Vancouver cyclist ‘solely’ responsible for collision with SUV, tribunal finds

Bicycle wheel. (Source: cottonbro/Pexels)

A Vancouver cyclist has been ordered to pay a driver’s insurance deductible after B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal found he was “solely” responsible for a collision more than two years ago.

A decision on the dispute was posted online Wednesday, outlining the circumstances of the crash and finding the cyclist liable.

On June 14, 2023, the driver of a Volkswagen Tiguan “collided with” a cyclist who emerged from an alley and was riding across a residential street on the city’s west side, according to the decision.

“The basis for the applicant’s claim is negligence. The applicant alleges the respondent negligently damaged her car by riding their bicycle into her car’s path when she had the right of way,” wrote tribunal vice-chair Christopher C. Rivers.

The driver, Hannah Tan, was seeking $500 in damages as reimbursement for the insurance deductible she paid when having her SUV repaired.

The cyclist, Benjamin David Aston, argued Tan was responsible for the collision.

“The respondent says the applicant is responsible for the collision for traveling at an excessive speed and failing to drive with due care and attention,” the decision said.

Rivers reviewed dash-cam video from the Volkswagen as evidence. Although the speedometer was not visible, he found the video showed Tan was not travelling at a rate that was “excessive.”

To determine if Aston was negligent, the tribunal relied on a section of the Motor Vehicle Act on emerging from alleys.

“The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from an alley, lane, driveway, building or private road must yield the right of way to traffic approaching on the highway so closely that it constitutes an immediate hazard,” the legislation says.

While Aston told the tribunal he stopped and looked both ways before slowly riding out of the alley, the tribunal found the dash-cam video did not support those claims.

“The respondent entered West 18^th Avenue without ensuring the way was clear and at a speed that prevented them from yielding to the applicant,” Rivers wrote.

“I find there was no reasonable way for the applicant to anticipate the respondent’s dangerous and negligent emergence from the alley. I find the collision is solely the respondent’s fault for negligently attempting to cross the road without yielding to the applicant’s oncoming vehicle.”

The decision does not describe how badly Tan’s SUV was damaged but did say “from watching the video, it is common sense that the collision’s severity could, and did, damage her car.”

There is no mention of injuries to the cyclist.

The decision also touches on the so-called “tort ban” that prohibits drivers in B.C. from making civil claims against other drivers for vehicle damage incurred in a crash. The claim was allowed in this case, according to Rivers, because a bicycle is not an “included vehicle” under that legislation.

A bicycle is, however, considered a vehicle when it comes to its rider’s obligations under the Motor Vehicle Act—such as the requirement to yield when emerging from an alleyway.

Aston was ordered to pay $672.04 in damages, consisting of the deductible, tribunal fees, and pre-judgment interest.