Need advice on "Pass on Right - Not in safety" Offence

[coyo]

You were following the taxi too closely, you admitted such and the cops said so too. snip... Going into the right lane with parked cars in it was wrong, it's still splitting a lane whether they are moving or not.

The cops CAN'T say he was following too closely unless they have a witness that can say that (and if that's the case, the witness may have an entirely different viewpoint to offer that the OP hasn't / won't say... unless of course the cop witnessed the incident and then again, there may be another viewpoint we're not at luxury to know.

Secondly, as mentioned several times here, if the car is parked, you CAN occupy that lane as well so long as there is sufficient room. The other "turn out to the right" points made above are backwards to this situation and of no merit here.

 

[awyala]

Tonight after dinner while riding 2 up on Bloor St by Bathurst a taxi driver slows down his car and stops for no apparent reason. While the taxi was slowing down and about to stop I passed him on the right to avoid a rear end collision. While pulling off that maneuver a parked car opened their door without looking hit my bike which sent my passenger off the bike and hitting the floor. Thankfully we're both okay with minor scrapes and muscle soreness. Police were called after the accident and I've been charged with a Pass on Right - Not in Safety offence for $110. The officers are saying that I'm at fault for this accident since I was not suppose to pass on the right where their were parked cars.

I'm not really sure what I should do with the ticket if I should just pay off the $110 or call a paralegal and ask them to help me fight. I just checked HTA and this offence renders a 3 point demerit points. Do you guys have any idea on how it will affect my and my brothers' insurance? (The insurance policy is under my brother's name)

Thank you for any inputs.

See my references to the HTA above, but the keey points you raised I have highlighted. It really doesn't matter why you passed the taxi, you are fully within your rights to do so as long as you had sufficient width for your vehicle and you properly ascertained it was safe. If however you state that you did so as an "emergency" manouver you could be at fault for not driving according to conditions or following too closely. This will hurt your defense when you try to claim you assessed the situation and found there to be sufficient room and the manouver you pulled was in safety. All that assessing will not be believed to be done while pulling an "emergency" manouver. So you don't need to bring that point up in your defense. You stated the taxi slowed then stopped. This to me does not indicate an emergency manouver was necessary, but simply that you opted to pass. I cannot vouche for the safety of the situation or the width available to you, or your skills, but passing to the right is ALLOWED. The cop however, and referring to you other point, shows up AFTER THE FACT and in my opinion improperly assess the scene! I highly doubt the taxi stayed put, so how could the officer determine the width available to you at the time. I am assuming this here, but more than likely the taxi pulled over to the side so as not to block 2 lanes of traffic. If however the taxi did not do so, and the cop saw the exact width between the cars, he may ascertain you pass was not in safety. This point you will have to dispute with the cop in court.

As far as the door prize goes, if you were determined to make the manouver not in safety, then the door is a moot point. While if your manouver was safe, than the parked car is at fault.

I would question why the officer found the opening of the door to have been made in safety being as he did not witness the accident. Did he rely on witnesses?

Request a trial, and request disclosure. Chances are the cop will not provide disclosure and not show up. The cop's notes are probably riddled with mistakes and poor due dilliegence that a rookie paralegal could murder. Fight this ticket cause insurance will screw you!

 

[awyala]

The cops CAN'T say he was following too closely unless they have a witness that can say that (and if that's the case, the witness may have an entirely different viewpoint to offer that the OP hasn't / won't say... unless of course the cop witnessed the incident and then again, there may be another viewpoint we're not at luxury to know.

Secondly, as mentioned several times here, if the car is parked, you CAN occupy that lane as well so long as there is sufficient room. The other "turn out to the right" points made above are backwards to this situation and of no merit here.

Turning out the right is not "backwards" because those are precisely the clauses that allow passing in the same lane of a slow or stopped vehicle! The parked car is to be parked as close to the curb as possible to allow passing! Which means there should be available space to pass! Unless you can find me another clause in the HTA that allows passing parked cars in their lane (explicitly) then it is not a "backwards" reference.

 

[awyala]

There has been a whole thread posted by OpenGambit - read this thread in it's entirety.

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...ate-of-the-law-in-Ontario-a-look-at-R-v-Bunda

If I read it correctly, filtering is considered ILLEGAL - if you ride in the lane of a parked car, it is considered illegal and will get a ticket for it and as mentioned above. You definitely won the door prize, I don't know if you can get away in suing the driver who opened the door but that may lose/lose situation for you and will just have to bite the bullet and hope the officer doesn't show.

Once again, take all this with your legal advisor who will guide you correctly.

This is wrong for so many reasons.

 

[coyo]

Turning out the right is not "backwards" because those are precisely the clauses that allow passing in the same lane of a slow or stopped vehicle! The parked car is to be parked as close to the curb as possible to allow passing! Which means there should be available space to pass! Unless you can find me another clause in the HTA that allows passing parked cars in their lane (explicitly) then it is not a "backwards" reference.

Turning out to the right is the requirement of a vehicle being overtaken. In this case the OP was passing to the right of a stopped vehicle in the left lane and the OP says he changed into another lane.

 

[awyala]

Turning out to the right is the requirement of a vehicle being overtaken. In this case the OP was passing to the right of a stopped vehicle in the left lane.

Care then to reference the section of the HTA which states how to pass a parked car? Short of that, the only other reference is to vehicles slower than the passing vehicle. I suppose then a parked vehicle doesn't have to park close to the curb, and a faster vehicle cannot pass it?

Please reference the section of the HTA that deals with passing parked cars specifically and explicitly.

PS, the door prize doesn't reach into the left lane! He was hit with the door because he was in the right lane, while passing the car (which was in the left lane). He then finds himself in a situation where is is a faster moving vehicle sharing a lane with a slower / stopped vehicle (which is obliged to pull out to the curb to make room).

 

[coyo]

Care then to reference the section of the HTA which states how to pass a parked car? Short of that, the only other reference is to vehicles slower than the passing vehicle. I suppose then a parked vehicle doesn't have to park close to the curb, and a faster vehicle cannot pass it?

Please reference the section of the HTA that deals with passing parked cars specifically and explicitly.

PS, the door prize doesn't reach into the left lane! He was hit with the door because he was in the right lane, while passing the car (which was in the left lane). He then finds himself in a situation where is is a faster moving vehicle sharing a lane with a slower / stopped vehicle (which is obliged to pull out to the curb to make room).

148(2)

Fail to turn out to right when overtaken

Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the overtaking vehicle or equestrian to pass.

It explicitly states that each vehicle is travelling and then gives direction to the operator being overtaken. It makes no mention of stopped or parked vehicles. I'm away from home so not able to reference he parked element but I'm sure someone will before I get a chance to.

 

[skinnydragon]

When the taxi slowed down and stopped I changed lanes and passed the taxi then the parked car opened the door and hit my passenger. The operator of the parked car completely didn't look outside of her car or the mirror. If she did then this wouldn't have occurred. There was more than sufficient room for me to pass the taxi and the parked car.

I was going well below the speed limit when I the parked car opened the door; that is why my passenger is fine right now. I was going 30-40kmph.

The taxi left the scene way before the cops and ambulance arrived. I plan on fighting this ticket for I don't believe I did anything wrong.

See my references to the HTA above, but the keey points you raised I have highlighted. It really doesn't matter why you passed the taxi, you are fully within your rights to do so as long as you had sufficient width for your vehicle and you properly ascertained it was safe. If however you state that you did so as an "emergency" manouver you could be at fault for not driving according to conditions or following too closely. This will hurt your defense when you try to claim you assessed the situation and found there to be sufficient room and the manouver you pulled was in safety. All that assessing will not be believed to be done while pulling an "emergency" manouver. So you don't need to bring that point up in your defense. You stated the taxi slowed then stopped. This to me does not indicate an emergency manouver was necessary, but simply that you opted to pass. I cannot vouche for the safety of the situation or the width available to you, or your skills, but passing to the right is ALLOWED. The cop however, and referring to you other point, shows up AFTER THE FACT and in my opinion improperly assess the scene! I highly doubt the taxi stayed put, so how could the officer determine the width available to you at the time. I am assuming this here, but more than likely the taxi pulled over to the side so as not to block 2 lanes of traffic. If however the taxi did not do so, and the cop saw the exact width between the cars, he may ascertain you pass was not in safety. This point you will have to dispute with the cop in court.

As far as the door prize goes, if you were determined to make the manouver not in safety, then the door is a moot point. While if your manouver was safe, than the parked car is at fault.

I would question why the officer found the opening of the door to have been made in safety being as he did not witness the accident. Did he rely on witnesses?

Request a trial, and request disclosure. Chances are the cop will not provide disclosure and not show up. The cop's notes are probably riddled with mistakes and poor due dilliegence that a rookie paralegal could murder. Fight this ticket cause insurance will screw you!

 

[markopas]

Read it, it appears that thread is about passing moving cars/cars not pulled over? That does not apply in OP's case, as he was riding in the lane along side PARKED/pulled over cars.

Maybe it is illegal, but the dozens of cops that I have passed doing it on Danforth/Bloor/Dundas have never pulled me over for it or said anything to me at a red light. Also your insurance should cover you for hitting an uninsured driver.

I only referred to that thread because that is what it seemed like thats where this was going.

I ride down Danforth a lot and in this case, there is nothing wrong with riding down the street beside parked cars in this case because there is so much space for the driver to of the parked vehicle to open their door without worrying about the safety of the people around them. Now, if you are one of those riders who love to ride down the centre lane.

 

[Aslan]

If it were me I would say I passed the taxi to it's right to avoid stopping in a live lane and getting rear-ended by someone paying even less attention to the road ahead than the taxi was to the road behind. The taxi was required to signal his intention and should have gotten a ticket for failing to do so, the OP was the only vehicle who didn't deserve any tickets.

Not only do cops ignore cars, bikes, and motorcycles passing on the right while sharing with parked cars, they do it themselves. I watched a cruiser pass multiple cars on eastbound Danforth today while I was going west. Those cars where not slowing down, signaling to turn left or on fire, they where just slow, and the cop, like many of us do, passed them because he could.

Bogus, rookie ticket, should get thrown out without a trial. In my opinion of the facts as presented, of course. I'm not a lawyer, actual mileage may vary, batteries not included.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The taxi was in the left lane and I passed it on the right lane which had parked cars. The person in the parked car had a suspended licence prior to the accident. The police considered me lane splitting/filtering because I was riding in a lane that was already operated by another vehicle.

Except that there was no other vehicle being 'operated' in the other lane. It was parked and awyala has posted the applicable sections. If it was only one lane then you would be in trouble. Because you were in the second lane what you did was perfectly legal and the person getting out of the parked vehicle has a duty to make sure that it is safe to open the door, before doing so. I'm rather surprised that the officer would charge you, rather than getting the two-fer with the suspended operator of the parked car.

If you don't feel comfortable defending yourself in court, and most don't, then I recommend getting a paralegal as others have suggested.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Turning out the right is not "backwards" because those are precisely the clauses that allow passing in the same lane of a slow or stopped vehicle! The parked car is to be parked as close to the curb as possible to allow passing! Which means there should be available space to pass! Unless you can find me another clause in the HTA that allows passing parked cars in their lane (explicitly) then it is not a "backwards" reference.

The clauses regarding an overtaken vehicle turning out to the right aren't germane to this incident as the other vehicle was parked, not slow moving nor stopped pending a maneuver. The OP was operating a vehicle in a lane where he had sufficient space to do so in safety, barring the failure of the parked vehicle's occupant to insure that he could open his door in safety.

 

[awyala]

The clauses regarding an overtaken vehicle turning out to the right aren't germane to this incident as the other vehicle was parked, not slow moving nor stopped pending a maneuver. The OP was operating a vehicle in a lane where he had sufficient space to do so in safety, barring the failure of the parked vehicle's occupant to insure that he could open his door in safety.

Do you know of any specific HTA clause that addresses passing parked cars in the same lane? Other than the clauses I cited I can find no reference to passing parked cars in the same lane. Though it is not explicitly illegal, I am only left with extrapolating its legality from inference to passing slow vehicles and / or bicycles and horses.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Do you know of any specific HTA clause that addresses passing parked cars in the same lane? Other than the clauses I cited I can find no reference to passing parked cars in the same lane. Though it is not explicitly illegal, I am only left with extrapolating its legality from inference to passing slow vehicles and / or bicycles and horses.

It's rather that there is no specific law against passing inactive (parked) vehicles and that the law regarding the opening of doors supports the practise.

 

[Griffin]

Except that there was no other vehicle being 'operated' in the other lane. It was parked and awyala has posted the applicable sections. If it was only one lane then you would be in trouble. Because you were in the second lane what you did was perfectly legal and the person getting out of the parked vehicle has a duty to make sure that it is safe to open the door, before doing so. I'm rather surprised that the officer would charge you, rather than getting the two-fer with the suspended operator of the parked car.

If you don't feel comfortable defending yourself in court, and most don't, then I recommend getting a paralegal as others have suggested.

Once again Rob has succinctly summed this situation up. Now let's return to pages of argument based on other people's screwed up views of what is and what is not legal.

In this case, if as described by the OP, the cop screwed up, charged the wrong guy and didn't charge the person at fault, the parked car driver.