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.
So heres my case, does it have any validity? Im argueing that the officer did not have a justified view of where and if my car stopped or not, which it did.
This is the officers view of the stop sign i "disobeyed"
Another possible viewpoint, just so i can say that he cant see regardless
As you can see he cannot see the line where i must stop
As close are possible (which he wasnt) to the intersection,…
I need some help to settle a "Right of Way" argument. I know this question has probably been asked a thousand times before, but after doing a search, I was unable to find a posting on the forum, or the specific section in the OHTA relating to it.
Scenario:
Two cars approach an intersection where the east and westbound directions are controlled by stop signs, and the north and southbound…
I was pulled over for doing 123 in an 80 zone on highway 7 near Peterborough. The officer reduced it to 109 in an 80. It was HIGHLY unlikely that I was going 109, let alone 123, so for the merit of it I am taking this to court. Court case mid January.
Please could you help me to decipher the officer's notes. Are there any errors in the notes or on the ticket that you can see?
Ive already done searches, read the act as best i can but still haven't read a complete answer. Where in the HTA does it state that the front license plate must be attached to the front bumper? I have it on the passenger sun visor (if ppl remember the old temp permits that taped to the pass side of windshield) i figured that this spot would be the same. However now they have got rid of…
Was pulled over earlier today for going 95km/h in posted 60km/h, 2nd offense (same cop that pulled me over the first time >.<) ticket of $265. going down dougall toward cabana where it goes from the 80 to 60 zone (yes was over slightly coming in and kept speed)
Just wondering what the best way to handle this? (location: windsor ontario)
I am a bartender and last saturday night while I was working someone backed into my car (2000 Acura Integra) in the prking lot. One of the cooks in the kitchen ran to tell me my car alarm is going off. Immediately I ran outside to discover my driver side mirror smashed on the ground and my driver door dented. There was nobody around to claim responsibility. I had already begun to suspect one…
Scenario regarding speeding charge - if a charge is not reduced at all at roadside, i.e. the charge, for example is "speeding 75 km/h in a 60 km/h zone contrary to s. 128," should that not mean the prosecution needs to prove that you are guilty of what you are being charged with, and not, simply, of speeding generally? I understand that if they prove a charge of even 61 km/h in a 60 km/h, they…
In a nutshell, in York Region, ran a stale yellow, cop was on a 407 off ramp and tickets me for red light. 2 week old pink slip, I forgot I put the new behind the expired one so I got a ticket for that as well.
Had the first court date adjourned because I did not receive disclosure. I used the Ticketcombat template and faxed it over, they told me I never left a phone number. No surprise there, I…
Was stopped in an OPP speed trap on eastbound QEW near Hamilton at 1:30 AM last week (Apr 25th). Officer said I was doing 131 km/h based on radar gun but I thought I was around 120 km/h (I let off the gas and looked at my speedo when I saw the 2 cars on the shoulder). It was a dark stretch and it was not busy but there were a few other cars on the highway. I asked to see the reading but they said…
1) Discovery info includes 3 pages of Genesis radar manual. Officer's notes show he used "Atlantic Laser" to measure speed. Didn't show model # (only s/n). The Genesis was used earlier on in the day, but not for my case. Can I grill him on this or is it simply a clerk's error in sending me the wrong manual?
I got a ticket for an expired licence sticker. The next day I went to the Ministry office to renew my sticker. I thought that I HAD to pay any outstanding tickets BEFORE I was eligible to renew my sticker. The lady at the desk informed me that I had an outstanding balance and 407 bill that I had a to pay and I told her that I was aware of that. I thought everything was cleared.
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…
I was just wondering if there was any text in the HTA that suggests that when driving on a highway with three lanes going in each direction, drivers should generally always be in the rightmost lane unless they are passing.
At first, I thought 154(b) was what I was looking for, but now I'm not so sure?
"Officials in West Vancouver, Canada apparently aren't satisfied with the driver-slowing properties of traditional speed bumps. Yesterday, the town unveiled a new way to entice motorists to ease off the gas pedal in the vicinity of the ÃÂcole Pauline Johnson Elementary School: A 2-D image of a child playing, creating the illusion that…
Does anybody know how you can check the status of your Demerit Points and how many you have collected over the last two years?
I just received a ticket as I was travelling through Barrie and am debating whether or not to fight it. My decision will be based on whether or not an infraction I received a year ago came with Demerit Points.
I have a question I would like to ask concerning turning right on a red light.
I was approaching on the right turn only lane to the traffic light which turned from amber to red. As soon as the red light came on, there were advance green left turn arrow for the intersection I was for the cars that were traveling right to left and left to right of me. Since there was a lot of traffic from where I…
So I got pulled over for speeding and following too close, on HWY 11 north of Barrie. The airplane caught me! I will fight this as I have fought ALL my tickets and won EVERY ONE of them (one per year... man I need to drive slower). So any thoughts out there on how to fight this one? Does the Crown have to bring the 2 officers in the plane, plus the one in the cruises to court? If 1 in 3 doesn't…
I am new to this forum and before making this post I did some digging and was unable to find anything on this method of officer note taking.
A little back ground of my case:
charged with 25km/h over the posted limit.
After numerous disclosure requests, finally received a detailed disclosure including several pages of the lidar manual and typed officer notes describing the events of my…
My wife was just pulled over for running a yellow light and instead was ticketed for an expired drivers licence. The license expired on her birthdate 4 months ago and she didn;t recieve a renewal. $325 !!!!!!
Hope someone can help. She was ticketed under HTA 32 (1) with the offense shown as
"Drive Motor Vehicle no license"
Can anyone tell me if this is worth the effort to get a reduction in the…
So I got pulled over for supposedly for running a stop sign. The problem is that I did a complete stop, waited a split second and started again. And yes I did stop behind the white line.
He took my information and went back to his car to write me up a ticket, came back and gave me my fine and explained to me the process. He gave me a reduced fine (65$ and ne points).
Someone has an accident in a car worth very little on highway 401 but the car is not drivable (but not in terrible shape), there is a police report filed right away in which no other cars were involved, however the car did strike a guardrail. Is it possible to handle this without involving insurance? Or is a forgone conclusion insurance will be notified by the police?
I made a minor mistake on my disclosure request - I put a "Request Date" of September 10, 2014 instead of 2015. The rest of the form is correct including offense date, fax date, trial date.
Will this affect my disclosure? Do I need to clear it up?
Also, I noticed the Ticket Combat disclosure form has a lot more information than what was posted in on this site. Is it OK to send a second…
