Why is there no onus on the moving vehicle | Love the Way We Bitch

Love the Way We Bitch

Archives | RSS

Angry? Mad as hell and you can't take it anymore? Get something off your chest and it could be published online and/or in print. Bitches are anonymous and may be edited for length, grammar, spelling and our lenient standards of propriety.

Submit a Bitch

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Why is there no onus on the moving vehicle

Posted By on Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:36 AM

In regards to the upcoming changes to the Motor Vehicle Act: I agree in the one-meter rule placing the onus on cars to keep a one meter distance from a cyclist. I can see and appreciate the argument for the cross left and cross right yield to cyclists. I happen to be sympathetic that the city is not as conducive to cycling in comparison to other cities, and that cyclists are in many instances treated like rats on wheels as opposed to fellow vehicle users. However, there is one amendment I don't agree with: 'Dooring' being exclusively the fault of the parked motorist. Honestly, if I t-boned a parked car door in the same manner with any other moving vehicle I would in all likelihood be one party held liable. The reasons being the other car was stationary, I would have had to hit it from behind, and it meant I was way too close...and I'm sorry folks, but it is not mission impossible to keep a 3 ft distance from a parked car door. Or at the very least, shouldn't the legislated onus be somewhat mutual and incumbent on both cyclists and motorists to avoid obstacles/hazards? Why is all of the onus on the parked immobile vehicle and virtually none on the moving vehicle with arguably an immediate better line of sight?

Comments (1)
Add a Comment