So did anything happen to him for hit and run.

Nope. In nearly all circumstances, hitting a parked (or stopped) car is 100:0 fault.

Tippet v. Doe, 1987 CanLII 2607 (BC SC)
The chain of causation was broken because many other vehicles safely passed OP's without hitting it.
If OP's car was hit by the first passerby, that's another story.

...IMO

if he's parked more than 30cm from the curb he'd be illegally parked and, as mentioned, at least partially at fault (but could be found 100% at fault) but that's only if he stopped, gathered evidence, and left notification/details to the op without doing so id say the others guys shot at getting partial fault whittles down

ultimately it's based on the motor vehicle act and municipal rules, and left to the assessor or judge

here's a similar case under Ontario rules (i know not the same) @ONSC parked car 100% fault
CanLII - 2007 CanLII 20107 (ON SC)

here's a 1999 BCSC ruling involving a long term car parked negligently, plaintiff argued illegally parked judge found otherwise but said parked car was still negligent up to 25% @ fault
CanLII - 1999 CanLII 5194 (BC SC)

but yeah a lot of 'ifs' :)

not similar. the first case fell within a specific provision, which allowed for the ruling in favor of the car that struck the truck:
(2) If automobile “A” is illegally parked, stopped or standing when it is struck by automobile “B” and if the incident occurs outside a city, town or village, the driver of automobile “A” is 100 per cent at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is not at fault for the incident. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 17 (2).

in the second case, a lot of factors went into the judge's negligence analysis, which are not present here. the fact that the defendant was aware that others used an old road, and wouldn't be expecting him there, especially given the poor conditions and lighting, obviously went a long way in finding the defendant only 25 percent at fault.

bah it hurts watching this, Ford hurting another Ford and an N driver.... smh...

i have a case number with vpd. they said to just deal with icbc initially. icbc already found him at fault 100% so now i've emailed the cop asking him what's going to be done for fleeing the scene.

from what i've read, cops are pretty lazy with things like this and won't do much. he hasn't replied back yet.

At least you saved the cost of the deductible by having the guy's plate #.

One of my friend's car also got hit while parked. Only the side mirror was hit. ICBC told her to call the police. The police said the accident is too minor for them to deal with.
She got a dash cam, so she caught the plate of the hit and run car. ICBC is trying to contact the other driver.

A hit and run is too minor. Awesome.

when i called police in a car accident i was involved in, they didnt even bother to come out because no one was injured.

it was in a major intersection in richmond. sunday morning however.

+1 would like to know too.

The dash cam was powered through "Power Magic Pro". You can set it to keep the dash cam on for a specific time after turning the car off, or keep it on until your car battery drops to a certain voltage.

i have a 64gb sandisk ultra in my g1wc...it just depends on the firmware iirc

What are the actual legal consequences of a hit and run on parked vehicles? Any different on moving vehicles? If police aren't responding hit and runs because its a minor no-injury collision, thats disturbing.

sorry been ridiculously busy.

lots of people asking about dashcam.

it's a g1wh on gearbest.com. google around for a discount code too! cost around $50-60 usd I believe.

And apparently on fords (i had to ask in a mustang forum) the electronics stay on for 90 minutes. I was actually annoyed by that thinking it would drain my battery but damn it paid off!

I'm considering finding a way of leaving it on longer.

as for an update on the legal consequences. the constable in charge of the case has told me

"there is no Criminal Code Offence in this case and a Violation ticket under the lesser Provincial Legislation (Motor Vehicle Act) will not be pursued for a variety of legal reasons. The case is now concluded."

I'm emailing his sergeant but I seriously doubt anything will happen. If the sergeant also tells me they're gonna do nothing then...well fuck.

I could've been stepping out of that car and would've gotten creamed. VPD gives zero f****

i know im going to be failed, but am i the only one whos like..id prefer vpd be doing smthn else than figuring out this issue about a small hit n run like this ? i get it, its still a HIT and RUN, but it seems the issue is most likely solved no ? specially with ICBC.

maybe im naive and because its not my car im seeing it like this, but just find it interesting that youre taking this up to the sergeant

The police are not obligated to come out to the scene of any MVA if the vehicles involved can still be safely driven, if the vehicles involved are not blocking the road, and no one is injured, this is the result of new drunk driving laws being passed a few years ago. I have a neighbour who is an RCMP officer and I asked her awhile back when I was involved in a fender bender in Richmond as well where the police would not come to the scene.

Can I take matters into my own hands then?

I think its absurd they don't do anything, especially being an N drive roaming down narrow side streets at that speed. They should be fined & have license suspended. If VPD have time to hand out lame front plate tickets then they have more than enough time to take care of drivers like this.

With dashcam video in hand, the cops just being a lazy prick.

Not gonna sugar coat it, all he has to do is look at a fucking 30 second video, stop, zoom in on the plate, analyze that "Yes that car clearly destroyed a mirror" and write a ticket. Maybe another 5 minutes of paperwork after that.. But nope, just wants to be a lazy prick.

Instead we'll go sit at the bottom of a hill and shoot radar/laser up to catch the people who don't want to granny brake going down the hill. :facepalm:

it is "solved" but one would think it's a crime to hit a vehicle and flee with the intent of not reporting it. i could've been stepping out of the car. a kid could've been crossing the road between cars. he was way too close and driving way too fast.

just because it's "only" a mirror we should just say oh wel no harm done, just don't do it again?

intent to flee the scene. he didn't report it to icbc later that night saying hey i hit someones mirror, not sure whose but yeah.

sergeant replied. he's not gonna do anything either. he was MUCH nicer and more eloquent about it: here's the wall of text he sent me but as least he spent time to actually reply to me. the constable in charge of my case basically said, nope, not gonna do anything. bye.

sergeant's reply:

I am sorry that you are not satisfied with Cst Hallam’s resolution of your incident. I recall the file as Cst Hallam discussed it with me when he was responding to your request for further action. I see the obvious frustration in your e-mail but I am afraid my response will not appease you. I will however go into more detail than Cst Hallam with regards to our decisions to conclude the file as we did. To address the lengthy delay in Cst Hallam’s response, he was away from work during that period of time for medical reasons.



Hit and run is both a Criminal offence under the Criminal Code of Canada and a Provincial offence under the Motor Vehicle Act. The evidentiary standards that must be met to prove the Criminal Code offense of Hit and Run or “Fail to Remain at the Scene of an Accident” includes proving intent. While you might put forth the mere fact that the driver left the scene proves intent, in the legal world that is not the case.

The benefit of the doubt goes to the accused in Canada and the Provincial Crown Counsel in Vancouver will afford the accused that doubt in the absence of a refutable statement from the driver. An example of that might be that the driver didn’t intend to leave without notifying you, but that he suffered an injury as a result of the collision and went to seek medical aid. I know, farfetched but without evidence to the contrary Crown will afford the reasonable doubt. As a junior police officer getting my head around the legal requirements of evidence as opposed to common sense was the most frustrating part of my job. A Criminal Code charge also requires that we be able to identify the driver. Unfortunately your video does not identify the driver and therefore our only avenue would have been a Provincial violation ticket under the Motor Vehicle Act.



You have indicated that the owner admitted culpability once he was interviewed by ICBC. The investigators working for ICBC have no legal obligations to provide a potential suspect their legal Charter rights to counsel, they can put evidence in front of the suspect and obtain a confession which amounts to civil culpability and this admission would be sufficient for a civil case which is what your incident became. Under the Motor Vehicle Act, without confirmation of the driver’s identity our only resort is to pursue the registered owner for the responsibility of allowing a driver of his vehicle to “Fail to Remain at the Scene”. As a Provincial Motor Vehicle Act investigation Cst Hallam would have been obliged to provide the registered owner his Charter rights which include the right to retain Legal Counsel. We could not begin to question the registered owner, show him or tell him about the video without doing this first and inevitably most people opt to speak to Legal Counsel who in turn direct their clients not to speak to the police. We cannot use an admission obtained by ICBC as evidence in a Criminal Code or Motor Vehicle Act investigation

Another factor that influenced the outcome of your accident was the issue of resources at the time of the incident. All of the calls for service are prioritized and triaged based on a number of factors which include at the very top immediate threat of harm or death and recency of the event combined with the likelihood of immediate apprehension. Unfortunately your incident fell way down on the priority list and your incident was referred to my Unit. My Unit has been set up to deal with investigations that require documentation but once weighed against the totality of the circumstances will not be pursued further than the documentation phase. When I use the phrase “totality of the circumstances” this includes all the issues I have presented as well as the potential jeopardy that the suspect might face if we had enough evidence to pursue to conviction. Additionally, the ability to prosecute your case had we pursued a Motor Vehicle Act violation ticket would have rested entirely on your video and your evidence. The successful prosecution of witness only evidence (no police evidence) in traffic court is low. These are the “legal reasons” Cst Hallam referred to in his e-mail.

In the City of Vancouver the VPD responds to an average of 300,000 calls for service per year or around 800 calls per 24 hr period. At times, we are forced to direct our resources to more significant incidents than an offence where the ultimate jeopardy to the suspect is a violation ticket. Had we been present at the time and witnessed the event ourselves the incident would have been dealt with and a ticket would have been issued.

Although I may not have lessened the frustration you feel towards our investigation processes here at the VPD, the driver will continue to feel the financial repercussions of the being 100% at fault for the accident. The driver’s future insurance premiums will climb to prohibitive levels for the next 5 years and will far outweigh the onetime $368 fine associated to a ticket we likely would not have been able to prove.

edit: legal system... :\

i dont get what the big deal is here and why cops even need to be involved? it was a hit and run yes but the only damage that was done was to a fucking side mirror. BIG WHOOP.

you have the dashcam video of it happening, have the guys license plate number and ICBC is dealing with it and has that that the other driver is 100% at fault, so that means you're not on the hook for the repairs. why does this need to go any further?

oh and maybe next time, considering that you do live on a busy street, how about you just try folding in your driver side mirror?

Blame the victim.. Yup. Hahaha.


You're right. I will apologize to this guy. How silly of me!!

victim of what? the guy who knocked your mirror off was caught. my truck was keyed up at my work place and i have no idea who did it.. had to pay the money for the deductible out of my own fucking pocket.

getting the cops involved with this is retarded. its an icbc issue plain and simple. you can sit there and list the what if's all day long but in the end it was just your mirror that got knocked off and the guy who did it is being punished for it. move on...