“Car-bicycle Accident- Fail To Remain...”

racer wrote:

Bookm wrote:Sidewalks are for walking pedestrians only. That's why they're called pedestrian sidewalks, not bike paths. Motorists should only expect to encounter walking pedestrians when exiting a street.

If there is an idiot on the road and I'm on my bicyle - forget the law, bylaw, and posted bilingual sign, I'm going on the sidewalk. Quite obviously in this case there was such an idiot on the road...

Right-rear of any car usually has a pretty significant blind spot. Cars are equipped with outside mirrors to assist with lane changes and other circumstances directly beside the vehicle. These mirrors typically do not assist in seeing what's up on the sidewalk, a good distance from the car. So how are drivers supposed to monitor cyclists scootin' around on the sidewalk.

I'd be interested to know just what you feel the speed limit should be for bicycles on the sidewalk. At what bicycle speed should a motorist be expected to accept fault?

I'd be interested to know just what you feel the speed limit should be for bicycles on the sidewalk. At what bicycle speed should a motorist be expected to accept fault?

The part of the plaintiffs claim is that the cyclist was having a high speed and the accident accrued when cyclist was passing him when he began a right turn into his driveway...

The Toronto bylaw states that riding a bicycle with tire size over 61cm (24 inches) on sidewalks is prohibited, as is riding/operating a bicycle (or roller skates, in-line skates, skateboard, coaster, toy vehicle) on a sidewalk without due care and attention and reasonable consideration for others.Many cyclists ride on the sidewalk because they are afraid of cars...

As soon as the sidewalk falls under Ontario Traffic Act would be nice to know what speed is allowed to have there…

Yes I did, they asked me to send them the plaintiff claim and they will do somthing about it, I do not know what...

There's a good chance that your insurance company would consider itself "on the hook" for the lawsuit payout that the driver might (but probably won't) get. So chances are they'll send their legal department (normally staffed by very ruthless and nasty attorneys) or their contracted law firms to defend you. It was a smart move on your part to report this incident to your insurance provider.

If the driver did not report the accident to his insurance company, they will find out about it. That will be interesting. Also, the fact that you tried to negotiate in good faith to resolve the matter might prove useful down the road.

Bookm wrote:

Right-rear of any car usually has a pretty significant blind spot. Cars are equipped with outside mirrors to assist with lane changes and other circumstances directly beside the vehicle. These mirrors typically do not assist in seeing what's up on the sidewalk, a good distance from the car. So how are drivers supposed to monitor cyclists scootin' around on the sidewalk.

I'd be interested to know just what you feel the speed limit should be for bicycles on the sidewalk. At what bicycle speed should a motorist be expected to accept fault?

I am generally not worried about cars that are moving away from me. It is erratic behaviour of the driver that is approaching me or being approached by me (Is that guy drunk, high, or both, or did his wife dump him for a traffic cop?) that causes me to remove myself from him. A fined cyclist is better off than a dead cyclist (Unless you are a fatalist).

piezomot wrote:

Another thing is that I was not happy with one of these Traffic Tickets companies. I paid them $500 to help me in court with this case and they did not do anything...

First they did not know anything about demerit points for cyclists as you do and second they have done what I could of done by myself- speak to Justice of Peace and reduce this (pleaded guilty) from "Fail to Remain" to "Fail to Report", saying to me that it is "better deal". I could not see this being better deal as both of them are Major Offences and both stay 5 years on driver record...

There is a saying exist- if you want to do things properly- do it yourself!

You havent mentioned the sections or Acts you are referring too.

Under s. 1(1) of the HTA, a bicycle is defined as a vehicle; not a motor vehicle. By definition, a "vehicle" includes a "motor vehicle" but a 'motor vehicle" does not include a "bicycle."

Failing to remain at the scene of an accident falls s. 252 of the Criminal Code. Failing to remain under s. 252 only applies to a motor vehicle, not a bicycle. A motor vehicle as defined under the Code does not include a bicycle and the motor vehicle definition under the Code only applies to the Code; it does not appy to the HTA.

Duty to Report an accidents falls under s. 199 of the HTA. Section 199 only applies to motor vehicles; not a bicycle. Again, a bicycle under the HTA is not a motor vehicle, its a vehicle.

If s. 199 is the provision you are referring to when you say "Fail to Report," than your son cannot be convicted because s. 199 does not apply to your son or a bicycle.

1. "bicycle" includes a tricycle and unicycle but does not include a motor assisted bicycle;

"motor vehicle" includes an automobile, motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle unless otherwise indicated in this Act, and any other vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power, but does not include a street car, or other motor vehicles running only upon rails, or a motorized snow vehicle, traction engine, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry or road-building machine within the meaning of this Act;

"vehicle" includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car;

Duty to report accident

199. (1) Every person in charge of a motor vehicle or street car who is directly or indirectly involved in an accident shall, if the accident results in personal injuries or in damage to property apparently exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation, report the accident forthwith to the nearest police officer and furnish him or her with the information concerning the accident as may be required by the officer under subsection (3)

2. "motor vehicle"

"motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than muscular power, but does not include railway equipment;

Failure to stop at scene of accident

252. (1) Every person commits an offence who has the care, charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident with

(a) another person,

(b) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or

(c) in the case of a vehicle, cattle in the charge of another person,

and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fails to stop the vehicle, vessel or, if possible, the aircraft, give his or her name and address and, where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance.

Punishment

(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) in a case not referred to in subsection (1.2) or (1.3) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

What I said above is incorrect. Failing to remain falls under HTA s. 200 and includes a vehicle and a vehicle includes a bicycle. However, s. 200 is an absolute liability offence and unconstitutionally contains a term of imprisonment which violates a citizen's s. 7 Charter rights.

Duty of person in charge of vehicle in case of accident

200. (1) Where an accident occurs on a highway, every person in charge of a vehicle or street car that is directly or indirectly involved in the accident shall,

(a) remain at or immediately return to the scene of the accident;

(b) render all possible assistance; and

(c) upon request, give in writing to anyone sustaining loss or injury or to any police officer or to any witness his or her name, address, drivers licence number and jurisdiction of issuance, motor vehicle liability insurance policy insurer and policy number, name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle permit number. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 200 (1); 1997, c. 12, s. 16.

Penalty

(2) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition the persons licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 200 (2).

What time of day did this occur??

That could have implications on the outcome. i.e. riding at night without lights etc.

Reflections wrote:What time of day did this occur??

That could have implications on the outcome. i.e. riding at night without lights etc.

Or without reflective tape 2.5cm wide by 25cm long on the front and rear forks of the bicycle!

Reflections wrote:What time of day did this occur??

That could have implications on the outcome. i.e. riding at night without lights etc.

This was around 4 P.M. and the driver was driving BMW Z3 ROADSTER convertible has a limited blind spots view.

However, s. 200 is an absolute liability offence and unconstitutionally contains a term of imprisonment which violates a citizen's s. 7 Charter rights.

Thanks for your reply lawmen, but how it violates a citizen's s. 7 Charter rights?

Also summarizing your reply, are you considering the fact that no charges were laid by the Toronto police officer against the car driver being a correct action? Driver was making a right turn! When driver was turning to his driveway without ensuring "that the movement can be made safely." (R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1) Ontario - Highway Traffic Act).

Car driverdid not behave in a civil manner by yelling and trying to detain my son and the Toronto Police officer explained that this was perfectly reasonable, and it is known as Civil Arrest...

What mechanisms we as a citizens have to fight improper police decisions other then the filing an official complain to police?

File the complaint, they'll put it on their "list of things to do"............

Your action should be focused on the driver, not the officer.

Reflections wrote:File the complaint, they'll put it on their "list of things to do"............

Your action should be focused on the driver, not the officer.

Yes but as they have a gun does not mean that they are right all the time...

What mechanisms we as a citizens have to fight improper police decisions other then the filing an official complain to police?

If you mean by not filing a complaint to the police directly, and instead filing a complaint to an independent agency that would investigate it, this may be helpful:

(Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.)

To explain what they are:

"In Ontario, police services and police services boards are ultimately accountable to the public through the Commission." And one of their roles is: "conducting investigations and inquiries into the conduct of chiefs of police, police officers and members of police services boards..."

Source: http://www.occps.ca/englishwebsite/abou ... ission.asp

I don't know what the outcome will be. I don't know if the officer's actions were reasonable or not. But they'll investigate and let you know.

Fail to Remain is an absolute liability offence. An Absolute liability offence can never have a term of imprisonment attached to it. Here, the Fail to Remain has a term of imprisonment attached to the offence, thus the offence is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.

A court can strike out the term of imprisonment and the remaining parts of the provision become enforceable.

But, in my view, the entire provision is unconstitutional at this point. You need to argue this issue if it reaches a courtroom.

Cite this case law.

B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486

Do not waste your time filing a compliant against the cop. Youll never win. Cops have the discretion to make decisions. Their decisions do not have to be correct.

lawmen wrote: Cops have the discretion to make decisions. Their decisions do not have to be correct.

Agreed and that is why there is court. While at scene, decisions have to be made quickly and sometimes in split seconds. It is always easier to go back and ponder the situation from the comfort of home and with all the time you want.

Post a poll on this website on who should have been charged and see the results and go from there.