Car/Bike accident - Who is at fault?

If I understand you correctly, yes, the cyclist was at fault for either riding against traffic or riding on the sidewalk.

In part, it depends on your jurisdiction.

If he had a cross signal, how do you figure he was going the wrong direction? What suggests to you that he was coming from a sidewalk?

As the driver of the larger vehicle, you are held (in many jurisdictions) to have a larger responsibility for the safety of others on the road.

With police involvement you might both have been charged (again, variable by jurisdiction). In Ontario, you might have been charged with "turn not in safety". There is a Fault Determination Chart which is used in car/car accidents, which has some limited applicability where it is a car and some other thing (bicycle/pedestrian etc).

It is in Ontario, and I was curious about the aspect of me being partially at fault for something like "turn not in safety". I said he was going the wrong direction because he was driving, not walking, his bike through the intersection. In Ontario, I'm pretty sure the rule is that cyclists are treated like motorized vehicles and must obey the same rules as cars, and if you want to use the "pedestrian" crosswalk, you must get off and walk your bike, or at the very least stop at the intersection before proceeding, even if they have a green light. Had he been walking or at least driving at a slow speed, I would have seen him when I first pulled up at the light. When I pulled up, I looked right for pedestrians, didn't see any, looked left for oncoming traffic, waited like 5 seconds for 2 cars to pass, then starting turning right and smacked into him. He admitted he was going really fast because he was late for school. Had he been in a car or a motorcycle, he would have been 100% guilty for several traffic violations, and if cyclists are supposed to follow the same rules, then wouldn't this make him 100% guilty as well? That's why I'm note sure the "turn not in safety" would apply. If he was walking, then yes, I would be completely at fault.

that doesn't mean he was going the wrong direction.

He could be charged for having his bicycle in a pedestrian crosswalk.

Riding in pedestrian crossover prohibited

(6) No person shall ride a bicycle across a roadway within a pedestrian crossover. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (6).

However, you were turning right - and hit him - that gives you a "turn not in safety".

A car or motorcycle in a pedestrian crosswalk would have led to a different set of charges. Cyclists do not have 100% the same set of rules as the drivers of motor vehicles.

Go to Part X here

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK197

then word search on bicycle - you'll find some distinctions

Vehicles meeting bicycles

(4) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting a person travelling on a bicycle shall allow the cyclist sufficient room on the roadway to pass. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (4). (highway is a road, not a 400 series highway - whole separate set of definitions)

In some cases, a bicycle is a vehicle but not a motor vehicle or an automobile. Sometimes, it's not even a vehicle (they need to tidy their wording up).

Some rules of the road in Ontario apply specifically to motor vehicles and/or automobiles and do not apply to bicycles. It's not a 1:1 relationship. Power- assisted / motor-assisted bicyles also have some distinctive rules within the rules of the road in Ontario.

This is from a person who sadly had been involved in cars/bikes accidents from both sides over many decades and who cycle a few thousands miles a year in city traffic.

In my area it is not illegal to ride a bike on the sideway however if you do so you must follow the same rules as someone walking on the sidewalk and therefore must stop at intersections and only cross the street under the same terms as walkers would do so. At large intersection I normally dismount and walk the bike across.

Riding on the streets, you must go with the traffic, not to do so is likely to cause you to have the kind of accident you was involved in, and I had been involved in. The driver turning is not looking for fast<15 mph plus> moving in the wrong direction even someone like me who cycle almost as must as he drive.

For the most part under the conditions you stated you would be in the clear however if the cyclist was crossing the street in the same manner as a person walking would in a place a walker would have the right to cross you are at fault in my opinion in my area of the country.

Sorry, let me clarify. He was either driving on the sidewalk facing oncoming traffic (I'm pretty sure it is illegal to drive on the sidewalk in Ontario, particularly if there are biker lanes available, which there were) or he was in the biker lane or on the road driving towards oncoming traffic (which is definately illegal). As I didn't even see him coming, and it all happened so fast, I couldn't tell which. Had he been following the law, I would not have hit him. I can understand what you mean by "turn not in safety" but it's not as though I wasn't paying attention or driving recklessly. I was going very slow when I hit him and hit the brakes immediately. It could happen to anyone in my position as you don't expect someone to fly by going against the direction of traffic.

Thanks for your input Bill. The cyclist was not crossing in the same manner as a pedestrain would, since he was driving fast and not walking. I felt bad for hitting the guy, and even offered him $60 to fix his bike in case it was damaged (though it looked like he pulled it out of a junkyard). But now my girlfriend and I are paranoid when turning right at major intersections. We shouldn't have to worry about some crazy cyclist breaking the law every time we want to turn right at a red light, or even a green one for that matter.

Hmm I have no clue what the law is in any part of Canada but once more in my area, south florida, if he was crossing even riding as a person walking would do, say for example with a walk signal in a mark walk way then he clearly would have the right of way.

People do happen to used the sidewalk in a legal manner even when moving faster then a person on foot by such devices as roller skates or roller boards or bikes and even in my area you are not force to used the roadway even with a mark lane for bikes.

An example come to mind where it would not be safe to do so is when you have a large number of park cars by the bike lane the chance of getting "door" can be great and therefore I might decided that mark line or no mark line the sideway is a safer place to be.

I do not think that there is any pure black and white on this matter and you do need to be as aware as possible when driving a car.

Instead of a adult cyclist it could had been a young kid on roller skates.

In most of Canada, when you are in control of a motor vehicle, you are held to a higher standard of responsibility than a pedestrian or bicyclist. Unless you are in Newfoundland, where the pedestrian is pretty much always held at fault. Weird province in that way.

As cyclist and bike commuter, I assure you that if the gentleman in question was riding his bicycle through a crosswalk, and started out on the sidewalk (and not on the road right next to you), then he was perfectly in the wrong for doing so.

I hate bicyclists who do such stupid ****, it gives the rest of us a bad name.

Cycloptichorn

It's a "walk" signal, not a "drive" signal. The law suggests that in order to be treated as a pedestrian, you must act as a pedestrian and walk your bike accross. If you want to be treated as a cyclist, you must follow the laws of traffic and drive in the appropriate lane and in the appropriate direction. With regards to whether or not it is either illegal to drive on the sidewalk in Ontario or just frowned upon, I am not entirely sure, but regardless, you must walk your bike accross an intersection if you are using the pedestrian crossing. The main reason for that is to prevent accidents like this from happening. There is no question as to whether or not he was in the wrong, what I am curious about is whether or not I was also legally liable for hitting him.

I hope he didn't get your plate number. Your offer to pay is problematic for your insurer if he decides to pursue a claim against you.

"The Ontario Highway Traffic Act (HTA) defines the bicycle as a vehicle that belongs on the road. Riding on the road means mixing with other traffic."

HTA 140/144(29) - Crosswalks - stop for pedestrians at crosswalks and walk your bike when crossing at a crosswalk.

HTA 179 - Dismounted bicyclist - Cyclists are required to ride on the right-hand side of the road. If you are walking your bike on a highway where there are no sidewalks, you are considered a pedestrian and you should walk on the left-hand side of the road facing traffic. If it is not safe for you to cross the road to face traffic, you may walk your bike on the right-hand side of the road.

As far as your quote HTA 154(1a) is concerned, I had looked both ways (left,right, left) before turning right. He was going fast and I did not see him as he wasn't even close to me when i looked to my right. If he was driving a motorcycle on the sidewalk, would I still be at fault? Typically when people are turning right, they are concerned about pedestrians crossing and traffic from the left, not illegal traffic from the right. Though since I did hit him I guess I might be partially liable even though I did "ascertain that the movement could be done safely", I just didn't anticipate the unexpected.

He did not get my plate number, although I offered him my contact info after asking if he was alright about 50 times, which he declined. I only offered him $60 because I was in shock (first accident ever) and the only thing going through my head was "omg I just hit some dude on a bike". He didn't want to get authorities involved and was more than happy to take my $60 considering his piece of crap bike wasn't even damaged and he probably knew he was violating traffic laws which cause the accident, and minor damage to my car.

The problem is that you needed to look right again before starting that right-hand turn.

I've already pointed out that there were things the bicyclist could be charged with.

The bicyclist doing something wrong doesn't let you off the hook for also doing something wrong.

The reality is both of you could have been charged in the incident you described, and as the driver of the motor vehicle you are held to have additional responsibility for others on the road with your motor vehicle.

Be glad that the cyclist didn't want to pursue anything, and take it as a lesson not to offer funds in any future similar situation. It is considered an admission of guilt in Ontario tort cases.

You claim that it is a walk signal therefore the cyclist is in the wrong have zero foundation as far as I am aware of .

A kid on roller skates is not walking either or a person in a wheel chair is not walking either and both have a right to cross the street under a walk signal and so does a cyclist.

Yes in a busy intersection I normally dismount but that is not a requirement in south florida at least.

Hell simple logic would indicate that anyone using the sidewalk in a legal manner have a right to cross a street under a walk signal in the same manner as they was using the sidewalk.

No, it's correct. You can't ride your bike through a crosswalk, and there are excellent reasons for this.

I mean, you CAN do it, but you shouldn't expect cars to stop. I certainly would never do this.



It is here in CA. You can get ticketed for it.

Cycloptichorn

I know I should have looked right again, but it was literally 5 seconds since the last time i looked right and there were no pedestrians within view. I knew about the admission of guilt thing, I felt guilty which is why I offered it to him. He was willing to just go about his day (without a scratch) and I offered it to him. We were both at fault I suppose and luckily no one was hurt. I just feel like since he was the one breaking the law which caused the accident, someone in my position shouldn't be held responsible for not being "extra" cautious.

In Ontario, cyclists must dismount for a crosswalk, unless they are on the road and following laws of traffic. Roller skaters, skateboarders and handicapped people don't typically travel as fast as cyclists.

It is here in CA. You can get ticketed for it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well California is giving out IOU instead of paychecks so I guess they are looking for funds anywhere they can find them however in South Florida there is no fine for riding across an intersection and once more it would not made any sense to give out such fines.

If you can ride on the sidewalk, why the hell would you not be able to ride across the intersection under a walk signal and do they give out fines for people on skateboards or roller skates?

For myself under those set of conditions I would just enter the roadway before I get to a intersection from the sideway and cross the intersection under road rules before once more going to the sidewalk.

Seem very silly to me assuming you know what you are talking about.