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.
Hi, I am new to the forum. I have been trying to get information off of here and www.ticketcombat.com for my case.
I was given a ticket for going 122km/h in a posted 100km/h zone at Hwy 401 east at Thickson Rd in Whitby ON on April 10th, 2009.
I find this absolutely absurd, since I was in the left most lane of the 401 approximately(within 5km/h) following the speed of traffic in my lane. The guy in…
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
On Wednesday I attended court at 1530 Markham Road, courtroom E2, in order to fight my speeding ticket. My original plan was to plead not guilty, and to watch all the people who went before me, the process, the Prosecutor and the Justice Of The Peace so I could strategize and form the best plan for my defence at trial. I had done some research online and sort of knew I wanted to defend myself,…
About 5 months ago I was driving along a two-way road approaching an intersection. The road had a left/ straight turning lane and a right turning lane. There was an 18 wheel gravel truck occupying the left lane at a red light. I pulled behind the truck intending to drive straight. After not moving for about 1 second, I check my rear view mirror, signaled and changed lanes to the right…
I am currently working for an auto parts delivery company and they contracted me to work as a courier.
As I left my base to make my first delivery which was less than 300 meters away from the shop, I had my seat belt off because i was under the impression, according to Section 106 Exception #6 subsection (c) of the highway traffic act, that I would be exempted from the seat belt law. The rule…
Got a ticket yesterday for "Insecure Load" contrary to HTA Sec 111(2). $160. I was pulling a utility trailer in which I had loaded a steel and wood cabinet. Total length of cabinet is 57.5". 14.75" (1/4 of the cabinet) was sticking out over the side of the trailer at about a 45 degree angle, the rest (3/4) was inside the trailer. The trailer has sides 24" high. I didn't have a tie-down or bungee…
I've been researching for months for defence strategy and basic trial information regarding my speeding ticket. However, the information is so conflicting that I have no confidence whatsoever that I know what I'm doing.
I didn't get this info from a friend of a friend, it came from this website, court officials, case laws, and a consultation with a traffic ticket fighting company.
So I was driving east bound pulling an empty tandem trailer on a gravel highway. Eventually I caught up to a truck pulling a fifth wheel. The speed limit was 70km/h and I don't quite remember but I'm almost 100% that the guy in front of me was driving at 60km/h. After being behind him for a few kilometers and getting two cracks in my windshield from rocks off his tires, I decided to pass him. I…
I have been driving for over 10 years without any tickets and accidents what so ever. Unfortunately my luck ran out this past Friday; when the officer pulled me over doing 80 in a 50 zone in Mississauga, Ontario. Officer was very friendly and polite not to mention nice enough to reduce the charge to 15KM.
On the speeding ticket it now says doing 65km in a 50 zone. Never having a speeding…
hi everyone im just wondering if its right for a cop to have my car impounded and give me a traffic ticket for improper plates when my car didnt leave my property, yes i knew the plates werent to my car but on private property it dont matter aslong as it dosent go onto public property. am i right with this that i shouldnt have gotten the ticket or my car impounded?????????????
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
Hi guys, I got pulled over last night and was ticketed with HTA 172, I was going 157 on a 100 on 400N and was wondering what I should do. I was using cruise control but the guy in the lane to my left was driving into my lane irresponsibly to I sped up to get ahead of him and just my luck that's when an OPP cruiser pulled up behind me flashing his lights. My court date is at the end of the month…
If anyone can answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
Friday morning I checked my mail and received a letter from the MTO stating that under section 47(1) of the HTA the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has decided to suspend my driving privilege for medical reasons. This was due to a report submitted by a physician in compliance with section 203 of the HTA. Enclosed with that letter were forms to…
Ok so looking for some advice in regards to my wife's speeding ticket 120k in 100 (I was in vehicle so witnessed most - but was resting at initial clock.)
whats the likelihood of positive outcome of an 11b (or an officer no show, which I suspect doesn't really happen as much as web/Ads would have you believe) of 8months.
Wife REALLY doesn't want to go, and of course I'm the one doing all of the…
I know I shouldn't have driving but I slept at my buddies' place and I thought I was ok to drive in the morning.. needless to say I still drove and got pulled over.
Background details:
I was pulled over in the morning last week, apparently going 120 km/hr on 90km Northbound DVP. Two cop cars tailed me for a bit, saw them in my rearview mirror while on the left lane, slowed down to…
I got two tickets on Feb 20 2011. One for red light, and the other for Stop sign. I knew I had a good chance at getting off on the red light, because the officer couldn't actually see the light facing me. He was at an opposite angle, further up the street.
I set a court date for both tickets. On April 22 I moved to a new place. I went to the Service Ontario location and renewed my licence…
Winnipeg's police officers have been told to issue more traffic tickets, in part to increase revenue.
And a union representing cops says the move could hurt their efforts to curb the city's gang violence.
Police Chief Keith McCaskill said last night he -- and he alone, without input from Mayor Sam Katz -- recently made the call to patrolling officers and to those in specialized units to step up…
I'm wondering if anyone could enlighten me on what to do about the following scenario:
I was pulled over by a YRP constable because I only had one front head light working. Upon being pulled over, I also realized my insurance card was expired by one month and my car permit was not on me at all. (It doesn't matter now but my valid insurance card was sitting at home in an envelope…
I have a wicked prosecutor in my area, he is an evil man and will lie and cheat, whatever is necessary for him to win. I got a yellow light infraction ticket and the cop was a no show. I requested the charge dismissed and it went like this:
Me: I request the charge be dismissed because the officer is not here
Prosecutor: No, we are going to adjourn the trial so the officer can attend
Accident happened at a regular intersection with turning lanes and lights. I was turning left. The light turned yellow, and the car approaching sped up to make the light. I thought he was stopping, so i made the turn. At the time of the collision the light was red.
I understand that it is my fault. I'm just wondering what my best course of action is.
alright well to get started ive developed a passion for longboarding
for those of you who dont already know a longboard is a big skateboard too heavy for tricks and stuff but boy can they ever go fast
my hobbies include going up the escarpment here in hamilton and stoney creek and riding down the roads leading to the lower part of the city. just wondering here. what would happen if i was going down…
My court date is nearing at old city hall at appeals court.
iwhats going to happen and what do i do?
do I present my certificate of offence and point out to the judge the fine was incorrect, I did not appear and am now appealing on the grounds the Justice of the peace erred and failed to quash the ticket on the basis of the certificate not being properly examined and is not complete and regular on…
.