OHTA.ca

I have searched and I know the general rule is no, barring criminal charges or tresspassing. So let me use 2 specific issues I have.

1) I have some business in some area malls after hours. Once I have pulled into the mall lot on the way to the closest door I rarely stop at stop signs unless there is a car or person nearby. (i do not carelessly speed, i do show caution, just do not fully stop) Can a police officer charge me with an offence under the HTA? Worse case senario If a collision occurs it will be 50/50 whether I stop or not right?

2) At night during the first few snowfalls I sometimes use a large lot at Ikea or scotiabank place to brush up on my winter driving skills. This is done only when NO cars or persons are nearby. I drive slowly in a zigzag and go back over my tracks increasing speed to see how well I can control. Or drive strait and put my car in a skid and try to recover it. Can I be charged with an offence under HTA? I know I am responsible if damages occur. and property owners may call police for a tresspass charge.

1) I have some business in some area malls after hours. Once I have pulled into the mall lot on the way to the closest door I rarely stop at stop signs unless there is a car or person nearby. (i do not carelessly speed, i do show caution, just do not fully stop) Can a police officer charge me with an offence under the HTA? Worse case senario If a collision occurs it will be 50/50 whether I stop or not right? -----HTA is for roads only------Parking lots are private property.....

2) At night during the first few snowfalls I sometimes use a large lot at Ikea or scotiabank place to brush up on my winter driving skills. This is done only when NO cars or persons are nearby. I drive slowly in a zigzag and go back over my tracks increasing speed to see how well I can control. Or drive strait and put my car in a skid and try to recover it. Can I be charged with an offence under HTA? I know I am responsible if damages occur. and property owners may call police for a tresspass charge.-------you could be charged criminally like you said before, but not under the HTA........

Plus insurance blame is different than HTA blame. You can be sure that if you are not stopping at a stop sign and cause a collision you may not get a ticket. But the report will reflect that you are clearly at fault. In my experience you will be blamed fully for the collisions.( this is from a personal collision I had in PVt property. Other guy did not stop and was held 100% responsible by the insurance companies.

OPScopper

Reflections wrote:1) I have some business in some area malls after hours. Once I have pulled into the mall lot on the way to the closest door I rarely stop at stop signs unless there is a car or person nearby. (i do not carelessly speed, i do show caution, just do not fully stop) Can a police officer charge me with an offence under the HTA? Worse case senario If a collision occurs it will be 50/50 whether I stop or not right? -----HTA is for roads only------Parking lots are private property.....

since I don't have any private property areas....would city bylaws not be applicable? similiar to no parking in fire route?

OPS Copper wrote:Plus insurance blame is different than HTA blame. You can be sure that if you are not stopping at a stop sign and cause a collision you may not get a ticket. But the report will reflect that you are clearly at fault. In my experience you will be blamed fully for the collisions.( this is from a personal collision I had in PVt property. Other guy did not stop and was held 100% responsible by the insurance companies.

OPScopper

this is news to me. my sister was in a parking lot and some guy backed out of a spot and hit the side of the car. He intended to pay for damages but couldn't so the insurance got involved and told my sis that all parking lot accidents are 50/50 when both vehicles are moving. If one is parked than the moving vehicle is 100%.

The best thing to do is check out the Ontario Fault Determination Rules.

They are convoluted, weird, and at times completely contradict the HTA. Couple of examples:

- You're in the right lane minding your business. Driver roars up behind you, slices around you, cuts inches in front of your bumper and plows on the brakes. You rear-end him. He gets charged with all kinds of offences under the HTA, but according to insurance you are 100% at fault.

- You are driving down the road at the speed limit and a pedestrian suddenly leaps in front of your car outside of a crosswalk. Pedestrian gets charged, but according to insurance you are 100% at fault.

Marquisse has training in the Fault Determination Rules, she'd be able to tell you more...

That is what I meant by Insurance blame. I Just could not remember what it was called.

Insurance world is weird. All I can say is what happened to me. I was in my own vehicle on Carleton Campus and guy runs a stop sign. He was blamed for collision and I paid no part of my deductible. So based on that he was at fault.

OPS copper

OPS Copper wrote:I was in my own vehicle on Carleton Campus and guy runs a stop sign.

Ah yes, driving around my alma mater... doesn't surprise me that happened. When I was at Carleton (graduated in 2003) people blew stop signs, charged at pedestrians in crosswalks, cut each other off and ripped around campus like demented kamikazes.

beleafer81 wrote:

OPS Copper wrote:Plus insurance blame is different than HTA blame. You can be sure that if you are not stopping at a stop sign and cause a collision you may not get a ticket. But the report will reflect that you are clearly at fault. In my experience you will be blamed fully for the collisions.( this is from a personal collision I had in PVt property. Other guy did not stop and was held 100% responsible by the insurance companies.

OPScopper

this is news to me. my sister was in a parking lot and some guy backed out of a spot and hit the side of the car. He intended to pay for damages but couldn't so the insurance got involved and told my sis that all parking lot accidents are 50/50 when both vehicles are moving. If one is parked than the moving vehicle is 100%.

Beleafer81,

According to s.s.7(2) of the Fault Determination Rules, your sister, being automobile "A" in this scenario, is not at fault. The fault lies 100% with automobile "B".

Racer, I finally emailed you the Fault Determination Rules that I promised you in December. Sorry for the delay - I completely forgot.

Vehicles are always at fault according to the Fault Determination Rules when a pedestrian is hit, whether or not the pedestrian was at fault. I wish there was something Joe/Jane Public could do to fight the insurance companies at this because it is utterly wrong. The HTA charge should correspond to the FSCO determination, especially in cases like this example. This is a bass ackwards system and its non-sensical

(if your common-sense is fairness based), and it is patently unfair to us. They only hold the driver responsible because a pedestrian has no insurance, imo, and therefore, no big money backing him/her up.

People in class were LOLing at me and a couple other students because we were bursting capillaries learning this stuff. It's infuriating how we have to bend over for big insurance while the government holds us down and won't even provide us with the industry equivalent of vaseline to make it hurt a little less.

Marquisse wrote:This is a bass ackwards system and its non-sensical

(if your common-sense is fairness based), and it is patently unfair to us.

I couldn't agree more.

Marquisse wrote:They only hold the driver responsible because a pedestrian has no insurance, imo, and therefore, no big money backing him/her up.

That's the big problem... seems like the Fault Determination Rules were set up to save the insurance companies the most amount of money by requiring the least amount of work... and give them an excuse to jack up rates whenever possible. One of my friends was approaching a green light, large transport truck waiting to turn left was blocking his view to the left, truck lays on the horn for no apparent reason, so he starts to slow down, and a woman steps into the crosswalk from in front of the truck. He attempted to swerve but his mirror slapped the woman at 50 km/h. She was charged with a couple of offences, he wasn't charged, but his insurance went up by $1000 a year.

Marquisse wrote:People in class were LOLing at me and a couple other students because we were bursting capillaries learning this stuff.

Well you did better than I would, I'd have blown an artery.