Cycling in Waterloo Region

[ijmorlan]

It should depend on the details. If I recall correctly, the cyclist was riding legally, so it should be pretty hard to mount a successful defence if one has driven into them. At the same time, drivers can only be responsible for seeing that which is actually visible. An all-black cyclist with no lights at night can’t reasonably expect not to be at higher risk of collision. I don’t know the details in this case — for example, if the cyclist had appropriate lights then none of what I just said is relevant.

I was thinking about this in connection with the idea that strict liability should attach for driving into cyclists. In general, I think the idea is sound, but there has to be a limit somewhere. Suppose I drive into a wrong-way, all-black, no-lights, cyclist who is running a red at speed. Should I be penalized? Even if they end up dead I fail to see how I am supposed to avoid such a collision.

But yeah, probably it’s a bogus defence.

For the record, the HTA does not require cyclists to have lights, only reflectors.  I would be extremely disappointed if a perfectly legal vehicle under the HTA was deemed "hittable without consequences".  That would seem to question the very premise that cyclists are legally allowed to use the road.

And yes, not having lighting *might* put you at a higher risk for a collision, it doesn't mitigate a careless driving charge against the driver.  Just like leaving my front door ajar *might* increase the probability of me being robbed, but does not mitigate the charge of theft against those who rob me (although, it could possibly affect insurance settlements).

I think strict liability can be spoken too by a lawyer, but I was under the belief that the general intent is that another party's misbehaviour does not mitigate your responsibility to drive safely.  I.e., if you hit a pedestrian who's jwalking, the fact that they are jwalking does not mitigate your responsibility from driving safely, i.e., not being distracted.  But, IANAL.

All excellent points. Just to be clear, I’m imagining a situation where the cyclist is effectively invisible to the driver, through no fault of the driver and primarily because of the cyclist’s choices. I agree that drivers actually do need to look and react appropriately, and furthermore most cyclists, including ones who aren’t making the best possible choices, aren’t the ones I’m imagining. If “strict liability” just means I have to operate safely, that’s fine, as long as it’s understood that it is still possible for me to be involved in a collision even if I’m driving safely. I thought it meant I was liable for collisions, regardless of how caused. To be fair, this injustice is already the case by the laws of physics for cyclists — if they get hit badly enough, they’re dead, no matter how wrong the car driver was. But there is no reason for humans to create additional injustice.