking pedestrians when exiting a street.
If there is an idiot on the road and I'm on my bicyle - forget the law, bylaw, and posted bilingual sign, I'm going on the sidewalk. Quite obviously in this case there was such an idiot on the road...
Right-rear of any car usually has a pretty significant blind spot. Cars are equipped with outside mirrors to assist with lane changes and other circumstances directly beside the vehicle. These mirrors typically do not assist in seeing what's up on the sidewalk, a good distance from the car. So how are drivers supposed to monitor cyclists scootin' around on the sidewalk.
I'd be interested to know just what you feel the speed limit should be for bicycles on the sidewalk. At what bicycle speed should a motorist be expected to accept fault?
The part of the plaintiffs claim is that the cyclist was having a high speed and the accident accrued when cyclist was passing him when he began a right turn into his driveway... The Toronto bylaw states that riding a bicycle with tire size over 61cm (24 inches) on sidewalks is prohibited, as is riding/operating a bicycle (or roller skates, in-line skates, skateboard, coaster, toy vehicle) on a sidewalk without due care and attention and reasonable consideration for others.Many cyclists ride on the sidewalk because they are afraid of cars... As soon as the sidewalk falls under Ontario Traffic Act would be nice to know what speed is allowed to have there…
I'd be interested to know just what you feel the speed limit should be for bicycles on the sidewalk. At what bicycle speed should a motorist be expected to accept fault?
The part of the plaintiffs claim is that the cyclist was having a high speed and the accident accrued when cyclist was passing him when he began a right turn into his driveway...
The Toronto bylaw states that riding a bicycle with tire size over 61cm (24 inches) on sidewalks is prohibited, as is riding/operating a bicycle (or roller skates, in-line skates, skateboard, coaster, toy vehicle) on a sidewalk without due care and attention and reasonable consideration for others.Many cyclists ride on the sidewalk because they are afraid of cars...
As soon as the sidewalk falls under Ontario Traffic Act would be nice to know what speed is allowed to have there…
There's a good chance that your insurance company would consider itself "on the hook" for the lawsuit payout that the driver might (but probably won't) get. So chances are they'll send their legal department (normally staffed by very ruthless and nasty attorneys) or their contracted law firms to defend you. It was a smart move on your part to report this incident to your insurance provider. If the driver did not report the accident to his insurance company, they will find out about it. That will be interesting. Also, the fact that you tried to negotiate in good faith to resolve the matter might prove useful down the road.
Yes I did, they asked me to send them the plaintiff claim and they will do somthing about it, I do not know what...
There's a good chance that your insurance company would consider itself "on the hook" for the lawsuit payout that the driver might (but probably won't) get. So chances are they'll send their legal department (normally staffed by very ruthless and nasty attorneys) or their contracted law firms to defend you. It was a smart move on your part to report this incident to your insurance provider.
If the driver did not report the accident to his insurance company, they will find out about it. That will be interesting. Also, the fact that you tried to negotiate in good faith to resolve the matter might prove useful down the road.
I am generally not worried about cars that are moving away from me. It is erratic behaviour of the driver that is approaching me or being approached by me (Is that guy drunk, high, or both, or did his wife dump him for a traffic cop?) that causes me to remove myself from him. A fined cyclist is better off than a dead cyclist (Unless you are a fatalist).
Bookm wrote:
Right-rear of any car usually has a pretty significant blind spot. Cars are equipped with outside mirrors to assist with lane changes and other circumstances directly beside the vehicle. These mirrors typically do not assist in seeing what's up on the sidewalk, a good distance from the car. So how are drivers supposed to monitor cyclists scootin' around on the sidewalk.
I'd be interested to know just what you feel the speed limit should be for bicycles on the sidewalk. At what bicycle speed should a motorist be expected to accept fault?
I am generally not worried about cars that are moving away from me. It is erratic behaviour of the driver that is approaching me or being approached by me (Is that guy drunk, high, or both, or did his wife dump him for a traffic cop?) that causes me to remove myself from him. A fined cyclist is better off than a dead cyclist (Unless you are a fatalist).
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
You havent mentioned the sections or Acts you are referring too. Under s. 1(1) of the HTA, a bicycle is defined as a vehicle; not a motor vehicle. By definition, a "vehicle" includes a "motor vehicle" but a 'motor vehicle" does not include a "bicycle." Failing to remain at the scene of an accident falls s. 252 of the Criminal Code. Failing to remain under s. 252 only applies to a motor vehicle, not a bicycle. A motor vehicle as defined under the Code does not include a bicycle and the motor vehicle definition under the Code only applies to the Code; it does not appy to the HTA. Duty to Report an accidents falls under s. 199 of the HTA. Section 199 only applies to motor vehicles; not a bicycle. Again, a bicycle under the HTA is not a motor vehicle, its a vehicle. If s. 199 is the provision you are referring to when you say "Fail to Report," than your son cannot be convicted because s. 199 does not apply to your son or a bicycle. Highway Traffic Act 1. "bicycle" includes a tricycle and unicycle but does not include a motor assisted bicycle; "motor vehicle" includes an automobile, motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle unless otherwise indicated in this Act, and any other vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power, but does not include a street car, or other motor vehicles running only upon rails, or a motorized snow vehicle, traction engine, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry or road-building machine within the meaning of this Act; "vehicle" includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car; Duty to report accident 199. (1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle or street car who is directly or indirectly involved in an accident shall, if the accident results in personal injuries or in damage to property apparently exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation, report the accident forthwith to the nearest police officer and furnish him or her with the information concerning the accident as may be required by the officer under subsection (3) Criminal Code 2. "motor vehicle" "motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than muscular power, but does not include railway equipment; Failure to stop at scene of accident 252. (1) Every person commits an offence who has the care, charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident with (a) another person, (b) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or (c) in the case of a vehicle, cattle in the charge of another person, and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fails to stop the vehicle, vessel or, if possible, the aircraft, give his or her name and address and, where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance. Punishment (1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) in a case not referred to in subsection (1.2) or (1.3) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
piezomot wrote:
Another thing is that I was not happy with one of these Traffic Tickets companies. I paid them $500 to help me in court with this case and they did not do anything...
First they did not know anything about demerit points for cyclists as you do and second they have done what I could of done by myself- speak to Justice of Peace and reduce this (pleaded guilty) from "Fail to Remain" to "Fail to Report", saying to me that it is "better deal". I could not see this being better deal as both of them are Major Offences and both stay 5 years on driver record...
There is a saying exist- if you want to do things properly- do it yourself!
You havent mentioned the sections or Acts you are referring too.
Under s. 1(1) of the HTA, a bicycle is defined as a vehicle; not a motor vehicle. By definition, a "vehicle" includes a "motor vehicle" but a 'motor vehicle" does not include a "bicycle."
Failing to remain at the scene of an accident falls s. 252 of the Criminal Code. Failing to remain under s. 252 only applies to a motor vehicle, not a bicycle. A motor vehicle as defined under the Code does not include a bicycle and the motor vehicle definition under the Code only applies to the Code; it does not appy to the HTA.
Duty to Report an accidents falls under s. 199 of the HTA. Section 199 only applies to motor vehicles; not a bicycle. Again, a bicycle under the HTA is not a motor vehicle, its a vehicle.
If s. 199 is the provision you are referring to when you say "Fail to Report," than your son cannot be convicted because s. 199 does not apply to your son or a bicycle.
Highway Traffic Act
1. "bicycle" includes a tricycle and unicycle but does not include a motor assisted bicycle;
"motor vehicle" includes an automobile, motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle unless otherwise indicated in this Act, and any other vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power, but does not include a street car, or other motor vehicles running only upon rails, or a motorized snow vehicle, traction engine, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry or road-building machine within the meaning of this Act;
"vehicle" includes amotor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car;
Duty to report accident
199. (1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle or street car who is directly or indirectly involved in an accident shall, if the accident results in personal injuries or in damage to property apparently exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation, report the accident forthwith to the nearest police officer and furnish him or her with the information concerning the accident as may be required by the officer under subsection (3)
Criminal Code
2. "motor vehicle"
"motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than muscular power, but does not include railway equipment;
Failure to stop at scene of accident
252. (1) Every person commits an offence who has the care, charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident with
(a) another person,
(b) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or
(c) in the case of a vehicle, cattle in the charge of another person,
and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fails to stop the vehicle, vessel or, if possible, the aircraft, give his or her name and address and, where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance.
Punishment
(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) in a case not referred to in subsection (1.2) or (1.3) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
What I said above is incorrect. Failing to remain falls under HTA s. 200 and includes a vehicle and a vehicle includes a bicycle. However, s. 200 is an absolute liability offence and unconstitutionally contains a term of imprisonment which violates a citizen's s. 7 Charter rights. Duty of person in charge of vehicle in case of accident 200. (1) Where an accident occurs on a highway, every person in charge of a vehicle or street car that is directly or indirectly involved in the accident shall, (a) remain at or immediately return to the scene of the accident; (b) render all possible assistance; and (c) upon request, give in writing to anyone sustaining loss or injury or to any police officer or to any witness his or her name, address, drivers licence number and jurisdiction of issuance, motor vehicle liability insurance policy insurer and policy number, name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle permit number. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 200 (1); 1997, c. 12, s. 16. Penalty (2) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition the persons licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 200 (2).
What I said above is incorrect. Failing to remain falls under HTA s. 200 and includes a vehicle and a vehicle includes a bicycle. However, s. 200 is an absolute liability offence and unconstitutionally contains a term of imprisonment which violates a citizen's s. 7 Charter rights.
Duty of person in charge of vehicle in case of accident
200. (1) Where an accident occurs on a highway, every person in charge of a vehicle or street car that is directly or indirectly involved in the accident shall,
(a) remain at or immediately return to the scene of the accident;
(b) render all possible assistance; and
(c) upon request, give in writing to anyone sustaining loss or injury or to any police officer or to any witness his or her name, address, drivers licence number and jurisdiction of issuance, motor vehicle liability insurance policy insurer and policy number, name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle permit number. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 200 (1); 1997, c. 12, s. 16.
Penalty
(2) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition the persons licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 200 (2).
Thanks for your reply lawmen, but how it violates a citizen's s. 7 Charter rights? Also summarizing your reply, are you considering the fact that no charges were laid by the Toronto police officer against the car driver being a correct action? Driver was making a right turn! When driver was turning to his driveway without ensuring "that the movement can be made safely." (R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1) Ontario - Highway Traffic Act). Car driverdid not behave in a civil manner by yelling and trying to detain my son and the Toronto Police officer explained that this was perfectly reasonable, and it is known as Civil Arrest... What mechanisms we as a citizens have to fight improper police decisions other then the filing an official complain to police?
However, s. 200 is an absolute liability offence and unconstitutionally contains a term of imprisonment which violates a citizen's s. 7 Charter rights.
Thanks for your reply lawmen, but how it violates a citizen's s. 7 Charter rights?
Also summarizing your reply, are you considering the fact that no charges were laid by the Toronto police officer against the car driver being a correct action? Driver was making a right turn! When driver was turning to his driveway without ensuring "that the movement can be made safely." (R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1) Ontario - Highway Traffic Act).
Car driverdid not behave in a civil manner by yelling and trying to detain my son and the Toronto Police officer explained that this was perfectly reasonable, and it is known as Civil Arrest...
What mechanisms we as a citizens have to fight improper police decisions other then the filing an official complain to police?
If you mean by not filing a complaint to the police directly, and instead filing a complaint to an independent agency that would investigate it, this may be helpful: www.occps.ca (Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.) To explain what they are: "In Ontario, police services and police services boards are ultimately accountable to the public through the Commission." And one of their roles is: "conducting investigations and inquiries into the conduct of chiefs of police, police officers and members of police services boards..." Source: http://www.occps.ca/englishwebsite/abou ... ission.asp I don't know what the outcome will be. I don't know if the officer's actions were reasonable or not. But they'll investigate and let you know.
What mechanisms we as a citizens have to fight improper police decisions other then the filing an official complain to police?
If you mean by not filing a complaint to the police directly, and instead filing a complaint to an independent agency that would investigate it, this may be helpful:
"In Ontario, police services and police services boards are ultimately accountable to the public through the Commission." And one of their roles is: "conducting investigations and inquiries into the conduct of chiefs of police, police officers and members of police services boards..."
Fail to Remain is an absolute liability offence. An Absolute liability offence can never have a term of imprisonment attached to it. Here, the Fail to Remain has a term of imprisonment attached to the offence, thus the offence is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. A court can strike out the term of imprisonment and the remaining parts of the provision become enforceable. But, in my view, the entire provision is unconstitutional at this point. You need to argue this issue if it reaches a courtroom. Cite this case law. B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486 http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1985/1 ... 2-486.html Do not waste your time filing a compliant against the cop. Youll never win. Cops have the discretion to make decisions. Their decisions do not have to be correct.
Fail to Remain is an absolute liability offence. An Absolute liability offence can never have a term of imprisonment attached to it. Here, the Fail to Remain has a term of imprisonment attached to the offence, thus the offence is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.
A court can strike out the term of imprisonment and the remaining parts of the provision become enforceable.
But, in my view, the entire provision is unconstitutional at this point. You need to argue this issue if it reaches a courtroom.
Do not waste your time filing a compliant against the cop. Youll never win. Cops have the discretion to make decisions. Their decisions do not have to be correct.
Agreed and that is why there is court. While at scene, decisions have to be made quickly and sometimes in split seconds. It is always easier to go back and ponder the situation from the comfort of home and with all the time you want. Post a poll on this website on who should have been charged and see the results and go from there.
lawmen wrote:
Cops have the discretion to make decisions. Their decisions do not have to be correct.
Agreed and that is why there is court. While at scene, decisions have to be made quickly and sometimes in split seconds. It is always easier to go back and ponder the situation from the comfort of home and with all the time you want.
Post a poll on this website on who should have been charged and see the results and go from there.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
and did not leave the scene. When police came the poor guy wrote down exactly what police officer wanted from him to hear i.e. that they did not stop on the stop sign, which is by the way 150 metes away and is not related to accident circumstances and that the car driver was not yelling. But I have not seen any person who would be happy after the car accident and would not use any "F-words"...
