Hey guys, I was travelling southbound and came to a stop at a red light. Was looking to make a right turn to start heading westbound. I couldn't make the turn during the red light due to traffic so I waited out for the green light. Had my signal on the entire time. When the light went green, I started to make my turn (literally foot off the break, no gas yet) and a southbound bicyclist came flying be and graced the front right of my car. He ended up falling of his bike.. Cop gave me a turn not in safety ticket. Wondering if theres any defence that would help me get out of this ticket. I HIGHLY doubt that this guy could have stopped for the red light had it not turned green. In his statement he mentioned that his attention was diverted to some pedestrians at a bus stop further up the street who had gotten in his way, and I quote "All of the sudden I was struck by a car". Shows he was biking negligently? Also have found some stuff online posted by the city of toronto that advises bicyclist to pass right turning cars on their left. Do I have a case here? I'm going to trial in two days, curious if anyone knows what lesser conviction this could be dropped to? Thanks a bunch in advance!
Hey guys,
I was travelling southbound and came to a stop at a red light. Was looking to make a right turn to start heading westbound. I couldn't make the turn during the red light due to traffic so I waited out for the green light. Had my signal on the entire time. When the light went green, I started to make my turn (literally foot off the break, no gas yet) and a southbound bicyclist came flying be and graced the front right of my car. He ended up falling of his bike.. Cop gave me a turn not in safety ticket. Wondering if theres any defence that would help me get out of this ticket. I HIGHLY doubt that this guy could have stopped for the red light had it not turned green. In his statement he mentioned that his attention was diverted to some pedestrians at a bus stop further up the street who had gotten in his way, and I quote "All of the sudden I was struck by a car". Shows he was biking negligently? Also have found some stuff online posted by the city of toronto that advises bicyclist to pass right turning cars on their left. Do I have a case here? I'm going to trial in two days, curious if anyone knows what lesser conviction this could be dropped to?
This is both an easy question and a hard question. In this scenario, you could probably interpret the HTA to charge the driver or possibly both parties. That being said, even if the other party is charged, it doesn't negate your own responsibilities. I'd be interested in seeing other opinions, however. But it was green, so your "what if" scenario is largely irrelevant. It's your responsibility to make that turn when it is safe to do so. These are recommendations for defensive and safe bike riding.
This is both an easy question and a hard question. In this scenario, you could probably interpret the HTA to charge the driver or possibly both parties. That being said, even if the other party is charged, it doesn't negate your own responsibilities. I'd be interested in seeing other opinions, however.
Hjaworsk wrote:
I HIGHLY doubt that this guy could have stopped for the red light had it not turned green.
But it was green, so your "what if" scenario is largely irrelevant.
Hjaworsk wrote:
In his statement he mentioned that his attention was diverted to some pedestrians at a bus stop further up the street who had gotten in his way, and I quote "All of the sudden I was struck by a car". Shows he was biking negligently?
It's your responsibility to make that turn when it is safe to do so.
Hjaworsk wrote:
Also have found some stuff online posted by the city of toronto that advises bicyclist to pass right turning cars on their left.
These are recommendations for defensive and safe bike riding.
Was there a seperate bike lane to your right? Was the bike in the same lane as you? If in the same lane as you and no bike lane, I would argue that the bike is considered a vehicle and therefore should not have been in the same lane as you so therefore it is totally responsible.
Was there a seperate bike lane to your right? Was the bike in the same lane as you?
If in the same lane as you and no bike lane, I would argue that the bike is considered a vehicle and therefore should not have been in the same lane as you so therefore it is totally responsible.
A bike is a vehicle, no matter where it is...what lane it is in does not make it a vehicle... The person making the turn has to make sure it can be done in safety.
A bike is a vehicle, no matter where it is...what lane it is in does not make it a vehicle...
The person making the turn has to make sure it can be done in safety.
If we change bike to car, does that still apply? If I am in the right turn lane closet to the curb, and another car comes up beside me from behind (between me and the curb) as I am turning, I would argue that my turn was in safety as I should not of had to check that location for another vehicle that was illegally there in the first place.
If we change bike to car, does that still apply?
If I am in the right turn lane closet to the curb, and another car comes up beside me from behind (between me and the curb) as I am turning, I would argue that my turn was in safety as I should not of had to check that location for another vehicle that was illegally there in the first place.
It is if there is only one lane and it can not be done safely... Passing to right of vehicle 150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and, (a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn; (b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or (c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only. And maybe these would apply as well to show that passing on the right is not allowed: Vehicles or equestrians overtaking others 148 (5) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the vehicle or equestrian overtaken, and the person overtaken is not required to leave more than one-half of the roadway free. Passing vehicle going in same direction 148 (8) No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway, (a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and (b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic. So section 148(5) and 148(8) says you can only pass on the left and section 150(1)(a) says you can only pass on the right if it is safe to do so AND the other vehicle is signalling a LEFT hand turn. In this case the op was signalling a right hand turn and therefore the other vehicle (bike) was not supposed to be passing on the right and there was no reasonable expectation to look for something that should not be there.
It is if there is only one lane and it can not be done safely...
Passing to right of vehicle
150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or
(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only.
And maybe these would apply as well to show that passing on the right is not allowed:
Vehicles or equestrians overtaking others
148 (5) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the vehicle or equestrian overtaken, and the person overtaken is not required to leave more than one-half of the roadway free.
Passing vehicle going in same direction
148 (8) No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway,
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic.
So section 148(5) and 148(8) says you can only pass on the left and section 150(1)(a) says you can only pass on the right if it is safe to do so AND the other vehicle is signalling a LEFT hand turn.
In this case the op was signalling a right hand turn and therefore the other vehicle (bike) was not supposed to be passing on the right and there was no reasonable expectation to look for something that should not be there.
He was in a bicycle lane, but wouldn't this mean that he is still unable to pass on my right as I was not making a left turn and it is not a one way street? Thank you for bringing this up!!
jsherk wrote:
It is if there is only one lane and it can not be done safely...
Passing to right of vehicle
150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or
(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only.
He was in a bicycle lane, but wouldn't this mean that he is still unable to pass on my right as I was not making a left turn and it is not a one way street? Thank you for bringing this up!!
Okay so section 150 allows only a MOTOR VEHICLE (not a bicycle) to pass on the right. Section 148 talks about VEHICLES (not motor vehicles) which means this INCLUDES a bicycle. Now all my theory was based on the fact that there was NO bicycle lane. If there WAS a bicycle lane, then none of the sections I mentioned matter, as I was looking at it from the perspective of no bike lane and the bike being in your lane. So yes you must check the bike lane before making the right turn to make sure there is no bicycle there.
Okay so section 150 allows only a MOTOR VEHICLE (not a bicycle) to pass on the right. Section 148 talks about VEHICLES (not motor vehicles) which means this INCLUDES a bicycle.
Now all my theory was based on the fact that there was NO bicycle lane.
If there WAS a bicycle lane, then none of the sections I mentioned matter, as I was looking at it from the perspective of no bike lane and the bike being in your lane. So yes you must check the bike lane before making the right turn to make sure there is no bicycle there.
This goes right back to the beginning of the thread. Turn not in safety doesn't necessarily work like that. It doesn't necessarily absolve you of other drivers mistakes. Let's pretend you were able to prove the other party made a mistake, there was no bike lane, etc. Your supposed best case scenario. It doesn't negate your own responsibility to turn in safety. Depending on how it happens, you can both be charged differently. One doesn't necessarily cancel out the other.
This goes right back to the beginning of the thread. Turn not in safety doesn't necessarily work like that. It doesn't necessarily absolve you of other drivers mistakes.
Let's pretend you were able to prove the other party made a mistake, there was no bike lane, etc. Your supposed best case scenario. It doesn't negate your own responsibility to turn in safety. Depending on how it happens, you can both be charged differently. One doesn't necessarily cancel out the other.
150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety AND, (a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;
150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety AND, (a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;
150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and, (b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction also applies so it doesn't HAVE to be a turn
150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction
also applies so it doesn't HAVE to be a turn
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
It's an unfortunate situation for the OP. What is the burden of proof for establishing safety in a turn? Is it absolute in that "you turned, there was a collision, therefore the turn was not safe", or is it the "reasonable man" test in that you would not reasonably anticipate being passed on the right by a bicycle at that point? **RANT ON: I'm all in favour of helping out bicyclists, but we have a problem in Ontario with the design of bike lanes. I suspect that municipalities are painting them without any guidance from the lawmakers. When driving a motor vehicle, to make a right hand turn I must be in the rightmost lane (ignoring dual turn lanes, etc.). Many bike lanes are painted solid white right up to the stop line. So, if the right-hand lane is designated for bikes only, I can't make a legal turn. Now, some municipalities put a broken line near the intersection, which I suppose makes it legal for me to use that lane to turn right. The problem is that because motor vehicles and bikes have the same stop line, when there are high volumes of bikes using the bike lane (think around a university for example), we have a situation where this stream of bikes prevents motor vehicles from entering the lane at all, and hence from turning right regardless of the light colour. If there were a stop line for bikes about 2 car lengths further back, then at least a couple cars could get through. That is if the cyclists actually stop correctly. Does anyone actually think these things through, or do they just send a couple of guys out with a line painter? ** RANT OFF
It's an unfortunate situation for the OP.
What is the burden of proof for establishing safety in a turn? Is it absolute in that "you turned, there was a collision, therefore the turn was not safe", or is it the "reasonable man" test in that you would not reasonably anticipate being passed on the right by a bicycle at that point?
**RANT ON:
I'm all in favour of helping out bicyclists, but we have a problem in Ontario with the design of bike lanes. I suspect that municipalities are painting them without any guidance from the lawmakers. When driving a motor vehicle, to make a right hand turn I must be in the rightmost lane (ignoring dual turn lanes, etc.). Many bike lanes are painted solid white right up to the stop line. So, if the right-hand lane is designated for bikes only, I can't make a legal turn.
Now, some municipalities put a broken line near the intersection, which I suppose makes it legal for me to use that lane to turn right. The problem is that because motor vehicles and bikes have the same stop line, when there are high volumes of bikes using the bike lane (think around a university for example), we have a situation where this stream of bikes prevents motor vehicles from entering the lane at all, and hence from turning right regardless of the light colour. If there were a stop line for bikes about 2 car lengths further back, then at least a couple cars could get through. That is if the cyclists actually stop correctly.
Does anyone actually think these things through, or do they just send a couple of guys out with a line painter?
150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and, (a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn; (b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or (c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (1). When the list ends in "or", any apply. When it ends in "and", all apply. It's the first statement (where the movement can be made in safety) plus A, B, or C. I'd agree with argyll there. This is how i've always understood it to be for bicycles (unobstructed pavement of sufficient width). However, the section specifically goes with "motor vehicle" instead of vehicle, meaning it shouldn't apply to bicycles either way (which I hadn't noticed before, to be honest). That being said, turn not in safety is a bit brutal and doesn't care about any of this anyways. 142. (1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1). If you can't move from one lane of traffic from another without anything happening, you're in trouble. Usually, you hear about this more with left turns rather than right. There are plenty of instances where a driver making a left collides with someone who unsuccessfully tries to beat a red, signals to go right but continues straight, etc. You have to make your turn assuming someone will make a mistake, otherwise you're in a hole. Hence, technically one or both parties can be charged separately and one mistake doesn't cancel out the other.
jsherk wrote:
150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety AND, (a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;
150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or
(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (1).
When the list ends in "or", any apply. When it ends in "and", all apply. It's the first statement (where the movement can be made in safety) plus A, B, or C. I'd agree with argyll there. This is how i've always understood it to be for bicycles (unobstructed pavement of sufficient width).
However, the section specifically goes with "motor vehicle" instead of vehicle, meaning it shouldn't apply to bicycles either way (which I hadn't noticed before, to be honest).
That being said, turn not in safety is a bit brutal and doesn't care about any of this anyways.
142. (1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1).
If you can't move from one lane of traffic from another without anything happening, you're in trouble. Usually, you hear about this more with left turns rather than right. There are plenty of instances where a driver making a left collides with someone who unsuccessfully tries to beat a red, signals to go right but continues straight, etc. You have to make your turn assuming someone will make a mistake, otherwise you're in a hole.
Hence, technically one or both parties can be charged separately and one mistake doesn't cancel out the other.
Not disagreeing with you, I will admit my ignorance! If you're correct, though, there seems to be a lot of misinformation out there on this topic. e.g. http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/how-ma ... nes-mean-2 https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2009/0 ... nswer.html https://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20Tor ... NALweb.pdf (2nd page at the top right) Is there a section of the HTA or its regulations that specifies road markings definitively?
screeech wrote:
Unless there is a sign saying you can't cross a solid line at a particular spot, you can.
Not disagreeing with you, I will admit my ignorance! If you're correct, though, there seems to be a lot of misinformation out there on this topic. e.g.
We all know that numerous police agencies around Ontario (and world for that matter) set up speed traps in inconspicuous locations to catch motorists who are speeding.
If you know of any speed traps that are in regular use please post them here for all to know and avoid speeding fines.
Format: Town, Location, Direction, known days of operation (if known).
I received a speeding ticket this past weekend, and although the officer was nice and gave my 6yo a coupon for a free slushy, I want to fight the ticket.
The officer wrote the offence as "95km/h in a posted E0 km/h zone" the "E" being what looks like a written backwards 3. Now I know and you can probably guess he intended to write an 8 but that is not what is there it is an incomplete 8 and…
Need some help as i was given a old version yellow ticket(Form4) with improper left turn by an officer last week, which is old version printed by 2009. Then two days later, the officer found me giving a new version ticket with color green(Form4), printed by 2012. The details on face pages for two tickets are similar, but back sides are different. My question is first yellow ticket is effective or…
I was charged of speeding, but I don't know what the radar Decatur Genesis II Select Directional VIP is? please let me know what kind device is this and if any one have the manual can you give it to please pleaseeeee.
Recently I got a ticket for disobey sign under the HTA. From where I turned on to the street, the sign was visible for less than 10 metres, during which time I was performing safety checks for upcoming turn. ( I'll post full details after I first get some advise. )
What is the best defense for this? I took some digital pictures but my camera does not do .raw photos and at that time I had not…
I was turning left from Creditview into the left lane of Argentia Road (in Missisauga), while a police cruiser driving the opposite direction turning right into the right lane of Argentia Road. As I saw the cruiser turning right into the right lane of Argentia Road, I also turned left into the left lane of Argentia Road. The officer stopped me and told me that I was wrong, I had to wait until…
So I was on my way home, going a solid 120 as usual in the fast lane. Someone decides to cut me off going less than 100. I do a quick double lane change and speed up unknowingly hitting apparently 150. After speeding for a mere 20 seconds, I am pulled over. Cop says he reduced the ticket to 49 over, I was charged $359 for that. Of course, my insurance isn't in my car... I had to take it out…
After doing quite a bit of research, I stumbled across this forum and thought it would be a good idea to get some opinions about the situation that I currently find myself in. Hopefully some of you may have experienced this in the past and can provide me with some guidance for the best course of action. Thank you in advance for all your help. I greatly appreciate it.
I was driving on a two-lane Trans-Canada route where the indicated speed limit was 90 km/h and following a car for about 15 minutes. That car was going between 70 to 80 whenever there was a curve or a hill going up ahead. Passing was either not permitted or not safe in those sections. However, whenever there was an opportunity to pass that car, the driver would increase its speed to about 115…
My elderly mother received a city bylaw ticket (Ottawa) for parking on private property. A tow trunk was at the scene to tow the vehicle, and they charged a "drop fee" to unhook the vehicle right away. The bylaw officer who issued the ticket was present and said that the ticket would get dismissed in court (as it was issued in error), and that there should be a way to apply to get the tow…
I went to Huntsville for buying a horse trailer in Thursday.
Got 1 ticket of careless driving nearby east gate of Algonquin Park. They police said he received a complaint that my pickup truck hit the road shoulder and disturbed some gravel dust.
I found a police car traced me, so I turn to a roadside motel. After I parked my vehicle, and heading to motel office, the police car arrived gently…
My trial for a speeding ticket is coming up. I have followed recommendations off ticketcombat website and have sent 3 disclosure requests (without phone number) and have received nothing. At the day of trial it will be about 10 months since the ticket was issued.
I guess the first step will be to ask the court for an adjournment during the Motions, "Your Worship, I would like to ask for an…
Last week I was driving though downtown and because of the slippery / wet conditions could not stop when the light was turning yellow to red and slid in to the intersection. I was hit by another car (near the headlamp). None of us were injured, there was significat damge to the cars. The air bags did not deploy.
I was given a ticket that reads : Red Light - fail to stop - H.T.A sect 144 (18) Fine…
a few years ago, I posted about getting a 19+over ticket and said it was a ridiculous ticket since it was down a hill and everyone drives that 10-20 over.
Everyone here claimed I was outrageous to be driving over the limit by ANY amount and I was driving wildly for doing so. Since those two years have passed, I've stuck to the speed limit...guess what happens?
About a month ago, I got a funny situation where a cop made a u-turn to stop in a very showy fashion (that scared and surprised me) because he almost hit me while doing that.
Anyhow, he claimed that he metered me while he was driving towards me so he said his car is equipped to meter opposite coming cars as he drives. I filed the ticket and I was convicted within few days - an…
My wife got a speeding ticket on a construction zone on Hwy 400 and I went to court to try to defend her.
I ordered the disclosure request and got it on the first trial.
The first trial my strategy was to say there was conflict and misunderstanding of road signs. The prosecutor told me I could not confirm that since I personally wasnt there the day of the offence, and my wife has to…
So I had a guy turn across my lane into his driveway and I hit him. I'm going to court solo so I need any information at all regarding proceedings.
I clearly saw two police officers on scene and got disclosure from only one of their black-books even though they both took notes, one from me and one from him. He got a ticket which I will explain in the next paragraph. I don't see any driving history…
So Again, I really don't know how I'm attracting attention to myself, but I am.
Saturday at 1:30 in the morning I was pulled over on the 400 for 142 in a posted 100 Zone. Honestly, I know I was speeding, but I thought maybe 110-120 (I'm trying to clean up my act.) Anyways, Pulled over, Ticketed, Explained 3 options on the back, and we departed on our way.
Hey everyone. Back last summer I got a parking ticket for being within 3m of a fire hydrant. Funny thing is, I parked (in my estimation) at least far enough away from it, deliberately. There were no markings on the pavement but I can't believe I was within 10 feet of that thing (sorry I suck at metric.)
It's only $20 but I was ticked off 'cause I don't park in front of fire hydrants and don't…
I have been charged with driving under suspension due to medical reasons, It was suspended in Mar and In apr I got a new car put it on the road and the License Breau said nothing to me to let me know it was still suspended. I have been to court 2x for this matter first time I asked for adjurnment to seek a resoultion, 2x I went I ask for another adjurnment to seek a resolution because the CA had…
