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
ok well here is my story .. I had an old megaphone from alarm system and decided since my horns on my car were rusted and were not making a loud enough sound.. i connected the alarm megaphone to the horn wires and it sounded very cool. depending on how log i hold my horn down for . due to the size of the power horn.. and mhy car being a Honda.. meaning no room under the hood i had installed it…
So I got this ticket because the lady behind me was WAY too close and I had to back up before getting hit by another car and dented her bumper.
Offense is stated as follows: Start from Stopped position - Not in Safety
Highway Traffic Act 142 (2)
First of all, I don't really know what that means and if it says that I was not in safety (which I wasn't) why am I getting a ticket? And why didn't the…
This is my first time ever getting a ticket and I am completely frustrated and don't know what to do.
On July 7th, I was driving to work, taking my usual route and it's about a 15 minute drive for me. At the first red light, I noticed I had a bit of time thanks to the countdown so I quickly reached into my bag to grab a lip balm. I noticed I had brought the wrong one so I just kept it out and…
It happened last December. I was facing north in the middle of the intersection at Donmills and McNicoll waiting to make a left turn. There was a big white van on the other side of McNicoll facing south waiting to turn left too. When the light changed to amber, I checked and the road was clear, there was no upcoming vehicle. So slowly I made the left turn. Suddenly a small car dashed up from…
First off, the most similar case and HELPFUL thread has y far come from neo333: a great read and very similar and relevant to my case and of course ticketcombat.com
I'll cole's notes this so that it can be concise and can recap my experience with disclosure, notes and failed stay request and adjourned court date. Thank you for reading and leaving your opinion.
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
Got my first ticket last Thursday and I have a couple of questions. I was driving westbound on Moore St. (west of Bayview) and made a left onto a residential street at a 4-way stop sign. It was my first time driving through that area - was driving my girlfriend to a wisdom tooth surgery.
The police were set up to catch people, as that intersection had a no left turn sign from 7-9 am (buses…
I was in a light collision with a police vehicle last November and will be having a trial by the end of the month. What happened was I was pulled over. I stopped and kept my right signal on. The cop car then tried to pull behind me when he was on my left but 2 cars pulled behind me. The cop wasn't too smart and instead of waiting for the two cars to pull away, he drove forward and boxed all the…
A friend of mine (who is from China and with no knowledge of English at all) asked me to interpret for him on court.
He got pulled over by a stealth patrol car last october, got 3 tickets (fail to show insurance card, using cell phones and fail to stop on right for emergency vehicle) , court date is next week. He told me his insurance expired for less than a month and other charges are false…
My husband was driving my car and passed a school bus with flashing lights. He did not realize this until he was past the bus. The driver honked at him but there were no cops nearby and he didn't get pulled over. I believe the driver or witnesses reported this and we got issued a ticket in the mail. The ticket is under my name as the registered owner: charged with Fail to Stop for…
I have just got a ticket (Fail to yield on through highway) and by the way it's me first ticket and this is how I got it.
Me driving in a residential neighborhood maybe 10-15 km/h approaching a stop sign completely stopped at the stop sign started moving again turning right and out of nowhere I was hit by this van. he went directly to the driver's side fender,wheel, and bumper. Since it was my…
Hi I'm new to this forum but I hope I'm bringing you all good news.
I recently wrote a book short titled ABUSE OF POWER
This book is all about how the Ontario government broke the law to enact the new street racing legislation.
To start with the denial of the right to remain innocent until proven guilty was enacted without due process under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How it wasn't done…
So i lent my car to my gf the other day and she went to drop her friend at a Go station but when she was turning left into the parking lot at the Go station a bus hits her from behind while she was turning so now my rear fender is pushed in and more scrathes and my bumper is damaged...but the cop that showed up just kept telling my gf thats its her fault cause its private property...is that true…
Hi, thanks for reading. I've read a bunch of articles online and searched the forum to try and find my answers but I'm still unsure so I'm creating a new thread.
I was following a car that was going SUPER fast down the DVP but I got pulled over. I was speeding, too; however I don't want to use the "you got the wrong guy" defence because I'll probably lose.
I left my home at 4 am to pick up my daughter from downtown Toronto. When I passed the major intersection south of my house there were two police cars in the middle of the intersection and one officer waved me through the intersection.
When I returned with my daughter at 5:30 am the police cars were still in the intersection. I slowed down as I approached the intersection but the police were no…
I will be representing my wife at her speeding trial next week. Mostly everything is pretty much run of the mill but since she wasn't speeding we will be having her take the stand. Since this opens up the opportunity for the prosecutor to cross examine, I am just wondering if anyone here knows what kind of questions we should expect from the prosecutor in order to best prepare.
When the court sends out the notice of trial, do they use the address the officer wrote on the ticket, or the actual address in the MTO database? In the case of the former, what are the implications? The reason I ask is that my wife got a ticket last week and the officer wrote the wrong city on it.
This topic discusses the same thing but with CN police; is it any different for regular offences?
Driving onto ramp entering a major highway, posted limit is 100km/h, suggested ramp limit is 40km/h - I end up colliding with the concrete barrier on the passenger side of the vehicle.
Police arrive, suspect alcohol and breathalyze me with a result of 0.00 - I am asked for a statement and cautioned, however (stupidly) I proceed to provide the details anyways.
My friends and I were heading to Kelso Beach, I had signalled and i pulled off to the shoulder as my car seemed to be making noise, but after riding over the shoulder the noise stopped, i signalled back again and merged back into traffic after making sure it was safe, the officer which was ahead of me on the shoulder a few meters away pulled me over.…
I've decided to fight a traffic ticket for stop sign violation. The offense was 12 months ago, and I've got a court date for next Tuesday. I've requested disclosure and, although a bit last minute, received it two weeks before my court date.
Upon reviewing the case materials, there isn't much of a defense I can find -based on the cop having an obstructed view, or any mistakes in the…
I will be going to trial for my red light camera offence.
I'll be arguing two issues, centered on the fact that there are two essential elements of 144(18) - a) a vehicle approaching the intersection shall stop; and b) the vehicle shall not proceed until green. Both essential elements must be contravened beyond a reasonable doubt to be an offence.
1) My ticket says I (being the owner) am "charged…
I'm a newbie, so be kind if I'm messing up. Question: is it illegal to signal oncoming traffic that they are approaching a speed trap by flashing one's lights?
I ask because I was stopped for doing that yesterday evening, but did not end up with a ticket. The officer spend 5-10 minutes n his car, then sent me on my way. I'm wondering if he changed his mind or found out it was legal.
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"...
ok well here is my story .. I had an old megaphone from alarm system and decided since my horns on my car were rusted and were not making a loud enough sound.. i connected the alarm megaphone to the horn wires and it sounded very cool. depending on how log i hold my horn down for . due to the size of the power horn.. and mhy car being a Honda.. meaning no room under the hood i had installed it…