s. 136(1)(b) HTA - visual obstruction

Post Reply
Mochilli
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined:

s. 136(1)(b) HTA - visual obstruction

Unread post by Mochilli on

I have a charge of Stop at through highway: 136. (1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,
(b) shall yield the right of way to traffic in the intersection or approaching the intersection on another highway so closely that to proceed would constitute an immediate hazard and, having so yielded the right of way, may proceed.

I was at a Stop Sign wanting to proceed straight, I looked both ways but there was very tall grass to my left (approx. 8-10 feet) so I could not see down the road. As I began to creep up to look, I got T-Boned in my front left quarter panel. The painted white line to stop was a good 4-6 feet before the tall grasses ended so it would be impossible to stop at the white line and proceed through without having to nudge up in order to properly see down the left side.

The house on the corner of the intersection said that accidents happen often at the Stop Sign. The person who got hit also told his insurance adjuster that he believes I could not see because of the tall grass.

Do I have a defence here? :?:
Attachments
20150908_123307.jpg
20150908_123307.jpg (99.13 KiB) Viewed 779 times
20150906_132105-min (1).jpg
20150906_132105-min (1).jpg (105.76 KiB) Viewed 779 times
Top

ynotp
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 548
Joined:
Location: Ontario

Posting Awards

Unread post by ynotp on

No defense, you did not yield the ROW after having stopped, the accident is irrefutable proof of this.
Top

Mochilli
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined:

Unread post by Mochilli on

But you can't give the ROW if you have an obstruction blocking your view of the oncoming vehicle...
Top

screeech
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 324
Joined:

Unread post by screeech on

You still have a legal obligation to make sure any turn, or movement, can be done in safety...
Top

bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1151
Joined:

Posting Awards

Moderator

Unread post by bend on

Agreed with the others. Blocked view is not a defense. If you can't see without pulling your vehicle into traffic, the next step would be to turn around and take a different route. Although, realistically I don't expect many to do this. However, now you're stuck at fault for the accident.
Top

Mochilli
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined:

Unread post by Mochilli on

Does anyone know if this is an absolute or strict liability offence?

I find it concerning that one would be expected to turn around because there is a visual obstruction blocking a proper view of the street. IMO, it's the cities fault for not having a 4-way stop if there is a visual obstruction. That's the exact reason on some streets you cannot take a right hand turn on a Red, because it is too hard to see...
Top

argyll
VIP
VIP
Posts: 888
Joined:

Posting Awards

Unread post by argyll on

I'm not convinced the visual obstruction is that bad. If you look at the picture unless the hood of the vehicle is25 feet long, there is still quite a lot of room to inch up to the edge of the through highway which would give more visibility.




Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
Top

Post Reply

Return to “Failing to yield the right-of-way”