Pedestrian on sidewalk

Now another situation people...say you were turning off a roadway, and clipped a pedestrian who was walking on the sidewalk? Could you be charged under the HTA as you were leaving a roadway to a private property? Instead of like on this case leaving a private property onto a roadway. Thanks in advance people not to mention, the charge laid in this circumstance was careless driving.

per HTA definition the sidewalk is part of the highway, as it is part of the "lateral property lines" that the municipality owns.

Sidewalks are within the lateral property lines of the roadway which the municipality owns however the HTA doesn't define it's use very well. We all know it's illegal to drive your vehicle along a sidewalk but there's no offence for this under the HTA

The word sidewalk shows up twice in the HTA. Once to describe a crosswalk as the sidewalk intersects the roadway and another time to describe how pedestrians should walk on a highway that doesn't have sidewalks (facing traffic on the left side). Sidewalk violations are handled under city bylaws.

In my case (which was dismissed) I asked what charge should have been levied and they did mention careless but said that would be difficult to proceed with because of the speed involved (reversing at 5 kph). Careless driving is a very serious charge and you have to be doing things that are pretty reckless to warrant it.

syntst wrote:

Sidewalks are within the lateral property lines of the roadway which the municipality owns however the HTA doesn't define it's use very well. We all know it's illegal to drive your vehicle along a sidewalk but there's no offence for this under the HTA.

There may not be a charge that specifically states "Do not drive on sidewalk", but there's certainly applicable charges under HTA.

Applicable sections:

150(2) - Pass off roadway

154(1) - Fail to drive in marked lane

130 - Careless driving

Section 179 also covers off that sidewalks are for pedestrian use.

There is a by-law that specifically states "No person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a sidewalk or footpath or designated multi-use recreational trail except for the purpose of directly crossing it."

Why would the city cover something that the HTA already addresses?

In addition: "A person driving a motor vehicle across a sidewalk or footpath or designated multi-use recreational trail for the purpose of directly crossing it shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians using the sidewalk or footpath or designated multiuse recreational trail."

So if you fail to yield the right of way to a pedestrian on a sidewalk and would weren't doing anything stupid, why would you be charged with careless?

There are lots of municipal bylaws that are redundant to HTA offences. Two common examples that posters here frequently plead out to are failing to stop for a stop sign and disobeying a sign for a prohibited turn. This obviously varies from one municipality to the next.

syntst wrote:

So if you fail to yield the right of way to a pedestrian on a sidewalk and would weren't doing anything stupid, why would you be charged with careless?

You probably wouldn't be. You simply said there's no offence for driving along the sidewalk, but depending on the circumstances (i.e. you were actually driving along at a normal speed along the sidewalk versus the roadway) careless could apply.

Thanks for all the replies everyone. And to whomever created this new thread for the case I was inquiring for someone that I know who just had this happen. It was at 6 in the morning when it was still dark, the street didnt have lights in this section, and the pedestian.was wearing all dark clothing. They came to an amost stop and turned into the drive, and saw the pedestrian just as their lights swung around. Only came onto the sidewalk approx 10 inches (due to low speed 5kph and good brakes!) . First officers on scene.thought the charge should be failure to yield...but they put in a call to their senior officer who.said they better charge him with careless driving because you can't go back later and increase the charge. The officer on scene told him this and gave him the number of a guy to call to have it reduced back to what the officer thought he should be charged with (failure to yield). Was just curious if he could fight all HTA charges or just accept a failure to yield. As it stands, still a careless charge

So this spawns another question. In my situation the officer had a setup on the sidewalk, a Lidar unit of some sort (no disclosure yet) on a tripod. Is there something in the HTA or a Toronto by-law that probits establishing a stationary setup on a sidewalk? You can google map Yonge and Pleasant street view in Toronto for an example. Just so happens an officer had a similar setup when the Google Car drove by.

Moose wrote:

So this spawns another question. In my situation the officer had a setup on the sidewalk, a Lidar unit of some sort (no disclosure yet) on a tripod. Is there something in the HTA or a Toronto by-law that probits establishing a stationary setup on a sidewalk?

Nope. And FYI couldn't see anything on streetview. Can you confirm which intersection (full street name and type, i.e. ave, blvd, etc.)?

Thanks Stanton, 9 Goulding Ave. Toronto, Ontario Canada should bring up the image.

First officers on scene.thought the charge should be failure to yield......

Sounds like they were right the first time however by-law charges don't carry the fines that HTA violations do so the charges usually get trumped up. They always say that the charge isn't something they want to apply but they have to and they tell you how to fight it. There's a reason to their madness. A by-law infraction usually carries a fine of about $25 - $50. HTA $180 - ????. The officer also get time and half to attend court so there's a monetary reward for them. No one will fight a by-law fine of $50 but HTA fine with demerit points and an officers suggestions on how to fight will surely get the charge contested. They aren't giving you this information in your best interest. Your best interest would have been the correct charge in the first place.

Can't see, under the circumstances that the charge was careless?

syntst wrote:

The officer also get time and half to attend court so there's a monetary reward for them.

that is very rare to get OT. All our POA court is on our working days.

Only times I can recall having OT for POA is when

1) work schedule has permanently switched (change of platoon that work on)

2) another officer with an overlapping schedule issued the offence and I am a witness officer for the incident (which means court is scheduled on that officer's regular schedule

The Toronto Police Service was big on booking HTA Court on an officer's day off to help with frontline staffing, but I agree with Hwybear that it's pretty rare otherwise. Why would a police service/municipality want to incur overtime expenses when it can easily be avoided?