Opinion on this near miss | GTAMotorcycle.com

Opinion on this near miss

Who is at fault

  • Total voters
    15
J

jonyface

New member
Forum Sponsor
I know this is a motorcycle forum, but since riders in the GTA usually have many years of driving experience I would like your opinion on this situation.

1. I am driving the speed limit of 60km/h 2-3 car spaces behind a truck in front of me. On the right lane is a bunch of cars parked parallel.
2. After truck passes, this woman decides to pull out halfway into my lane without looking or signaling right in front of me, causing me to react.
3. I knew I couldn't stop in time so I evaded her by going into the oncoming lane, just missing the J-Walker and the woman pulling out

If I were to hit either the J-Walker or the woman pulling out who is at fault? I drew a picture to clarify.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    11.9 KB · Views: 129
Last edited:
I don't know about the jaywalker, but If you hit the woman pulling out I'm almost certain it would be her fault.
 
Hard to answer a poll question when you are asking two questions.

I posted a pdf for the Ontario insurance fault determination rules a while ago. I think it's in the insurance forum.
(Edit: Here it is again, http://blueskyinsurancebrokers.ca/B...p/media/PDFs/ON-Fault-Determination-Rules.pdf)

If you hit a pedestrian (jay walking) then it's your fault. It won't matter what the other vehicle did. You can't hit a pedestrian, they have the right of way.

If memory serves correctly based on fault determination rules, if a parked car pulled into your lane and hit you then it's the car that is at fault. (Edit: Memory still works, see Section 7, Paragraph 2)
 
Last edited:
In my unqualified opinion: If you swerve and only hit the walker (Or an oncoming car) you have lost control of your car and could be charged. You could legally hit the car pulling out. if you hit both you might argue you were pushed over, hitting the pedestrian. A dash cam might gain you some brownie points.

There is a difference between swerving a bike and swerving a car. With the bike you are unprotected and must swerve without thinking. Better a chance of a collision than a guaranteed one. With a car the odds of a collision are about the same but the risk of injury far less.
 
Stay further back from the truck, so people can see you.
 
Yes - as above responses. If you don't hit the car pulling out you are at fault for hitting others. And as Baggsy says above, regardless of fault, you can PREVENT such collision by not driving in the 'shadow' of the truck.
 
If you hit the car entering the roadway - their fault

if you hit a car in incoming traffic - your fault

hit a pedestrian - your fault

think of it this way. Car pulls out, you swerve and hit something, original car drives away. "Officer I missed a car that pulled out and it drove away"
 
In the scenario, you presented, no one would have been charged, in all likelihood. As for FDR, it could go either way. If you hit the pedestrian, (even after colliding with the other vehicle), your insurer would rule you weren't in control of your vehicle and you would be determined at fault for the pedestrian, (which injuries could easily be in the 100's of thousands). It is rarely when it comes to insurers cut and dry. If they can pin fault on all drivers they like to do so as that means years of increased premiums.

Good rule of thumb, don't follow a truck at speed in it's "shadow", leave more space. Sure you might arrive at your destination .000001 seconds later but that is whole lot faster than if your sitting at an accident scene for hours.
 
The problem was he wasn't following the truck close enough. He left a space that allowed the idiot to pull into traffic.....lol
 
Last edited:
Am I reading some of these responses correct. If a car pulls out and you hit it, your bike then hits a pedestrian, it's your fault for not controlling the bike?
 
Hit the car pulling out, don't swerve and hit other vehicles. Leave more than two car lengths when following something you can't see beyond.
 
Robp said:
Am I reading some of these responses correct. If a car pulls out and you hit it, your bike then hits a pedestrian, it's your fault for not controlling the bike?
Click to expand...

You are not reading correctly.

The responses state that if he swerved and AVOIDED the car, but in the process hit a pedestrian, it would be his fault. If he got hit and tossed into a pedestrian obviously it wouldn't be his fault.
 
matthew said:
Hit the car pulling out, don't swerve and hit other vehicles. Leave more than two car lengths when following something you can't see beyond.
Click to expand...

Assuming that you were driving prudently to begin with, I can't see anyone being charged or held at fault for hitting something as a result of ricocheting off another vehicle that suddenly entered their path.

That said, if you were driving like a knob, weaving in and out of traffic or at excessively speed, then I can see you being charged for the same thing happening regardless of the other driver's actions.

In this one, the picture shows the pedestrian being between the OP's vehicles and the car pulling out of the parking space. There would be no chance of ricocheting into the pedestrian there as a result of hitting the car pulling out - it could happen only as a result of the OP steering into the pedestrian to avoid the car pulling out of the parking space.

The arguments then become, 1) was the OP following far too close to see the pedestrian, 2) if not, why didn't the OP see the pedestrian before swerving, and 3) why didn't the OP just brake and let the car pulling out do so, rather than swerve (was he trying to "maintain" position behind the truck rather than let the parked car pull out ahead of him)?
 
Hopefully that j Walker got the **** scared out of them and would think twice before doing it again.

Ah who I am I kidding.
 
Boots said:
Hopefully that j Walker got the **** scared out of them and would think twice before doing it again.

Ah who I am I kidding.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with crossing mid-block as long as you don't step out directly in front of or otherwise interfere with vehicle traffic. If there was no traffic in the lane on the side of the road the pedestrian started crossing from, and the pedestrian did not step into the lane the OP was travelling in and was intending to enter and complete crossing the OP's lane only after the OP had passed by, then the pedestrian probably did nothing wrong.
 
griff2 said:
There's nothing wrong with crossing mid-block as long as you don't step out directly in front of or otherwise interfere with vehicle traffic. If there was no traffic in the lane on the side of the road the pedestrian started crossing from, and the pedestrian did not step into the lane the OP was travelling in and was intending to enter and complete crossing the OP's lane only after the OP had passed by, then the pedestrian probably did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...
Sure I agree with you on the first half. But even if the ped wasn't in OP's way, for me when I'm driving, even coming close to those guys standing on the yellow line makes me nervous. Some peds have the worst body language in the world. You never know what they'll do so I get nervous even when they aren't in my lane and off to the side whether on the yellow line or Island. Some of them from what I've seen push their luck and come close to a Darwinian statistic.
 
griff2 said:
Assuming that you were driving prudently to begin with, I can't see anyone being charged or held at fault for hitting something as a result of ricocheting off another vehicle that suddenly entered their path.
Click to expand...

Onus will be on the OP for swerving and hitting another car or pedestrian; proof will be needed for that action. A Dash cam showing other cars license plate would hopefully suffice.
 
hit the person doing the illegal thing and you'll be fine. its like when someone pulls out in front of a bike and the bike goes down from over braking or whatever but doesn't hit the car that caused the reaction, then the bike is on his own for damages.
 
hedo2002 said:
In the scenario, you presented, no one would have been charged, in all likelihood.
Click to expand...

A very real possibility so long as everyones stories line up.

I got into a rear-end collision about 5 years back in my work truck. Normally, the second you run into the back of someone else you're virtually automatically at fault, however given the circumstances (which I won't go into here) nobody was charged, and nobody was technically held at fault by the police. Not sure how insurance figured it out and dealt with the damage, but it was what it was.
 
(Deleted post...think I read the response I quoted the wrong way...)
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom