–Constable Tim Schewe
Right of way is given, not taken. Please read that again and think about what it means when applied to driving, cycling and walking. A sense of entitlement is not what you should have when you use our highways, regardless of your travel mode.
The following video was provided by the cyclist and reported on by CTV Vancouver:
It shows the cyclist using the cycle lane approaching an intersection on a right curve where there is limited visibility. A car on the right is attempting to make a left turn after stopping at a stop sign and encroaches on the cycle lane as the cyclist comes into view. The sun appears to be directly behind the cyclist and may be interfering with the driver’s ability to see.
The cyclist moves to the left to go around the car. The driver fails to see the cyclist and begins to make the left turn. A collision results.
The discussion on CTV’s Twitter account is mixed. Some lay the blame with the cyclist and others feel that it is the driver’s fault. All seem polarized in a situation that contains shades of grey.
First of all, let’s establish where the cyclist fits into the road rules. Section 183(1) MVA imposes the same rights and duties as the driver of a vehicle on the cyclist. For the most part, this means that the cyclist must behave as if they were a driver. It also means that other drivers must treat the cyclist the same way as they would another motor vehicle.
Now, let’s examine this intersection with a two way stop.
Our car driver must stop properly at the stop sign. Having stopped, the driver must yield to the cyclist (and any other traffic present on the through highway) that is either in the intersection or approaching it closely enough to be an immediate hazard. The driver may now proceed with caution.
As the car comes into the cyclist’s view it appears to be stopped and then moves ahead slowly.
Here’s where the grey begins and many drivers and cyclists on the through street do not realize that they may have a duty to yield to this driver and let them enter the street.
Section 175(2) MVA imposes this duty.
Now take up your gavel and put yourself in the position of a judge having to decide liability for this collision.
Both the driver and the cyclist will present their side and you may also hear from witnesses. One witness may be an expert at collision reconstruction who will tell you that it is possible that the cyclist could not have seen the emerging driver in time to stop when riding at 40 km/h.
In my own humble opinion, there is some liability on both sides for this collision and I base that only on what I see in the video and the MVA rules.
Also by Tim Schewe on SPN
- DriveSmartBC: Problems with deferred maintenance
- DriveSmartBC: Fear of police retaliation
- DriveSmartBC: Taking cyclists seriously
- Car owner tip: Refer to your owner’s manual
- DriveSmart: Exit not required, you can stay an “N” drivers forever!
- Resistance to stopping can be overcome, for safety’s sake
- DriveSmart: Why didn’t the pedestrian cross the road?
- DriveSmart: It’s winter tire time again
- Driving: Top Pet Peeves experienced by drivers
- Distracted driving statistics — what to believe?
- DriveSmart: Driving at Night in the Rain
- Highway crashes happen in less than a minute; getting meaningful information can take forever
- Testing a driver’s knowledge at licence renewal
- Is it time to stop driving?
- When it comes to driving safety, little things can make a big difference
- Conflict over Right-of-Way
- Thoughts from the ICBC Rate Fairness report
- Slow down, move over: A shared responsibility
- What causes crashes, and how do we know?
- Unmarked police cars, and the “I Can Get Away With It” Mindset
- The Enhanced Road Assessment
- “It’s still drive-able” and other excuses, and what enforcement can result
- Driving: It looked like a drunk driver to me
- You’ll be surprised to learn these are the greatest school zone offenders (plus a rules refresher)
- DRIVING: Your Day in Traffic Court
- Driving: You MUST pull to the side and stop for ambulance, police and fire