- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Toronto Cyclists (credit- Benson Kua, Wikimedia Commons)No charges for Toronto police officer who doored cyclist after parking in cycle lane
A Toronto police officer who parked in a bike lane and opened his door into the path of an oncoming cyclist, knocking him to the ground and breaking his wrist, will not face charges following an investigation by the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU). Road safety activist and Toronto injury lawyer Patrick Brown told the Huffington Post that the decision sends out "a very poor message" about cyclist safety.
A Cycle Toronto spokesperson said the organisation was "alarmed" the officer was not charged.
"Dooring is very serious," she said. "We would like to see Toronto police take it much more seriously than they do."
On the morning of June 5, an officer pulled over a driver he had seen texting and driving on Adelaide Street West, between Simcoe Street and Duncan Street.
The officer parked his vehicle behind the pulled-over car, in the bike lane, and did not activate his lights.
The officer exited once, to speak to the driver, then returned to his vehicle to prepare a ticket.
Just as he was about to exit again, two cyclists passed on the driver’s side. The officer let them pass and then opened his door slightly as a third cyclist went by. He then opened it fully, causing the collision with a fourth cyclist.
Tony Loparco, director of the Special Investigations Unit said that the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) places the onus on the party exiting a motor vehicle to ensure that the opening of his or her door will not endanger or interfere with the movement of any other person or vehicle.
“It is clear that the [officer] was at fault,” he wrote.
However, he added that the question was whether the officer’s actions rose to the level required for the offence of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.
According to Loparco, “… there is evidence to suggest that the [officer] was in fact mindful of cyclists in the bicycle lane in the seconds preceding the collision with the Complainant and his bicycle.
“From the moment the officer pulled up in his cruiser behind [the] vehicle, he had seen and allowed two cyclists to pass him before nudging his driver’s side door slightly ajar while waiting for a third cyclist to go by.
“In the final analysis, while the [officer] was clearly to blame for causing the accident and may well be liable for committing an offence under s. 165 of the HTA, his indiscretion amounted in essence to a momentary lack of attention and fell short of constituting a marked departure from a reasonable level of care in the circumstances.
“Consequently, I am satisfied that there is no basis for proceeding with criminal charges against the subject officer in this case, and the file is closed.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- wtjs 3 sec ago
wtjs can rest easy that normal service will be resumed soon...
- Dnnnnnn 13 hours 35 min ago
The CUK members' own stories about their travels in the mag make me wonder whether road.cc could built up a bank of readers' favourite routes? It...
- mjc2669 13 hours 51 min ago
Boardman is brilliant at getting the point over. It's all about presentation and showing the benefits to all.
- wtjs 15 hours 2 min ago
Or, alternatively, get the Aldi front and rear for £15. The rear doesn't flash like the previous models, but does have the braking function. The...
- Hirsute 15 hours 53 min ago
There is no way on that terrain the wheels would clog up.
- TempleOrion 16 hours 59 min ago
No. But do you think Trump is? 🤡💩🤣
- chrisonabike 18 hours 20 min ago
Was a stocking-filler type thing but always handy - reflective spoke straws. (They're not reflecting as I turned the flash off.)
- hawkinspeter 22 hours 21 min ago
Dont forget Linford Christie
- Secret_squirrel 23 hours 35 min ago
I'm confused. What base layer isn't damp after a warm effort - it's the purpose of their entire existence. Wringing wet I might agree with. ...
- mark1a 1 day 12 hours ago
Don't open at Edinburgh Fringe with that one.
Add new comment
16 comments
I'll be wearing my helmet out this morning, but I might put a heraldic crest on it.
Magna carta era is a bit too 'helmety' for BTBS.
That's some serious PPE just to get a document signed.
Victim blaming, Middle Ages stylee: 'Sir Percival accidentally pranged you with his lance? Well, if you weren't wearing your chain mail you get absolutely no sympathy.'
And the design of helmet/head protection (mostly flat type) were just like modern plastic hats for cyclists not fit for purpose so offered little to no protection against heavier faster moving objects. It wasn't until the 14th/15thC when the steel for the likes of the helm (a sugar basin design) was good enough to withstand a blow from a double handed strike or a person on horseback travelling at 20mph and swinging down.
The below is from the Maciejowski Bible and shows that despite later improvements if the steel was cheap then a forceful blow would penetrate the skull. Re-enactment people report plenty of head injuries were replica sowrds have penetrated quite badly through the tops of helmets
Nice try, but you proved a point against helmets, so good on you.
Capture.JPG
For anyone with basic comprehension skills, you can see that the officer has simply been cleared of a professional negligence matter (those that say he MUST have been negligent probably have to familiarise themselves thorougly with Canadian law as it applies to public servants, particluarly police officers). Again, those with basic reading comprehension skills will understand the policeman still faces a normal RTA investigation.
Alex's headline is misleading. The officer won't face any charges from the SIU, not there will be no charges at all.
Bertinol, don't worry about BTBS invoking the magna carta. He doesn't realise that many aspects of it have been superseded in the intervening 1000 years. Pretty sure there weren't cars or bikes around when the MC was written.
There weren't semi-automatic rifles around when the US constitution was written, but that doesn't seem to be a problem, so why should the lack of cars in... [quickly Googles date so as to pretend to be educated]... 1215 matter?
Pretty good argument for the unchangeable US constitution to receive another amendment
I know. I know. I can see why people are upset. I got doored once, broke my brake levers and limped for two weeks. But under the complex Canadian legal system, this is technically NOT a criminal act. It comes under the provincial Highway Traffic Act, not the federal Criminal Code. The policeman still faces very serious penalties under provincial law as well as disciplinary actions under the Ontario Police Act. They just can't stick him in a federal jail.
If your action/inaction is such that it causes physical harm or fear in the mind then that is a criminal act, it IS an assault in law by any definition you want, this is universal in all countries that have Magna Carta i.e. common law underpinning said countries laws.
If the cyclist went into the police officer whilst going about his ordinary business because he, the cyclist wasn't looking properly and broke the officers wrist, what do you think the outcome would be, just a 'traffic accident'? Of course it wouldn't!
Looks like Canadian police have history on not giving two fucks about charging motorists even when they kill cyclists ... plus ca change
https://globalnews.ca/news/1669322/drivers-seldom-charged-when-cyclists-...
from a Toronto policeman who read the story on road.cc and passed his comments on to me:
"This article purely speaks to the SIU report, one of two investigations that will take place. The SIU looks only at cases that are criminal. This was clearly a traffic accident, not a criminal matter. The police officer will likely face internal disciplinary charges and will, very likely, be penalized several hours pay, at a total cost that would very likely exceed to that of a civilian offender.
And no, Canadian policemen do not carry shotguns!
Not a criminal matter? Don't they have road laws in Canada? I'll bet it would be a criminal matter if a member of the public opened their car door and knocked off a policeman.
Could you possibly ask the Toronto policeman if they have road laws and if it would be a crime if someone opened their car door and knocked down a policeman on a bike?
If you look at where the incident took place - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@43.6485106,-79.387269,3a,75y,103.6h,75.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snhEO61OylqvKJKxOd-bmMw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnhEO61OylqvKJKxOd-bmMw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D148.43782%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Near "Burgers Priest" on Adelaide Street, but the look of the photo in the original article. The parking of the Police car and the party who was stopped would force any passing cyclist to either pass in the door zone or try and traverse the (i.e. bunny hop) the tram lines running parallel to the cyle lane. The police officer was negligent when he opened door, but he was also negligent when he parked in a clearly dangerous location.
> How do they even know that there were three previous, or did he just make it up to show that he was being mindful?
I would imagine that the police car is fitted with a dash cam and possibly a camera in the cab. But as you say it might demonstrate a degree of mindfulness when the first three passed but that only servers to emphasize the lack of mindfulness when he hit the fourth cyclist, IMHO.
The investigators may not think it was criminal, but lets hope his lawyer can bring a private crimanal case to court (I don't know if this is possible in Canada).
It's alarming that the car-centric society seems to be practically universal, with a few obvious exceptions. Drivers will be excused for callously causing injury and even death to cyclists if they didn't really mean it.
Just how does being mindful of the three previous cyclists excuse not being mindful of the fourth? Surely the first three must have alerted him that this was a busy cycling route and it was extremely likely that there would be more? How do they even know that there were three previous, or did he just make it up to show that he was being mindful?
Sorry, Officer, I was merely waving my shotgun around when, in a moment of inattention, it went off.
Thats probably fine, did there happen to be a couple of other bystanders that you mindfully did not shoot?
Clearly they did, because his negligence did cause bodily harm...