|
|
|
Rolling stop... on a bicycle
- Thread starter daught
- Start date
Tough one to fight if you were indeed busted for it.
The HTA applies to bikes as well....so, yeah. I guess the police are cracking down on bikes now.
FWIW, it's a minor charge and almost certainly won't affect your insurance unless you already have (or get, in the next 3 years) a bunch of other charges.
Demerit points also only apply to MOTOR vehicles, which does not cover bicycles which are just considered "vehicles", so there will be no points. See section 56 of the HTA.
If it were me I'd be going to first appearance/early resolution with the prosecutor and discuss it though. It's doubtful the charge will go away, but they are usually very willing to drop the dollar amount if you please guilty then and there, and you can also bring up the bicycle part of the situation and make absolutely positively sure there will be no points applied to your licence.
In the end points don't make any difference so far as insurance either, but zero balance is always preferable.
The HTA applies to bikes as well....so, yeah. I guess the police are cracking down on bikes now.
FWIW, it's a minor charge and almost certainly won't affect your insurance unless you already have (or get, in the next 3 years) a bunch of other charges.
Demerit points also only apply to MOTOR vehicles, which does not cover bicycles which are just considered "vehicles", so there will be no points. See section 56 of the HTA.
If it were me I'd be going to first appearance/early resolution with the prosecutor and discuss it though. It's doubtful the charge will go away, but they are usually very willing to drop the dollar amount if you please guilty then and there, and you can also bring up the bicycle part of the situation and make absolutely positively sure there will be no points applied to your licence.
In the end points don't make any difference so far as insurance either, but zero balance is always preferable.
daught
Well-known member
Actually I don't believe I am guilty. I was not on the road, I was on a recreational trail. My sign says to slow down and watch for turning traffic. Cars have a sign that there is a bicycle crossing at that intersection.
On that trail bicycle lights have a sign that state it's a bicycle light. The stop all way does not say anything about bikes.
Cop even said he is there because of complaints that no one stops. Obviously that's because of poor signs.
Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
On that trail bicycle lights have a sign that state it's a bicycle light. The stop all way does not say anything about bikes.
Cop even said he is there because of complaints that no one stops. Obviously that's because of poor signs.
Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
Actually I don't believe I am guilty. I was not on the road, I was on a recreational trail. My sign says to slow down and watch for turning traffic. Cars have a sign that there is a bicycle crossing at that intersection.
On that trail bicycle lights have a sign that state it's a bicycle light. The stop all way does not say anything about bikes.
Cop even said he is there because of complaints that no one stops. Obviously that's because of poor signs.
Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
It's been a while since I was down there. The last time I was there, the bike path was on the north side of the street (and I ran the stop sign daily as there was no cross traffic to cause problems).
I would take some pictures from further back to show the car stop sign as well. It looks like you should beat the ticket by arguing that the stop sign on the right side of the street was for cars and the slow sign on the left applies to bicycles.
I don't see a "trail", I see the road with bicycle lines (to which the full HTA applies), and a sidewalk which by law you're not supposed to ride on.
I also see a solid white line on the road which is suggestive of the fact that there was a stop sign there.
Actually, I just checked Google Street view - there IS a stop sign there which also applies to the bike lanes. The "watch for turning vehicles" sign doesn't override the stop sign and could arguably be for pedestrians.
The bike lane itself also appears to have a huge blue portion at the intersection with the words "STOP" painted clearly on it. Not visible in your photos, very clear in streetview.
You could try to fight it based on the signs, sure, but if someone takes 30 seconds to check streetview like I just did your chances of beating it in court are slim to none IMHO.
I also see a solid white line on the road which is suggestive of the fact that there was a stop sign there.
Actually, I just checked Google Street view - there IS a stop sign there which also applies to the bike lanes. The "watch for turning vehicles" sign doesn't override the stop sign and could arguably be for pedestrians.
The bike lane itself also appears to have a huge blue portion at the intersection with the words "STOP" painted clearly on it. Not visible in your photos, very clear in streetview.
You could try to fight it based on the signs, sure, but if someone takes 30 seconds to check streetview like I just did your chances of beating it in court are slim to none IMHO.
Last edited:
Pretty sure in the eye of the HTA, the "trail" is still considered part of the road so far as the HTA is concerned, particularly because it's effectively one solid road that just happens to have some dividers attached to the asphalt. The dividers do not a separate "road" or "trail" make, it just makes it safer for "multi use" vs a more traditional bicycle lane without the dividers...which of course, the HTA fully applies to.
Accordingly, the stop sign would indeed apply to the full width of the road regardless of the plastic dividers. The fact there is a secondary "stop" indicator painted on the asphalt, a solid white line (also an indicator when coupled with stop sign wording in the HTA), and the whole intersection is a 3 way stop further reinforces that this is indeed a 3 way stop for *everybody* in all lanes, bike/pedestrian/etc included.
IMHO you're not going to be able to convince any judge that despite the intersection being a 3 way stop for cars that bicycles are somehow exempt, sorry.
Perhaps, but the only way to fight it and get it completely tossed out is to take it to court - the early resolution stage seldom throws out moving violations based on my experience.
If it goes before a judge, the officer that laid the charge has to show up, and by most recent news, officers ARE showing up for most tickets so the old "hope the officer doesn't show" thing isn't really a viable tactic anymore.
When the officer lays out the evidence of the fact that this is a clearly indicated 3 way stop for vehicles, again, I think the judge isn't unlikely to toss the charge at that point since a 3 way stop for cars is also a 3 way stop for bikes.
daught
Well-known member
On the same trail, https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6440...FkfWJ5ykoGspyi7aXUEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en Would I have to stop at the red light? No because I have specific signage https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6357...bQ!2e0!5s20160501T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en If I have to respect the street signs and lights, why would they put a bike specific stop light on the same type of path one street east?
BTW I totally understand you stance and I appreciate your feedback. I'm trying to work on a defense.
Last edited:
The first link shows a trail that is not physically part of the road therefore arguably the HTA wouldn't apply as there is also no road that intersects or crosses it.
The second link very clearly shows traffic lights marked "Bicycle Signal" which would have to be followed, and the path is part of the actual road as well.
I think that in any scenario where the path is part of the road itself or crosses/is bisected by a vehicular portion of the road making the argument that the HTA doesn't apply to the path in that scenario will be tough. If the law didn't apply and bikes were somehow within their rights to just blow through an intersection like that without any regard for cars I think we can all agree it would lead to real messy situations all over the city.
Here's the Toronto bike path guidelines/plans. From what I've seen as to pavement markings it specifically says that they are to be used to reinforce existing HTA signage, so in the case of the "STOP" painted on the pavement it's there to reinforce the stop sign itself just to the right.
https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Tor...IL DESIGN GUIDELINES-December 2014_Fina_4.pdf
The second link very clearly shows traffic lights marked "Bicycle Signal" which would have to be followed, and the path is part of the actual road as well.
I think that in any scenario where the path is part of the road itself or crosses/is bisected by a vehicular portion of the road making the argument that the HTA doesn't apply to the path in that scenario will be tough. If the law didn't apply and bikes were somehow within their rights to just blow through an intersection like that without any regard for cars I think we can all agree it would lead to real messy situations all over the city.
Here's the Toronto bike path guidelines/plans. From what I've seen as to pavement markings it specifically says that they are to be used to reinforce existing HTA signage, so in the case of the "STOP" painted on the pavement it's there to reinforce the stop sign itself just to the right.
https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Tor...IL DESIGN GUIDELINES-December 2014_Fina_4.pdf
daught
Well-known member
That intersection is really poorly designed for for an intersection that IS part of a multi use trail(signs and the map at the end confirm it's part of the trail).
On page 50 there is a somewhat similar intersection where the bikes have the SLOW sign I posted and an optional yield. There is no requirement for bikes to actually stop on any of the example intersections. I did not blow by, I slowed and made sure no car was in the intersection. If there were pedestrians or cars I would have stopped where it was indicated, but the intersection was empty with no car in sight.
Last edited:
daught
Well-known member
This article focuses on points but also says it would not go on the abstract.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...it-affect-my-drivers-licence/article19191769/
Then this article has a bunch of examples where people had the infraction on their abstract
http://globalnews.ca/news/3269801/o...s-after-being-ticketed-while-riding-bicycles/
...?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...it-affect-my-drivers-licence/article19191769/
Then this article has a bunch of examples where people had the infraction on their abstract
http://globalnews.ca/news/3269801/o...s-after-being-ticketed-while-riding-bicycles/
...?
I was told by a metro traffic cop that if you are pulled over for a traffic infraction on a bicycle DO NOT OFFER YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE AS ID.
If your DL number shows on the ticket, the ticket shows on your abstract.
Said traffic officer used to pride himself in giving traffic tickets to bicyclists.
If your DL number shows on the ticket, the ticket shows on your abstract.
Said traffic officer used to pride himself in giving traffic tickets to bicyclists.
Good to know, what are you supposed to offer them then? Health card?
On a bicycle, I very rarely have photo id on me. I would provide my name, address and birthdate if the police asked.
statsman
Well-known member
I have just finished reading all the posts so far. Here is what is obvious.
Each explanation you offer of what happened differs slightly from the previous as the story changes slightly.
Sometimes its a trail, sometimes its a bike lane. Sometimes there's a stop sign, sometimes there isn't and sometimes its a traffic signal for bikes.
My advice is to settle on what your defence is going to be if you plan to take it to court.
Nothing says I'm guilty faster than changing your story mid trial.
Each explanation you offer of what happened differs slightly from the previous as the story changes slightly.
Sometimes its a trail, sometimes its a bike lane. Sometimes there's a stop sign, sometimes there isn't and sometimes its a traffic signal for bikes.
My advice is to settle on what your defence is going to be if you plan to take it to court.
Nothing says I'm guilty faster than changing your story mid trial.
Lol, me too bro. I see these guys use the road like if they own it
daught
Well-known member
Just like cagers get a boner when motorcyclists get tickets for filtering?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
This is why Ontario(world?) is going to ****. People are too egoistic to accept any change for the greater good if it does not directly benefit them.
|
|
|
|
|