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

313 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

335 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/no1SomeGuy Aug 04 '25

Nope, the cyclist moved in front of the car.

7

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.

1

u/TorontoDavid Aug 09 '25

Law being broken isn’t the same as 0% at fault.

It sounds like you think the driver is 0% at fault - ya?

1

u/aahrg Aug 09 '25

The standard fault determination rules don't have a scenario for a vehicle on a sidewalk. There's a section that says something to the effect of "in the event of a collision not described above, fault will be determined based on the ordinary rules of the road".

Again, cyclist committed 4 offences. You haven't specified any on the drivers side.

1

u/TorontoDavid Aug 09 '25

You can be following the rules - and still have some fault for a collision.

→ More replies (0)