“In Timmins The Accident Victim Gets The Ticket Too!”

I'm laughing my a$$ off at the scales of injustice in this town... This is a crazy story!

I'm cycling from home to work on Oct. 3 & get struck while traveling through my green light by a jeep turning right at his red light at the corner of Hwy101 & Brunette Road (Hollinger Park)! Unfortunately the driver didn't look right before attempting his turn & I took the damage lol.

The accident mangled my face & body & obliterated my bicycle & Im the one who gets the ticket!!!! Nothing like heaping insult to injury lol. I even advised the officer that cycling was allowed in that area (and cited the bylaw) & he wouldn't retract the ticket.

The ticket reads:

"Did commit the offence of CYCLE ON A SIDEWALK contrary to City of Timmins by-law 1983-2004 32(C)(2)(1) "

That section of the bylaw reads

(2) (1) Cycling

(a) No person shall cycle along or upon any sidewalk in the downtown

areas as described in appendix A".

(b) Only those persons 11 years of age and under are allowed to

cycle on sidewalks with the exception of the downtown areas as

described in appendix A".

(c) Cycling is allowed on sidewalks along Highway 101 East between

Bourque Lane and Crawford Street.

*****(d) Cycling is allowed on sidewalks along Highway 101 East between Spruce Street and McIntyre Road.*****" !?!?!

... this was precisely where I was?

What is wrong with this picture? I get ticketed for cycling on the sidewalk exactly where the law says I can ?

After three days, telephone calls to three 3 officers & visiting the police station twice the issuing officer retracted the ticket & revised the report to indicate that I was not at fault.

A frustrating experience, but at least the end result was what it should be - well sadly it wasn't the end result after all.

Then last night on the 21st

Well here we are, 18 days after the accident & 15 days after the officer reversed the ticket, and I get a visit from the officer (I assume it is for the revised incident report)... well lo & behold - he has issued me another ticket! (this one for $110)

This ticket reads:

"Did commit the offence of CYCLIST RIDE IN OR ALONG A CROSSWALK contrary to Highway Traffic Act of Ontario 144(29)

That section of the HTA reads

Riding in crosswalks prohibited

(29) No person shall ride a bicycle across a roadway within or along a crosswalk at an intersection or at a location other than an intersection which location is controlled by a traffic control signal system. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (29).

That looks to me like the law states that you can't ride through any intersection EXCEPT if there is a traffic light?

Let me see if I understand you...

You were riding on the sidewalk and continued straight out into the crosswalk, still riding. If this is the case, the charge seems to be applicable.

I have always believed we were supposed to walk our bikes across the intersection when in the crosswalk. I taught my kids the same thing. A drivers visibility is limited out the right side. They have to expect "walking speeds" from pedestrians when planning their right turn at intersections.

The only thing most retarded than the cop who charged you is the person who wrote up this provision. Ive read 10 times now and still dont have a clue what it really says. There are only 35 words to it, too.

Explain this to me. Youre driving straight through the intersection on a green light. A driver making a right turn from a side road at the intersection hit you as you were going straight through. Is this correct?

Were on the road or the sidewalk?

If you were on the sidewalk, is there a median strip of pavement between the sidewalk and the road?

If yes, were you riding on this strip or on the sidewalk?

Also, bear in mind that intersection for the purposes of s. 144 is defined in s. 144(1).

"intersection" includes any portion of a highway indicated by markings on the surface of the roadway as a crossing place for pedestrians; ("intersection")

If there are no markings on the surface of the highway at the intersection then it does not qualify as a intersection for the purposes of s. 144, and in particular s. 144(29). Therefore, s. 144(2) is of no force and effect and you cannot be convicted.

Crosswalk is defined in s. 1(1), but bear in mind the intersection definition in (b) does not apply to your case. This definition includes signs. The intersection definition in s. 144 that applies to you does not include signs.

"crosswalk" means,

(a) that part of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or

(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface; ("passage prot©g© pour pi©tons")

My bad...

I misinterpreted your scenario. But I still see fault on your behalf if you rode out into the crosswalk. I assume you were on the sidewalk on the left side of the street (facing oncoming traffic) so you hit the Jeeps right side when he pulled out from the side street to turn right. The driver should still only have to factor in walking pedestrians.

Bookm wrote:My bad...

I misinterpreted your scenario. But I still see fault on your behalf if you rode out into the crosswalk. I assume you were on the sidewalk on the left side of the street (facing oncoming traffic) so you hit the Jeeps right side when he pulled out from the side street to turn right. The driver should still only have to factor in walking pedestrians.

This is the case - I was on the sidewalk facing traffic & entered the intersection, then the driver of the jeep turning right only looked left & struck my bicycle in the rear tire with his driver's front corner (he t-boned me, not vise-versa). Had I been at walking/running speeds I would have been directly in front of his vehicle since he never did check the right side.

When I read the provision, it looks like it states that you cannot ride your bike into an intersection or crosswalk OTHER THAN one controlled with a traffic light though... which would exempt me in this location?

Naw... it reads:

(29) No person shall ride a bicycle across a roadway within or along a crosswalk at an intersection or at a location other than an intersection which location is controlled by a traffic control signal system. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (29).

It's covering intersection crosswalks AS WELL AS non-intersection crosswalks.

You can still try to fight this ticket. Let's face it, you have nothing to loose at this point. Other than you and the driver, there are no witnesses that you were riding along the crosswalk.

You will end up in a "voir dire" in court because I suspect you admitted to the police that you were riding along the crosswalk.

You can also ask for a lesser charge, anything to whittle this down. And I would definitely want to know if the other guy was charged as he didn't proceed safely or yield.

Bookm wrote:Naw... it reads:

Riding in crosswalks prohibited

(29) No person shall ride a bicycle across a roadway within or along a crosswalk at an intersection or at a location other than an intersection which location is controlled by a traffic control signal system. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (29).

It's covering intersection crosswalks AS WELL AS non-intersection crosswalks.

My read of this pathetic law is that you can never ride your bike across a roadway at any interesection. You must walk it across.

The provision says "across a roadway within or along a crosswalk at an intersection.

Therefore, even riding on the road "along" the side of the crosswalk is not permissible.

Crosswalk is defined in s. 1(1)

"crosswalk" means,

(a) that part of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or

(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface;

I agree, it is poorly written. I get the jist of it (cyclists are to WALK in an area designated for pedestrians) but the word "along" could clearly be used when riding along the edge of the road and crossing straight across the intersection.

I don't mean to pick on cyclists, but I had THIS guy approach me the other day and I unfairly profiled ALL cyclists for a day or two, LOL.

(clicky): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1CT6HoYcvI

I have almost wiped out 3-4 of bikers that do what you did.Joggers can be bad too.

If there is no rule then just think!

You were most likely going the wrong way and speeding on a sidewalk.

Fight the ticket!

I think you know better now.

Cheers