Several ways to make claim against cyclist in at-fault accident

Eric Lai

SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Q: As cyclists aren’t licenced or insured, what happens if they’re in a collision with a car and found to be at fault? Are they charged the same as an unlicensed/uninsured car driver would be?

A: The provincial Highway Traffic Act not only covers motorists but also has rules pertaining to other road users including cyclists, pedestrians, persons riding animals, and even the person in charge of an animal-drawn or other non-motorized or toy vehicle (e.g. skateboard). None of these latter groups requires licensing or insurance to be on the roads.

As for fault, this is determined by insurance companies according to set rules. The role of police investigating a collision is to determine whether any offence has been committed and lay charges where appropriate. Whether any person is charged or convicted does not affect the fault determination.

A motorist involved in a collision where another motor vehicle driver, cyclist or other non-motorist is at-fault would recover damages from their own insurer under the “direct compensation — property damage” part of their own auto insurance policy. It would then be up to the insurer whether or not they want to attempt to recover funds from the other party.

If the motorist is determined to be at-fault, they may still opt to claim for property damage from their own insurer if they have collision coverage. However, a rate hike is likely to follow.

Pete Karageorgos, spokesperson for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, adds:

Since cyclists are not insured or licensed, if they are at-fault the motorist can claim against the cyclist’s property policy (i.e. home/tenants insurance). If the cyclist doesn’t have a property policy, then the motorist can sue the cyclist directly.

Sgt. Tim Burrows of Toronto Police Traffic Services adds:

Cyclists are not required under the HTA to be licensed nor under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act to be insured, so no charge can be laid in either regard as no offence has been committed. .

Q: My wife and I own a 1998 Honda Accord, 2.3 L, 4-cylinder, with 242,000 km, and a 1993 Honda Del Sol, 1.6 L, 4-cylinder, with 140,000 km. Both were purchased new and have been maintained as per the manufacturer’s maintenance schedules.

Comparing past Drive Clean tests, the emissions limits appear to have been lowered since 2002, but the actual results have steadily improved.

I would have expected the results to have deteriorated as the vehicles aged.

Is this normal or is it a misconception?

Is this unique to Honda or do most brands perform in a similar fashion?

A: Electrical engineer Eli Melnick of Start Auto Electric (startauto.com) in Toronto, who’s an independent expert on the technical aspects of emissions testing, replies:

Well maintained vehicles register results that are generally well below the limits. It is only when something is wrong with the on-board emissions control system that a vehicle exceeds these limits.

As for the variation in test results, exhaust emissions are highly dependent on the condition of components, such as oxygen sensors and catalytic converters. Their efficiency is extremely sensitive to operating temperature and that may explain the variance that your reader experienced. In most cases, a hotter catalytic converter is more effective at reducing tail-pipe gas readings.

Eric Lai adds:

According to Drive Clean, emissions test standards were tightened in January 2005. Additionally, the exemption for vehicles over 20 years old was phased out with 1987 being the last model-year excluded from testing. All 1988 or newer model-year vehicles will require e-tests in perpetuity to stay on the roads unless, of course, the Drive Clean program is cancelled.

You can send your non-mechanical questions to Eric Lai at wheels@thestar.ca. Include year, make, model and kilometres of autos cited, plus your name, address and telephone number. Personal replies cannot be handled due to volume.

More videos from Wheels.ca and our partners