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!

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.

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.

jsherk wrote:

I should not of had to check that location for another vehicle that was illegally there in the first place.

It's not illegal to pass on the right.

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.

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!!

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.

MOTOR VEHICLE

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.

Section 150 is also an OR section, not an AND section

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

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