Is this cyclist at fault?

As a general principle, I don't approach intersections from a lane position near the curb. If traffic is flowing, or I'm the first to reach a red light, then I take the right lane by stopping in the middle of it. If I'm filtering forward to a red light, I take the left side of the right lane. This is mainly so I don't get clobbered by a motorist making a (possibly unsignalled) right turn without looking, but it also keeps me from getting squeezed. If the motorist in the right lane ends up having to merge into the next lane over (common on 4-lane streets with on-street parking), the barrier/inconvenience that I present is negligable compared to the motor traffic already in that lane, so the motorist-trying-to-merge rarely ever does anything to frighten or intimidate me.

Also, if I'm in the centre of the lane, and a motorist pulls up behind me with their right turn signal on, I slide over to the left side of the lane so that they can make their right turn. If I'm already on the left side of the lane, this usually isn't necessary (though sometimes I do a little token slide to help wave them through). If the car to the right of me in the lane is only up at the intersection because the cars ahead were all able to make their right turn, they can't even pretend to be impatient with me.

Amen to that; being in the right legally is nice on the off chance that something happens, but it's even better to be alert enough that something is a lot less likely to happen. I originally saw this little rhyme about boats/ships at sea, but it adapts pretty well to bikes too:

Here lies the body of Johnny Day,
who died while maintaining his right of way.
Now Johnny was right as he rode along,
but he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

The law holds the driver of a car responsible for ensuring that seat belts are being properly worn by any occupant under 16 years old. So, it makes sense to me that the same duty of care would apply to a 15 year old when entering and exiting a car.

Consider that if in a similar situation, the 15 year old was permitted by the driver to exit the car on the driver’s side and was struck dead by a passing vehicle, would the driver be held responsible?

This is something that might be worthy of review by a lawyer.

I agree, we need European-style laws here in Ontario. In Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands, motorists have a legal responsibility to avoid hitting cyclists. Period. To quote from one of my heroes, John Pucher:

"Motorists are legally responsible for collisions with children and elderly cyclists, even if they are jaywalking, cycling in the wrong direction, ignoring traffic signals, or otherwise behaving contrary to traffic regulations."

He later goes on to write that for adults, "... motorists are generally assumed to be legally responsible for most collisions with cyclists unless it can be proven that the cyclist deliberately caused the crash. Having the right of way by law does not excuse motorists from hitting cyclists, especially children and elderly cyclists."

John Pucher asserts that this is the law in Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands.

Source:
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf

The quotes I took are from p. 520. As this was published in a peer-reviewed journal, I place a high degree of confidence in it.

I agree we need to focus on getting European style law around cycling.

I have a friend who is permanently disabled, and will never work again due to spinal cord injuries. She's been fighting for years with the insurance companies to get a proper settlement. Meanwhile, the taxpayers have to shell out for ODSP and from that limited amount she has to pay for physio because it is so limited by OHIP.

What those lawyers put her through at every turn is just increasing her inability to live her life with any dignity.

That driver is still driving. His license was not removed. He was fined and a few points. Why should the taxpayers and those who pay insurance be paying for HIM to stay on the road?

As far as I'm concerned, he was at fault [proven] and like a drunk driver, why does this idiot still have a license? If he hit a pedestrian, he wouldn't. Yet he smashed a ton of steel into an unprotected human being.

It would certainly wake up drivers to where the cyclists are, if they knew they could lose their license for a few years, for hitting one, regardless of circumstance unless the cyclist did something incredibly stupid.

I'd like to see how quickly this motorized intimidation by cars riding up one's butt, shoving cyclists into curbs etc. would STOP if they knew they could be in serious trouble for their actions.

HONKA! HONKA!
http://trikester.wordpress.com/

If s.218 also applied to HTA charges you would be going down a slippery slope of 'guilty until proven innocent'. Something that would be open to a lot of abuse.

Yes insurance companies are tough but you can also find lawyers that will advocate for you. Was involved in an insurance case when my father-in-law died, it was quite the fight over a small sum of money. If we did not have good representation we would have lost.

If legal awards in Canada were more in-line with our American cousins we might see some change.

There is a car combat/aggression thing going on out there with too many drivers who get away with it. I can't tell you how many times on my old cycles I have been run up the butt to intimidate me, when I needed the lane, how many ran me skidding into sewer grates and potholes, how many ran me up onto the sidewalk into the crosswalk or risk a crash.

I once was cycling behind my ex and a taxi not only ran him into the curb...when he jumped the sidewalk to avoid being hit the cabbie went right up on the sidewalk TWICE. The taxi was finally nailed, jumping the curb for the second time at Yonge and Dundas nearly hitting dozens of pedestrians on the sidewalk as he exercised his fit of pique.

It was terrifying.

You share the road, however, there are some road raged drivers out there that are using their vehicles to intimidate cyclists because they can.

In the above post, the cop is refusing to lay charges because a bike was in the crosswalk. Well what if a pedestrian was in the crosswalk? The eejit STILL drove into the crosswalk without looking.

Like you, my ex, when driving was cautious of cyclists because he cycled as well. The only accident he was in was when someone else failed to stop behind him at a red, because the driver was yapping on a cell phone.

There are cautious drivers out there. They aren't the problem. The problem is those that believe their vehicle gives them the right to hog the road.

If there's a big media hullabaloo when drivers are charged and convicted seriously when they hit cyclists--they're going to be a dern site more careful.

Good drivers will still be good drivers.

HONKA! HONKA!
http://trikester.wordpress.com/

• Bike lanes and bikeways extending to the city borders. A continuous system using main and easy to find roads (like BLOOR, YONGE, EGLINTON, LAWRENCE etc) not requiring the aid of seeing eye dogs and sherpa guides to locate and follow.
• A series of inter community bikeways/ROWS allowing easy, safe cycling between say, Toronto and communities north, east and west. These would be cleared of snow in winter. These would also encourage cycling in smaller communities.
• Mandatory enhanced driver education stressing sharing the road with other vehiclists including bicyclists. An outreach and public service announcements using the media to reach those already licenced. Possible mandatory driver reassessment with these points which have been inadequately addressed in the past.
• "Complete Streets": from a design standpoint the safety of all street and road users is taken into consideration in all new construction and reconstruction. Incongruities like the South Kingsway ramps would be forbidden by law. The Roncesvalles redesign would be required to address safe bicyclist use from the outset. The preferred plan does not do that presently though the bike lane proposal does make an attempt at this. Likewise the Bloor reconstruction needs to require bike lanes from the outset.
• A 1 m + passing law as is presently required in 12 states. Bicyclists need to be granted a safe buffer by passing motorists. 1 m seems about the recognised minimum.

Yeah, I left out a lot.

• Rescind Section 148 subsection 6 of the HTA as it can and is interpreted by motorists and some police as requiring bicyclists to get off the road. This is unsafe to an extreme and contrary to the concept of safe use of the roadway upheld in other parts of the Highway Traffic Act. Hitting the gravel or even bad pavement that often lies on the side of the road can cause a bicyclist to fall. Doing so in the path of an overtaking vehicle could be potentially fatal.