TORONTO

A collision with a cyclist and a long scratch on my car left me with months of headaches.

I was driving to work around 10 a.m. along Dupont St. one day last month when construction narrowed the four lanes to two, near Spadina Rd.

I was stopped at a red light with a few cars in front of me. Cyclists travelled on the right side to pass cars. There was no bike lane.

Because of the narrowed lanes, there really wasn’t space for both cars and cyclists. Still stopped, I heard a thump towards my rear passenger side.

A woman on a bike pulled up to my passenger window and said, “Sorry, I left a huge scratch on your car.”

After confirming she wasn’t injured, we pulled over to inspect the damage.

As I took photos, she remarked: “I’m not sure if it’s the city’s fault or mine” because of construction.

I got her full name and a cell number. I gave her my business card.

This is the first collision I have ever been involved in and I know now that I should have asked for her address. Frankly, I was still in a bit of shock.

After telling my editor of the collision, I got a repair quote and asked the cyclist how she wished to proceed — but she brushed me off.

“We both agreed this morning, it was an unfortunate but no-fault situation. I have received legal consult and am not liable for the damages to your car. You can make a claim with your insurance and they can contact me if they have questions. Best of luck, truly,” she said.

Enraged at her laissez-faire attitude, I contacted my insurance company and was informed that “no fault” does not mean “not at fault.” And even if I am not at fault, which is the case here, I still have to pay the $500 deductible if the cyclist doesn’t have a form of liability insurance.

Long story short, after an investigation spanning several weeks and the cyclist falsely telling the investigator that I clipped her with my mirror and sent her bike spiralling into my car, I was found 0% at fault.

The damage will cost $1,900 to fix at Avenue Collision — $500 of which I have to pay out of pocket, even though the cyclist hit me and was deemed at fault.

I was told my insurance won’t go up, but we’ll see. In this case, the cyclist should have waited in traffic or dismounted and walked her bike on the sidewalk, but she was impatient and seemed to lose her balance, crashing into my side.

The insurance company told me I could go after the cyclist for damages in small claims court, but also advised me against it because courts don’t look favourably upon drivers in cases involving pedestrians or cyclists.

Drivers also have a right to ask a cyclist for valid identification, Toronto Police Traffic Services Const. Clint Stibbe said. If a bike leaves a scene, it could be classified as leaving the scene of an accident.

I know cyclists are at way more risk if they hit a car. According to the city’s transportation department, from 2010 until now, collisions involving cyclists have killed or seriously injured 341 people.

However, reckless behaviour — by those on four wheels or two — should have legal consequences.

I have always been respectful of cyclists. I used to be one until I got my motorcycle licence. I do check my mirrors before changing lanes, turning or opening my door. This doesn’t change how I feel about them.

However, there should be some accountability when someone on a bike is at fault. This isn’t a story of a cyclist versus a car, but rather someone not owning up to adult responsibilities.

We’ve heard about problems involved with the prospect of licensing cyclists. But how about ensuring every cyclist on the road has some form of liability insurance.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) said in unusual cases such as this, the insurance company could also pay for the repairs and go after the cyclist. But my insurance company agent said with smaller claims, insurers likely just won’t bother, leaving the cyclist to ride away scot-free.

“We’re subject to the same rules of the road,” IBC spokesman Steve Kee said. “But bike riders don’t have to have insurance and they can’t face demerit points for violations, but they are responsible for their actions.”

LICENSING CYCLISTS BACK UNDER SCOPE

City councillors never seem to tire of looking at licensing cyclists.

The public works will address the issue — once again — in September.

City council has looked at creating a licensing system for cyclists at least four times over the past three decades — in 1984, 1992, 1996 and 2009.

Each time, council rejected it for a variety of reasons, including concerns about administrative costs and doubts that the measure would change poor cycling habits.

• Jacquelyn Hayward Gulati, manager of cycling infrastructure and programs:

— The city started licensing bikes in 1935, but repealed the measure in 1957 “because it often results in an unconscious contravention of the law at a very tender age.”

— In 1989, the city asked the province to amend the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) to require cyclists to identify themselves when stopped by police.

— A driver’s licence isn’t required in order for a cyclist to be charged under the HTA or a municipal bylaw.

— There’s a perception that having a licence plate on the back of a bicycle would enable citizens to report errant cyclists and have police issue a ticket. However, a licence plate identifies the vehicle, not the operator and police must issue tickets to the latter.

— The city rejected licensing in 1984, 1992, 1996 and 2009 because of several challenges: Keeping a current and complete database, licensing children, and the fact licensing in itself won’t necessarily change cyclists’ behaviour.

— But the biggest obstacle has always been the cost to create, administer and enforce such a program. There’s never been faith licensing fees would cover the substantial cost.

• Councillor Stephen Holyday, member of public works, is calling for the city to put a licensing system in gear.

“I’m looking at licensing the bicycle. I feel in 2016, there are different opportunities to use technology that would make this a less onerous. We have an app that could be part of a solution. It’s about licensing the equipment and perhaps partnering with different organizations — such as cycling clubs — to roll out a bicycle licence. It means better compliance with safety, better opportunities with training. It wouldn’t be tied to the Highway Traffic Act. The police have the rules they need to enforce violations. Tremendous amount of data can be gathered, including what routes they use, and that allows us to plan better for cycling infrastructure. There’s better ways of doing it now that we didn’t know about 10 or 15 years ago.”

• Yvonne Bambrick, author of the Urban Cycling Survival Guide:

“I think there’s still a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about the role of people on bikes in the city, their rights and how roads are paid for. (Licensing) would cost more than it would generate and bicyclists often are drivers, as well. Whether they are drivers or not, we all pay for the roadway and pay for roads through property tax. There’s a hole in (Holyday’s) notion of data gathering of where cyclists are riding. Can you imagine asking drivers to put a chip in their car to track their motions across the city? There’s a major privacy issue there and we have extensive data. Licensing does not stop people from making poor decisions. When you put all those things together, it doesn’t make sense for major cities. It would be something that would discourage people from riding.”

jyuen@postmedia.com