Cyclists need to obey the law
- Thread starter lawyerman
- Start date
Simply being close to you is not enough for you to establish that there is any sort of threat. For example if they were cycling along at 5kmph even if they hit you, it isn't serious enough for you to justify assaulting them.tboy said:
You have demonstrated a very limited understanding of the law on this thread, and the standard you have to meet before you can as a civilian can use physical force against another person is VERY high.
The standard is not met if they might simply accidentally bump into you. There has to be a REAL risk of grievous bodily harm to someone. Getting bumped into by a bike travelling 5kmph doesn't count unless they are INTENTIONALLY trying to hit you.
Honestly I think you are extremely clueless.
That's not true. If a bike hits a pedestrian the cyclist is likely to suffer the greater injury.tboy said:
The cyclist is going to fall from a greater height, and absorb 100% of their inertia when they hit the ground. The pedestrian is going to be knocked over from a lower height, and is only going to absorb a fraction of the inertia. The cyclist is also more likely to fall head first suffer a head or neck injury, potentially a fatal one. The pedestrian is most likely to fall backwards or suffer some sort of leg or arm injyry.
Obviously it depends who gets hit where, but all other things being equal, it's worse for the cyclist.
Trust me, if you are ever involved in an incident where a cyclist is seriously hurt and it turns out that you intentionally pushed them off their bike you are actually going to spend some time in jail. The judge won't let you off with a warning, you'll be made an example of.
You think you are "preventing" an accident but the reality is you are turning a situation with a SMALL chance of someone getting injured into one where it's almost a certainty that someone will get hurt.
Moreover, cycling on the sidewalk is not illegal. It is contrary to a city bylaw, so you can receive a ticket for it, but it is not in any way criminal nor is it even a violation of th HTA.
So you are talking about inflicting grievous bodily harm on someone because you saw them violating a city bylaw... and if the wheels on their bike are small enough it is not even a bylaw violation.
At that point the basis of your assault is that you thought what they were doing was a danger to someone. The judge is obviously going to ask you who you think you are to make that determination, and whether you feel you have a right to assault anyone doing anything that might potentially be dangerous to someone. He'll say that to you during the sentencing portion of your trial, just before he sends you away.
You really will get jail time for that. Really.
You have a distorted view of HTA. All your comments so far indicate that either you have your own interpretation of the intent of the HTA laws or you are trying to be belligerent.fuji said:
The intent of the law is clear. We are talking about rules, rights and responsabilities as clearly pointed out by "Red" in his reply to this thread. You are nitpicking about applications which are specific to the nature of cars or bicycles. This does not have anything to do with rights and responsabilities of cyclists, which is the intention of this thread.
A bicycle is a vehicle under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. As a cyclist, you have the same rights and responsibilities as other road users, and must obey all traffic laws. Plain and simple.
Your comments have nothing to do with driving rules and responsabilities.
You do not need a license to ride a bike
This has nothing to do whith driving rules and obligations.
-- Bikes do not require the same sort sof lights as cars.
Bicycles have to have lights if you are riding after dusk. Daylight running lights are only required on new cars. Cars that were made before that law was passed are not required to have lights on during the daytime.
-- There are different requirements around brakes
Why? because bicycles have only 2 wheels? What about motorcycles? Are you going to say that motorcycles are not vehicles. After all, they only have 2 wheels, and do not require 4 brakes!
-- Cars are allowed on highways but bikes are not Bicycles are allowed on highways. The only exception is the 400 series, which makes sense. One would have to be totaly insane to do so.
-- Bikes are allowed on sidewalks but cars are not (depending on wheel size of the bike)
Only small wheels bicycles, which means children bicycles. The HTA is intented for adults bicycles.
-- Cyclists have to wear helmets but drivers do not
Adults do not have to wear helmets by law. Only under 18 have to.
-- There are special rules relating to bicycles and pedestrian crosswalks
Bicycles have to obey the same rules as other road users. They must stop for pedestrians. The HTA is quite clear on that point.
-- There are special rules governing how cars must pass bicycles, different from rules for other vehicles
No difference. Only pass when it is safe to do so.
You cannot change the fact that HTA is quite clear. Bicycles are classified as vehicles, and you better get used to it.
That just proved you're totally full of crap and have NO idea what you're talking about.fuji said:
How on EARTH can you say that someone being hit by an object moving at ANY speed made of steel and weighing in at over 100 lbs will NOT cause injury to a person worse than the object itself?
The worst that will happen is the rider will get road rash, but if you drive a steel object at 5 kph into a person broken bones and lacerations and sometimes a penetration will occur.
You my friend are FUBAR......
BS, the impact that the pedestrian receives is likely either the front tire, handlebar or pedal, all of which are small areas of contact. This means that the total impact is applied to a small area. Further injury from falling and/or contact with other parts of the cyclist may also occur.fuji said:
While it is certainly possible that the cyclist can sustain significant injury, it is most likely the pedestrian will also sustain injuries of at least a similar level.
fuji said:
You are picking nits here. When the majority of people are talking about something being illegal, they are not separating bylaw infractions from the HTA or other such documents. "No overnight parking" is a common by-law, yet most people would refer to cars in violation to that bylaw as being "parked illegally".
For awhile there I thought you had some good points in this argument, but it has become all to apparent IMO that you feel that a cyclist should be able to do what they want, where they want and the heck with anyone else.
Well you are taking what he is saying out of content. Buddy Tboy is going on about being a vigilante and attacking people on bicycle and making a "citizen arrest". Making a "citizen arrest" or justifying attacking someone on a bike over a city bylaw is nonsense.Moraff said:
Sorry, like Fuji you are malinformed, I am not attacking anyone, I am defending myself. Totally different screnario and if you had half a brain, you'd realize that. I have repeatedly said: that if someone is close enough to me to body check them then they are way too close for comfort.hunter001 said:
As for a citizen's arrest I have specifically been in discussion with the police on this matter and was told (verbatim) that I can "use physical force to subdue and detain someone. Now that doesn't mean you can break their legs, but you can push them over and put them in an arm lock or headlock to prevent their escape..." That is EXACTLY what I was told.
The thing you both are too ignorant to realize is that if I am close enough to someone to knock them off their bike, the danger to me is imminent. In such a case (if it went to court) the judge would obviously rule in the favour of someone who wasn't breaking any laws and rule against the one who was: in this situation it would be the bicycle rider (since it is against the law for someone to ride a bicycle on city sidewalks with a wheel dia. over 24").
I equate this to seeing someone (a child perhaps) walking out into traffic and you rush out and grab them and pull them back onto the sidewalk. You would not and cannot be found guilty of assault if no assault took place.
I think you all fail to remember the number one rule in the HTA: the PEDESTRIAN HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY ALWAYS! This especially applies when they are ON THE FRICKEN SIDEWALK.....
HUnter: how would YOU feel if your daughter was run over by an adult on a bicycle while she was walking to school, WHILE SHE WAS ON THE SIDEWALK? I mean hell, you were pissed that her bike got ruined while she was on the road! I bet you'd be singing a different tune then........
Actually you wouldn't hear about my adventures in court because it wouldn't ever get that far. In fact, it wouldn't even get as far as a ticket.......so I wouldn't hold your breath.....Questor said:
I would love to see the police respond when you tell them that you can cross the DVP and expect cars to stop for you. Pedestrians have rules too.tboy said:
Bikes and the roads
I get the feeling when I bike that most of the rules were written to protect drivers - not really with pedestrians or bikes in mind. And as the Auto sector is one of the largest exports of Ontario I can kind of understand why cars are protected.
These bicyclists are infringing on the rights of others by cutting them off etc. But there are so many economic externalities that are not taken account of by automobiles.
For example - why is one person allowed to take up so much public space with a big piece of metal? Why is there not a tax or limit on the size of vehicles? SUVs are monstrosities that should have a space tax. Why does no one want a house next to a busy road? Because cars are really nasty things that are given a whole bunch of rights because they keep the economy ticking away in an incredibly wasteful way. Less than .25% of the petrol put into a car actual moves the driver!
Why when I get hit by a car is not assault? Why are roads so small that a car (SUV) and a bike can not go side by side? Why do I have to risk life and limb when I bike next to parked cars?
In Europe and Japan bikes and bicyclists are give a lot of respect by people and urban planners. In Toronto bikers are treated like a disenfranchised minority - and they act the part as well.
I get the feeling when I bike that most of the rules were written to protect drivers - not really with pedestrians or bikes in mind. And as the Auto sector is one of the largest exports of Ontario I can kind of understand why cars are protected.
These bicyclists are infringing on the rights of others by cutting them off etc. But there are so many economic externalities that are not taken account of by automobiles.
For example - why is one person allowed to take up so much public space with a big piece of metal? Why is there not a tax or limit on the size of vehicles? SUVs are monstrosities that should have a space tax. Why does no one want a house next to a busy road? Because cars are really nasty things that are given a whole bunch of rights because they keep the economy ticking away in an incredibly wasteful way. Less than .25% of the petrol put into a car actual moves the driver!
Why when I get hit by a car is not assault? Why are roads so small that a car (SUV) and a bike can not go side by side? Why do I have to risk life and limb when I bike next to parked cars?
In Europe and Japan bikes and bicyclists are give a lot of respect by people and urban planners. In Toronto bikers are treated like a disenfranchised minority - and they act the part as well.
i was a cycle messenger for 4 years of university and a few years after and still am an avid cyclist ...... i have been known to blow a light or two in my day ....... but most and i do mean most cyclist do not obey the rules of the road and think they should not have too.
I still cycle in the city as much as possible ..... most drivers i run into give way more then cyclists obey the rules .
You want to get respect ..... you need to earn it, not demand it because you are on a bike.
I still cycle in the city as much as possible ..... most drivers i run into give way more then cyclists obey the rules .
You want to get respect ..... you need to earn it, not demand it because you are on a bike.
Well if your classed as vehicle then you better buy an insurance policy to protect me when you damage my vehicle or me. Why do i need to carry insurance to cover you on the roads. What road taxes do you cyclist pay. You all should be made to buy a small insurance policy if you want to ride on the roads. You spend thousands on bike and equipment, but yet the government lets bike ride around on the backs of insurance paying motorist.raydeon said:
If I was the emperor, and I should be, I would make it mandatory for anyone over 18 who rides a bike on the road to purchase a $75.00 dollar government insurance policy to cover them for the damage or accident they cause
Yeah... that is the answer... cause insurance companies work so well in the public interest. In North America, adult cyclists tend to have higher incomes and pay more in taxes than average.STASH said:
All the negative attitude to cyclists never ceases to amaze me. It is one less car on the road blocking your view. It is someone trying to be fit and use less of your tax dollars for health care. Sure there are asshole cyclists. How many asshole drivers are there? Every driver I have seen breaks the law by speeding, rolling through stop signs, etc etc. The difference between an asshole cyclist and and asshole car driver is the car driver has an astonishingly greater chance of killing someone!
Save some of your indignation for the drunk drivers on the road who have killed cyclist friends of mine (drunk at 9am on a Saturday morning). Save it for the drivers who *intentiionally* kill cyclists and get a slap on the wrist. If you want to kill someone, use a car because vehicular homicide is treated very lightly by the courts...but much better to bitch about a cyclist on the sidewalk.
Someone being close enough to you to body check them does not mean they are a threat to you. If you don't like how close they are, step back.tboy said:
A cyclist passing close by you is not necessarily ANY kind of threat to you. There may be circumstances where they are a threat, but in most cases, they would not be a threat to you. It depends on how fast they are going, whether they've made eye contact with you, etc.
In fact for you to body check them you have to have been alert to their presence well in advance. That means that you easily could have taken less drastic steps to ensure your safety.
The law allows you to defend yourself when necessary, it does not allow you to proactively attack people when there were non-violent remedies available to you.
You will find yourself in jail if you try this.
You have repeatedly demonstrated gross ignorance when it comes to the law, and put yourself forth as a vigilante who is going to enforce BYLAWS with violent assault.
No judge is going to let you off with a warning.
As for citizen's arrest you have missed the point that there are strict limits on what sorts of situations you are even allowed to try that in, and someone riding close to you on a bicycle does not cut it, nor does someone riding on a sidewalk cut it.
In fact it is doubtful that most traffic violations even cut it--there would have to be some sort of crime involved before you'd be entitled to try citizen's arrest. You need to have witnessed some sort of criminal act.
Moreover citizens' arrest ONLY authorizes you to use force to prevent someone from LEAVING the scene. You can't go out and proactively assault someone and call it citizen's arrest. You can NEVER proactively assualt someone under the law--you can only use force to prevent someone from leaving (citizen's arrest) or to defend yourself where NO OTHER non-violent solution existed. In any case you are only entitled to use the MINIMUM force necessary to defend yourself or prevent them from leaving.
Given that you could simply have stepped back, body checking someone off their bike is plainly NOT the minimum force you needed to defend yourself.
You broke the law by assaulting them, and in fact you broke a criminal law, while they merely violated either the HTA or a city bylaw depending on where they were riding.
A real life judge would split this into two separate issues. One, a city bylaw infraction, two a grievous assault causing bodily harm. It's quite likely that both would wind up being found guilty--the cyclist would be made to pay $50 or whatever the fine is, while you would go to jail.
I think you are forgetting that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone else is violating the law does not mean that you can commit criminal assault.
By the way, the HTA does not apply on sidewalks. There is no such thing as a "right of way" on a sidewalk.
