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.
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
