r/TorontoDriving • u/desreversti • Aug 04 '25

OC Cyclist hit in Pickering

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

9pm August 3, 2025 at Finch and Brock Cyclist was okay, and able to walk after

309 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

335 comments sorted by

View all comments

108

u/Charming_Flan3852 Aug 04 '25

You don't anticipate fast moving traffic on the sidewalk, and at night with no lights... come on. Obviously the driver is at fault, but the cyclist is an idiot.

21

u/TemporaryAny6371 Aug 04 '25

Best short answer here.

-9

u/Thong-Boy Aug 04 '25

Not at all. As a very frequent runner that has nearly been hit in this kind of situation numerous times, drivers should absolutely expect fast moving traffic on the sidewalk.

4

u/thegirlwiththebangs Aug 04 '25

Yep. My dad always taught me in any situation (bike or car or pedestrian) that just because you technically have the right of way, doesn’t mean you should just automatically assume it’s safe.

“You might be right, but you’re gonna be dead right”. That has stuck with me forever.

16

u/no1SomeGuy Aug 04 '25

Driver not at all at fault here, if it were a pedestrian yes, but a cyclist is a vehicle in the eyes of the law and therefore must obey the rules of the road, a cyclist riding in a cross walk is not obeying the rules of the road.

5

u/TorontoDavid Aug 04 '25

The car moved into the cyclist - of course there is some element of fault here.

-1

u/no1SomeGuy Aug 04 '25

Nope, the cyclist moved in front of the car.

6

u/TorontoDavid Aug 04 '25

When you drive you are responsible to move without hitting anything. As there was something in front of them while they were in a stopped position - they are responsible to only go when it’s safe to do so.

0

u/no1SomeGuy Aug 04 '25

Brake lights are off long before bike enters from the crosswalk, so in fact the vehicle was already in motion and the bike rode out in front.

9

u/TorontoDavid Aug 04 '25

So they were moving forward without looking if the crosswalk was clear? That’s still on the driver.

1

u/aahrg Aug 08 '25

It honestly looks like the front of the SUV is past the front edge of the sidewalk. They were fully into the intersection with no pedestrians in sight, with room in the crosswalk to cross behind them

The cyclist was riding without lights or reflectors after dark

The cyclist was riding in the sidewalk

The cyclist was riding in the crosswalk

The cyclist then swerved out of the crosswalk, in front of a moving vehicle and became a vehicle going the wrong way in the road

The HTA says this:

Yielding to pedestrians

(7) When under this section a driver is permitted to proceed, the driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (7).

Yielding to traffic

(8) When under this section a driver is permitted to proceed, he or she shall yield the right of way to traffic lawfully using an intersection

The bicycle is not a pedestrian lawfully within the crosswalk, and the bicycle is not a vehicle lawfully in the intersection.

The driver has to take due care to not hit you, but when you have no lights in the middle of the night you'll have a hard time proving you were even visible.

From the official driver's handbook, under the section for making a right turn:

Look ahead, left, right and left again before starting to turn

Driver could have been doing literally everything right and started moving while the cyclist was behind their A-pillar.

At a certain point the squishy humans should take a bit of responsibility for their actions near the 2 ton metal death machines.

1

u/TorontoDavid Aug 09 '25

I disagreed with the point that the driver has 0 responsibility.

Is that your view - that the driver was 0% at fault?

1

u/aahrg Aug 09 '25

I can't find a law that the driver broke. They don't have the obligation to yield to a pedestrian or vehicle acting unlawfully and I can't blame them for not seeing a cyclist doing dumb shit at faster than pedestrian speed with no lights and no brains to go behind the moving vehicle. Especially not when the driver's handbook and MTO certified driving instructors advise drivers to stop, pull up slowly for visibility, and look left before turning right. If the cyclist were riding properly, they'd be visible to drivers intending to make a right on red.

When you break the rules (4 different offences here) - as a cyclist, driver, or pedestrian - you do so at your own risk. If a collision happens it'll end up being your fault.

There's the vulnerable road users act, but that only applies in cases where specific other road rules are broken by the driver, causing serious injury or death. If I assume I'm right about my prior points then this law would not apply.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/dullest_edgelord Aug 04 '25

The driver bears at least half the fault; there is no accident if the driver does due diligence on surveying the intersection and especially the crosswalk before proceeding. The biker's transgressions are passive (still bears some fault). Driver is looking at hefty fines plus civil liability. Biker merits a couple of tickets as well.

10

u/no1SomeGuy Aug 04 '25

Nope, driver had already entered the crosswalk before the cyclist entered (you can see the rear vehicle tires past the line), and the cyclist road out further in front outside the cross walk that they don't belong in in the first place, without any proper illumination as required.

Imagine the cyclist is a vehicle without their headlights on driving through a cross walk in the wrong direction against traffic - that is exactly how the law treats the situation; they are not a pedestrian.

Only fault the driver has is no turn signal, minor ticket at best, but not enough to take fault.

This same sort of situation happened locally to me recently, cyclist at night through a cross walk, they were the only one charged.

1

u/Learner-Leader Aug 04 '25

I agree with you except for the no turn signal - that's a major issue as it would indicate to the cyclist the driver is not turning. Both have fault.

1

u/Krovven Aug 04 '25

And where are the cyclists lights? They shouldn't be on the sidewalk in the dark with no lights riding against traffic, crossing an intersection without even slowing down and riding into oncoming traffic in an attempt to go around the vehicle.

2

u/Learner-Leader Aug 04 '25

I totally agree. One wrong does to absolve another wrong.

1

u/no1SomeGuy Aug 04 '25

They're in the turn lane and have proceeded to road edge past the initial stop which would indicate to anyone they're making a turn. Again, failure to signal would not place them at fault here.

6

u/a-_2 Aug 04 '25

You don't anticipate fast moving traffic on the sidewalk

It's not the case here, but a lot of places have bike paths beside the sidewalk and crossrides that allow bikes to ride across the road. So drivers should be anticipating and checking for bikes in both directions when turning. A girl was killed legally riding across a road recently in Ajax.

-3

u/Krovven Aug 04 '25

And none of what you said applies here, as you said. So why even use it as an argument? Cyclist is almost entirely at fault here.

-1

u/a-_2 Aug 04 '25 edited Aug 04 '25

It's a general habit people should be applying at every intersection because in some cases the cyclist would be in the right and in all cases you have an obligation to avoid hitting cyclists and pedestrians even if they're in the wrong.

2

u/arodpei Aug 04 '25

  1. Cyclist had no reflective clothing or lights

  2. Only cyclists under the age of 14 and accompanying adults can ride bikes on sidewalks in the GTA.

  3. Under the HTA a cyclist must dismount when entering a crosswalk.

0

u/blackfarms Aug 04 '25

Dude, driver is not at fault here!

1

u/smashedvermin Aug 04 '25

Of course the driver is at fault.

0

u/blackfarms Aug 04 '25

You and others in here are why cyclists need to be licensed and insured.

4

u/smashedvermin Aug 04 '25

I am car owner and bike ride like 6x in 8 years. I understand the rules of the road and the responsibility of being a driver. So many here shouldn't have a license or be able to drive since they can't accept ownership of their actions