OHTA.ca

Hi,

I just got into a collision on a road. Both vehicles were attempting to back onto the same road (both heading west) from opposing driveways. My vehicle was backing up onto the road from the far side of the road and the other lady's vehicle was coming from the other side of the road.

The police officer came and assessed me at fault on the basis that she was already on the road and thus I didn't yield to.

My main concern right now is not the ticket but the fact that I been assessed with at fault and got dinged with a conviction. I'm under 25 at the moment so I'm concerned what this will do to my insurance.

As it stands, I believe I have sufficient evidence (based on the damage on my car and on the other person's car) to show that her car wasn't actually quite on the road. Because of the way the damage is (the direction more specifically), the only way it could have happened is if she collided with me before she was fully on the road and then slid across the back of my car. But at the time, the police officer probably missed this because the damage on my car was just paint scratched off across the entire bumper while they lady's car was kinda falling apart (rear bumper collapsed and damage to the side panels - but nothing at the door)

Also, this was an extremely busy road so I took a lot of care in making sure there's no on coming traffic, but missed the fact that she was doing the same. So i'm not sure if I can argue due diligence or something.

In any case, my main question is, is there a point arguing this in court? The ticket isn't much ($110 and 2 points) but I'm concerned about what it would do to my insurance because I'm assessed at fault. I can arrange to pay for the other party privately (other lady is very nice) so insurance company doesn't get noticed but would insurance company see the ticket and the at fault report and ding me anyways?

As well, I feel like the best I can do in court is argue that it was partially at fault since we were both not quite on the road - but my understanding is 50/50 at fault is the same as 100 at fault in the eyes of insurance companies anyways.

Any advice is much appreciated!

srl wrote:Hi,

I just got into a collision on a road. Both vehicles were attempting to back onto the same road (both heading west) from opposing driveways. My vehicle was backing up onto the road from the far side of the road and the other lady's vehicle was coming from the other side of the road.

The police officer came and assessed me at fault on the basis that she was already on the road and thus I didn't yield to.

If you're in opposing driveways and heading in the same direction, one of you can't complete the maneuver without crossing the opposite flow of traffic. If heading West, the driver in the South driveway has to yield. The driver on the North side has the right of way as they don't have to cross the opposite flow of traffic to complete their maneuver.

I'm guessing the section you're referring to is this?

Right of way at uncontrolled intersections

135. (1) This section applies where an intersection is not controlled by a stop or yield sign or a traffic control signal system. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 135 (1).

Right of way

(2) Every driver approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection that has entered it from an intersecting highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 135 (2).

Idem

(3) When two vehicles enter an intersection from intersecting highways at approximately the same time, the driver on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 135 (3).

Here it says intersection but the we're actually on private driveways - does that count as intersecting highways? And actually, the other driveway was actually a parking lot for a convenience store. How would the law work when there's what I would have thought a more applicable section (i.e. 139(1) entering from private driveway)? Also, the officer actually charged me under the wrong section (he charged me under 136(1)(b) ) so my understanding is the Justice will allow them to correct it to the right section. How would that apply then?

EDIT:

I did further reading on the highway traffic act and under section 1 it defined the following:

"highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")

"intersection" means the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines or, if none, then of the lateral boundary lines of two or more highways that join one another at an angle, whether or not one highway crosses the other; ("intersection")

So my understanding is private driveway is neither intended nor used by the general public for the passage of vehicles so it shouldnt be a highway right? Also an intersection is the connection of lateral curb lines (well there's no curb on a private driveway) or two highways.

So wouldn't that mean 135 can't apply? 135 it self states intersecting highways for which private driveways (at least from what I understand) can't be