Was cyclist at fault?

Q: While riding my bicycle on the road, a car traveling in the opposite direction turned left in front of me at an intersection, causing me to collide with it.

At the hospital, police advised: "You're at fault because the law states that whenever a cyclist crosses an intersection, they have to get off their bicycle and walk. It doesn't matter if you're riding on the sidewalk or on the road."

Even though I had the right of way on a green light, the officer insists that a cyclist is considered a pedestrian and not a vehicle.

I feel I've been wronged and a careless driver escaped responsibility.

Jim Yeh, Markham

A: York Police Sgt. Laurie Perks replies:

In regard to this case, section 144(29) of the Highway Traffic Act prohibits riding a bicycle "across a roadway within or along a crosswalk at an intersection."

The officer believed that the cyclist was riding "along" the edge of the crosswalk, not necessarily in it, but even if he was on the right edge of the roadway along the crosswalk, the law requires the cyclist to dismount and walk across the intersection.

A charge of "Turn – not in safety" under Section 142(1) HTA would have been considered against the motorist.

As a result of the investigation and due to the fact that there were no independent witnesses, it could be said that both parties were at fault. However, the officer was unable to identify who made the error that led to the collision and, therefore, used his discretion in not charging either party.

Toronto Cyclists' Union spokesperson Yvonne Bambrick replies:

This seems to be a misinterpretation of the spirit and letter of the law.

The cyclist appears to have been acting in a reasonable manner and proceeding through an intersection as any vehicle would.

Cyclists are courteous and often stay to the right of the roadway to allow faster motorized vehicles to pass.

Regardless of the cyclist's position while proceeding through the active portion of the intersection, there's no excuse for the driver's carelessness in hitting him.

Ontario transportation ministry spokesperson Bob Nichols replies:

The following should not be taken as a legal opinion.

It is our understanding that Section 144(29) of the HTA was written to require cyclists to dismount and become pedestrians when using the marked crosswalk area of a signalized intersection.

The law aims to help keep pedestrians safe while also protecting cyclists, as drivers using the intersection wouldn't expect to see, or react to, bicycles ridden in crosswalks.

To ensure cyclists can't circumvent the rule by simply riding just outside of the crosswalk lines, riding either in or "along" a crosswalk is prohibited.

Changing path and moving to the right to ride within or along the crosswalk would be a strong indicator that Section 144(29) HTA was being violated by the cyclist.

Eric Lai adds:

A bicycle is considered a "vehicle" under Section 1(1) HTA. If he's anywhere (left, right or centre) within his proper lane as required by Section 154 HTA, then I believe the crosswalk is a non-issue.

Basically, it hinges on this: Did he remain within the through-traffic lane (no violation in my opinion), or did he move outside of that lane and ride alongside the crosswalk?

Got a beef about something? Write to Eric Lai at wheels@thestar.ca.

Letters may be edited. Letter volume prevents personal replies.

More videos from Wheels.ca and our partners