Driver Passed Too Close to a Cyclist in Ontario: The One-Metre Rule

Ontario drivers are required to leave at least one metre of space when passing a cyclist.

Close-passing cases often involve quick decisions, narrow roads, parked cars, bike lanes, passing vehicles, and conflicting accounts of what happened. The driver may say there was enough room. The cyclist have been clipped, squeezed toward the curb, or forced to swerve to avoid being hit.

The one-metre rule matters because it gives a concrete starting point for the liability analysis. It is not the only issue, but it is an important one.

Ontario’s MTO drivers' handbook states that drivers must maintain at least one metre when passing a cyclist. The Ontario Court of Justice’s set-fine schedule also identifies “fail to leave one metre while passing bicycle” under section 148(6.1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

These issues arise frequently in serious Ontario bicycle accident claims, especially where a cyclist is clipped by a mirror, forced toward the curb, squeezed beside parked vehicles, or injured after swerving away from a close pass.

Ontario’s One-Metre Passing Law and Cyclist Accident Claims

The one-metre rule requires drivers to leave at least one metre of space when passing a person riding a bicycle. The point of the rule is obvious. Cyclists do not have the protection of a car frame. A driver who passes too closely can cause a crash without doing anything dramatic. A slight drift, a side mirror, a trailer edge, or a cyclist’s small movement to avoid debris can be enough.

If there is not enough room to pass safely, the driver just needs to slow down and wait.

That is often where disputes arise. Some drivers treat passing a cyclist as something they are entitled to do immediately. But if the road is narrow, traffic is heavy, or parked cars reduce the available space, waiting may be the only safe option.

When Does Passing a Cyclist Become Unsafe?

A close pass is unsafe if it leaves the cyclist without enough room to continue riding safely. The one-metre rule is a minimum reference point. A pass can be unsafe even if the vehicle never touches the cyclist.

For example, a driver may pass close enough that the cyclist is pushed toward the curb, into a door zone, onto broken pavement, or toward debris. If the cyclist crashes while trying to avoid the vehicle, the absence of contact does not end the claim.

Why Close Passing Is Dangerous for Cyclists

Close passing leaves no margin for error. A cyclist may be injured because of:

• contact with the vehicle or mirror

• being forced toward the curb

• being pushed toward parked vehicles

• sudden braking

• swerving into rough pavement or debris

• loss of balance after a near miss

• being startled into an unsafe movement

A driver might think the pass was uneventful because the vehicle did not hit the cyclist. From the cyclist’s perspective, the same pass may have left no safe escape route.

That difference in perspective is often central to these claims.

Does Passing Within One Metre Automatically Decide the Claim?

A pass inside one metre can be important evidence. It does not mean every issue is automatically resolved. It is relevant:

• how close the vehicle came

• whether there was contact

• whether the cyclist was forced to react

• whether the driver had room to wait or change lanes

• whether the road design made the pass unsafe

• whether the close pass caused the crash or injury

While a ticket can make things simpler, the absence of a ticket does not prove the pass was safe. Police may not have seen the crash. The cyclist may be taken to hospital before giving a full account. Video may not be available at the scene. A roadside investigation may not capture the spacing, the cyclist’s lane position, or why the cyclist moved the way they did.

Sideswipes, Forced-Off-Road Crashes, and No-Contact Claims

Close-passing cases tend to fall into a few patterns.

A sideswipe case involves direct contact. The vehicle body, mirror, trailer, or cargo may strike the cyclist or bicycle.

A forced-off-road case may involve no direct contact. The vehicle passes so closely that the cyclist is pushed toward the curb, shoulder, gravel, grass, or another hazard.

An evasive-movement case happens when the cyclist swerves or brakes to avoid the vehicle and crashes as a result.

The last two categories are more likely to be disputed by insurance companies and the driver. Drivers and insurers may focus on the lack of contact. But if the unsafe pass created the emergency, there will still be liability on the driver.

How Liability Is Assessed When a Driver Passes Too Close

The liability analysis focuses on the driver’s choices before and during the pass. Was there enough room? Should the driver have waited? Did the driver attempt to squeeze past? Was the cyclist riding predictably? Did parked cars, road width, traffic speed, or road surface conditions make the pass unsafe?

On some roads, there simply is not enough room for a car to pass a cyclist safely without changing lanes or waiting. In those situations, a driver who forces the pass is creating the danger.

That is why the one-metre rule is useful in a claim. It provides a legal anchor for the analysis. The driver needed to leave space. If that space was not available, the driver needed to adjust.

What If the Driver Says There Was Enough Room?

Drivers sometimes say the pass was safe because there was no impact, or because they believed there was enough room.

A driver’s estimate of space can often be unreliable. The vehicle is moving. The cyclist is moving. The driver may be judging clearance from the centre of the car, not from the mirror, trailer, or edge of the vehicle. The driver may also fail to account for the space a cyclist needs to stay balanced and avoid road hazards.

A cyclist does not ride like a painted line on the road. Small adjustments are normal. A cyclist may need to avoid debris, a grate, a pothole, a parked car, or a rough edge near the curb.

A pass that leaves no room for those ordinary movements is not a safe pass. This is the rationale behind the one meter rule.

Cyclist Lane Position and the One-Metre Rule

Cyclist lane position can sometimes be attacked after a crash. The argument usually sounds like this: the cyclist should have been closer to the curb.

Often this argument will be overlooking the fact that cyclists may need to ride away from the curb to avoid:

• sewer grates

• potholes

• loose gravel

• broken pavement

• parked vehicles

• opening doors

• narrowing lanes

• construction barriers

Often, hugging the curb is more dangerous than taking a safer position in the lane.

The one-metre passing rule still applies. A driver does not get to pass too closely because the cyclist was not riding on the extreme edge of the road.

Narrow Roads and When Drivers Should Wait

Many close-pass crashes happen because a driver tries to pass where there is not enough room. A driver may be able to squeeze through. That does not mean the pass was safe.

If the lane is narrow, the safer choice may be to slow down and wait until there is room to pass properly. Depending on the road, that may mean waiting until the lane widens, until oncoming traffic clears, or until it is safe to move farther left.

This can be frustrating for drivers. It is still part of sharing the road.

In a , the issue may be whether a reasonable driver would have waited instead of trying to pass within a tight space.

Passing Near Parked Cars and the Door Zone

Close passing is especially dangerous if a cyclist is riding beside parked cars or approaching cars that are parked.

The cyclist may be trapped between two hazards: opening doors on the right and moving traffic on the left.

If a driver passes too closely, the cyclist may have nowhere to go. Moving right may mean entering the door zone. Moving left may mean contact with the passing vehicle.

This can become important in dooring accident claims, where the cyclist’s lane position is affected by parked vehicles and the need to stay clear of opening doors.

A driver passing a cyclist near parked cars should account for that. Leaving one metre from the cyclist may still be unsafe if the pass forces the cyclist into another hazard.

Bike Lanes and Unsafe Passing

A bike lane does not make every pass safe. Some drivers assume that if the cyclist is in a bike lane, the driver can pass without concern. But bike lanes vary widely. Some are narrow. Some run beside parked cars. Some disappear near intersections. Some are interrupted by construction, delivery vehicles, buses, or turning traffic.

A cyclist in a bike lane could still be exposed to:

• vehicles drifting toward the lane

• buses or trucks passing too closely

• parked cars beside the lane

• vehicles entering or exiting driveways

• construction narrowing the lane

• turning vehicles crossing the cyclist’s path

The question remains: did the driver leave enough room for the cyclist to continue safely?

What If the Cyclist Was Not Hit but Crashed Avoiding the Vehicle?

A cyclist may still have a claim even if the passing vehicle did not touch them.

That happens where a cyclist is injured after:

• swerving away from a close pass

• braking suddenly

• losing control near the curb

• striking debris or broken pavement

• being squeezed between traffic and parked cars

These claims are often disputed because the driver may say, “I never even hit them.” However, if the driver’s pass created the emergency that caused the cyclist to crash, the lack of contact may not defeat the claim.

These cases depend heavily on evidence and credibility of the parties. Video, witnesses, road layout, lane width, and the cyclist’s immediate explanation can become very important.

Evidence Used to Prove an Unsafe Passing Claim

Close-passing claims often depend on practical evidence from the scene such as:

• cyclist statement

• driver statement

• witness evidence

• dashcam footage

• helmet-camera or bike-camera footage

• nearby security footage

• vehicle damage

• bicycle damage

• mirror contact evidence

• road width measurements

• photographs of the lane, curb, shoulder, or bike lane

• police report details

• medical records describing how the crash happened

Video can be particularly helpful since without bias, it shows spacing, vehicle path, cyclist position, and whether the cyclist was forced to react.

Without video, the claim may depend on the physical layout of the road, the width of the vehicle, the cyclist’s position, and the consistency of the accounts.

How Close Passing Injuries Happen

Injuries can happen when the cyclist is clipped, loses balance, falls while braking, hits the curb, lands on the roadway, or is forced into another object.

Common injuries include:

• concussions

• fractures

• shoulder injuries

• wrist and hand injuries

• knee injuries

• facial injuries

• dental injuries

• road rash

• soft tissue injuries

The severity depends on the fall and the secondary impact, not just the initial contact. A close pass that looks minor to a driver can still cause a serious cycling injury.

How the One-Metre Rule Fits Into Ontario Bicycle Accident Claims

The one-metre passing law helps frame the driver’s duty when passing a cyclist.

In an injury claim, it can help answer practical questions:

• Did the driver leave enough space?

• Should the driver have waited?

• Was the lane too narrow for a safe pass?

• Did the pass force the cyclist into danger?

• Did the driver account for parked cars, road width, debris, or other hazards?

You can learn more about these cases through our Ontario Bicycle Accident Lawyers page.

For cyclists injured in collisions involving motor vehicles, see our article on whether an injured cyclist can claim accident benefits in Ontario.

Frequently Asked Questions About Ontario’s One-Metre Passing Law

How much space must a driver leave when passing a cyclist in Ontario?

Ontario drivers have to leave at least one metre when passing a cyclist. In an injury claim, the issue is whether the driver passed safely and whether the close pass caused or contributed to the crash.

Is a driver automatically at fault for passing a cyclist too closely?

A close pass can be strong evidence of unsafe driving, especially if it breaches the one-metre rule. Fault still depends on the full facts, including road width, cyclist position, traffic conditions, impact evidence, and whether the pass caused the injury.

Can a cyclist have a claim if the vehicle did not hit them?

Yes. A cyclist may still have a claim if a close pass forced them to swerve, brake, lose control, or crash. The issue is whether the driver’s passing manoeuvre created the danger that caused the injury.

What if the driver says the cyclist was too far from the curb?

That argument does not end the analysis. Cyclists may need to ride away from the curb to avoid potholes, debris, sewer grates, parked cars, opening doors, or unsafe road edges. The driver still has to pass safely.

Does the one-metre rule apply if the cyclist is in a bike lane?

Drivers still need to pass safely. A bike lane does not remove the risks associated with close passes, especially when vehicles drift toward the lane, the lane narrows, or the cyclist is near parked vehicles or road hazards.

What evidence helps prove a close-passing bicycle accident?

Helpful evidence includes video footage, witness statements, photographs, road measurements, police report details, bicycle damage, vehicle damage, mirror contact evidence, and medical records describing how the crash happened.

Final Observations

Ontario’s one-metre passing law is more than a traffic rule. In a bicycle accident claim, it becomes important evidence of whether the driver passed safely.

Close passing leaves cyclists with little room to correct, avoid hazards, or recover from a sudden movement. A driver who squeezes past may force the cyclist toward the curb, parked cars, broken pavement, or traffic.

The important question is simple : did the driver leave enough room, or should the driver have waited to pass?