Squishy wrote:
We have a move over law?
Yeah, we do... Noone knows about it though. Except www.ohta.ca frequent visitors apparently.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Yeah, we do... Noone knows about it though. Except www.ohta.ca frequent visitors apparently.
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
Ontario Traffic Ticket | Ontario Highway Traffic Act
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
Ontario Traffic Ticket | Ontario Highway Traffic Act
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Move Over law... Had it been enforced half as much as the stuff from 203, there wouldn't have been a (highly dubious) need for 203 in the first place.
Move Over law... Had it been enforced half as much as the stuff from 203, there wouldn't have been a (highly dubious) need for 203 in the first place.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Which section is it? I only know of two - one is 'move right when overtaken', which doesn't really work because by the time you are being overtaken, you have already caused irregular traffic flow. The other is 'keep right when driving slower than the normal flow', which doesn't prevent you from driving side-by-side without passing anyone. In addition, if all lanes are going at the same speed, that sets the 'flow' and also prevents anyone from passing, thus rendering the first law useless. I don't know of a sweet and simple 'keep right except to pass' law.
Which section is it?
I only know of two - one is 'move right when overtaken', which doesn't really work because by the time you are being overtaken, you have already caused irregular traffic flow. The other is 'keep right when driving slower than the normal flow', which doesn't prevent you from driving side-by-side without passing anyone. In addition, if all lanes are going at the same speed, that sets the 'flow' and also prevents anyone from passing, thus rendering the first law useless.
I don't know of a sweet and simple 'keep right except to pass' law.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
And even then, you'd have smartasses who'd "pass" doing 1km/h more than the guy to the right. Driving south of the border, I'd be about to pass 2 trucks when one would swing by in front of me and start passing the other one at a snail's pace. Usually those a-holes had those stickers saying "Without trucks America stops."
And even then, you'd have smartasses who'd "pass" doing 1km/h more than the guy to the right. Driving south of the border, I'd be about to pass 2 trucks when one would swing by in front of me and start passing the other one at a snail's pace. Usually those a-holes had those stickers saying "Without trucks America stops."
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
That's still an improvement over what happens on our roads. At least they're passing each other, and aside from times of heavy traffic volume, it's just a matter of waiting them out. Here, there are cars squatted firmly in the middle and left lanes, doing 100 km/h (I know because I never close in on them and they never lose me :lol: ). There are also the jackrabbit drivers who will start to pass me at 110 km/h, then suddenly decide to match my speed for the next five kilometres. So there is no simple 'keep right except to pass' law? Who wrote this move over law? WHO?!
That's still an improvement over what happens on our roads. At least they're passing each other, and aside from times of heavy traffic volume, it's just a matter of waiting them out.
Here, there are cars squatted firmly in the middle and left lanes, doing 100 km/h (I know because I never close in on them and they never lose me 
). There are also the jackrabbit drivers who will start to pass me at 110 km/h, then suddenly decide to match my speed for the next five kilometres.
So there is no simple 'keep right except to pass' law? Who wrote this move over law? WHO?!
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Good point. So another driver has to make a couple of lane-changes to get around a couple of these inconsiderate f-words and all of a sudden he's a "street racer." What a way to treat the result instead of treating the cause.
Good point. So another driver has to make a couple of lane-changes to get around a couple of these inconsiderate f-words and all of a sudden he's a "street racer." What a way to treat the result instead of treating the cause.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
159.1 ( 1 ) and 159.1 ( 2 )
Squishy wrote:
Which section is it?
159.1 ( 1 ) and 159.1 ( 2 )
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
OH! That move over law. I thought we had some obscure 'keep right' law that I didn't know about. Just today, there was an EMT Tahoe followed by a fire truck coming in the opposite direction from me. There was a concrete median and heavy traffic on my side, so I put on my four-ways but didn't stop (was watching for any indication that they would jump the median). Some guy in the opposite direction (same as the EMT) just stopped in the middle of the road, and for some reason poked the front of his car into the left lane. So there are cars pulled over all along the right lane, this car is in the middle lane, and the front of the car is partly blocking the left lane. :shock: :shock: :shock: It was as if he was purposefully blocking off those vehicles. Unbelievable. I was in Toronto, by the way. Orillia is still awesome. 8)
OH! That move over law. I thought we had some obscure 'keep right' law that I didn't know about.
Just today, there was an EMT Tahoe followed by a fire truck coming in the opposite direction from me. There was a concrete median and heavy traffic on my side, so I put on my four-ways but didn't stop (was watching for any indication that they would jump the median). Some guy in the opposite direction (same as the EMT) just stopped in the middle of the road, and for some reason poked the front of his car into the left lane. So there are cars pulled over all along the right lane, this car is in the middle lane, and the front of the car is partly blocking the left lane.
It was as if he was purposefully blocking off those vehicles. Unbelievable.
I was in Toronto, by the way. Orillia is still awesome. 
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Toronto is just so dense that it only takes a couple of idiots to create a backup. That's where the law of averages kicks in and causes a huge mess all over the place, all day, every day.
Toronto is just so dense that it only takes a couple of idiots to create a backup. That's where the law of averages kicks in and causes a huge mess all over the place, all day, every day.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
What is this move right nonsense. Its so simple. If your on the 401 and there is a km of cars backed up behind you and all the road infront of you is wide open..... :idea: ding! you are the problem, move over, you are holding up the flow of traffic. The same goes for all those trucks in the middle. If every single vehicle behind you is going around you, then move over into the right lane that no one is probably in anyways! Squishy we could have it your way, no one would have to move right, the result would be no lane discipline at all. Can you imagine the autobahn and people dont have to move over? What a mess, there is a dangerous road for you, when people will justweave all over the place. The mistake these people make is they actually believe they will be successful at getting others to slow down, this is the OPP's job. You will not slow anyone down, they will just do whatever they can to get around you, which is often some thing such as passing on the right or some kind of other dangerous move. Where does all this confusion come from? I see it all the time. If your in the middle lane at 110 and the truck infront is at 105. Do not but infront of the people in the left lane going 130 and then decide to pass the truck at 107 .... Your gonna cause road rage and piss off everyone behind you.
What is this move right nonsense.
Its so simple.
If your on the 401 and there is a km of cars backed up behind you and all the road infront of you is wide open..... 
ding! you are the problem, move over, you are holding up the flow of traffic.
The same goes for all those trucks in the middle.
If every single vehicle behind you is going around you, then move over into the right lane that no one is probably in anyways!
Squishy we could have it your way, no one would have to move right, the result would be no lane discipline at all.
Can you imagine the autobahn and people dont have to move over?
What a mess, there is a dangerous road for you, when people will justweave all over the place.
The mistake these people make is they actually believe they will be successful at getting others to slow down, this is the OPP's job.
You will not slow anyone down, they will just do whatever they can to get around you, which is often some thing such as passing on the right or some kind of other dangerous move.
Where does all this confusion come from?
I see it all the time.
If your in the middle lane at 110 and the truck infront is at 105.
Do not but infront of the people in the left lane going 130 and then decide to pass the truck at 107 ....
Your gonna cause road rage and piss off everyone behind you.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
What exactly do you think 'my way' is?
tdrive2 wrote:
...
Squishy we could have it your way, no one would have to move right, the result would be no lane discipline at all.
...
What exactly do you think 'my way' is?
-
Radar Identified
- High Authority
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
tdrive2: I think, based on his previous posts and conversations, Squishy probably keeps right more than anyone else on this forum.
tdrive2: I think, based on his previous posts and conversations, Squishy probably keeps right more than anyone else on this forum.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Sorry squishy i was not referring to that i was in a hurry and i was reading your posts about talking about even having a law like that in the first place and wether or not we should have one whatit should define, etc. I was just responding to why they're is so much confusion about moving to the right except to pass. I also believe we should prohibit Vehicles with trailers, buses, and people towing boats etc from using the left lane. Coach buses are the worst. I rethought my stance on those truck speed limiters as well. If the 105 limit indirectly forces trucks in the right lane this might not be such a bad thing. trucks cause alot of havoc with lane discipline when they park in the middle lane at 105-100 forcing everyone in the middle lane who wants to pass to get into the left lane. So we have a tailgating party in the left lane, slow trucks in the middle, and no body on the right hand side. Even cam wooley thinks we have terrible lane discipline! I also think if we had a limit of 115/125 or something like that trucks would not be exceeding the speed limit and would be if anything slower then the limit and in the right hand lane. I feel sorry for those people who like to do a normal speed in the middle lane like 115 and 120. But then they end up getting slowed by some truck going 105 with a half asleep driver paying no attention. So they go into the left lane and don't want to drive fast so everyone who was going 125-130 is now high beaming them and tailgating them. If the truck wasnt in the middle in the first place we wouldn't have this problem. This always happens on the 401, the 401 experiences a high volume of commercial truck traffic.
Sorry squishy i was not referring to that i was in a hurry and i was reading your posts about talking about even having a law like that in the first place and wether or not we should have one whatit should define, etc.
I was just responding to why they're is so much confusion about moving to the right except to pass.
I also believe we should prohibit Vehicles with trailers, buses, and people towing boats etc from using the left lane.
Coach buses are the worst.
I rethought my stance on those truck speed limiters as well.
If the 105 limit indirectly forces trucks in the right lane this might not be such a bad thing.
trucks cause alot of havoc with lane discipline when they park in the middle lane at 105-100 forcing everyone in the middle lane who wants to pass to get into the left lane.
So we have a tailgating party in the left lane, slow trucks in the middle, and no body on the right hand side.
Even cam wooley thinks we have terrible lane discipline!
I also think if we had a limit of 115/125 or something like that trucks would not be exceeding the speed limit and would be if anything slower then the limit and in the right hand lane.
I feel sorry for those people who like to do a normal speed in the middle lane like 115 and 120. But then they end up getting slowed by some truck going 105 with a half asleep driver paying no attention. So they go into the left lane and don't want to drive fast so everyone who was going 125-130 is now high beaming them and tailgating them.
If the truck wasnt in the middle in the first place we wouldn't have this problem.
This always happens on the 401, the 401 experiences a high volume of commercial truck traffic.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Ahhhh finally another person who sees Cause and Effect i have been saying this for so long. I believe for example most tailgating is the EFFECT of someone slowing them down. The CAUSE is blocking/plugging/or slowing traffic from a failure to move right. If only Julian Fantino could see this to. If people didn't drive 110 or 100 in the left lanes of a highway i believe we would have alot less tailgating and this so called lane weaving.
FiReSTaRT wrote:
Good point. So another driver has to make a couple of lane-changes to get around a couple of these inconsiderate f-words and all of a sudden he's a "street racer." What a way to treat the result instead of treating the cause.
Ahhhh finally another person who sees Cause and Effect i have been saying this for so long.
I believe for example most tailgating is the EFFECT of someone slowing them down.
The CAUSE is blocking/plugging/or slowing traffic from a failure to move right.
If only Julian Fantino could see this to.
If people didn't drive 110 or 100 in the left lanes of a highway i believe we would have alot less tailgating and this so called lane weaving.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
The confusion with this whole 'keep right except to pass' thing is at least partly because, as far as I know, we have no straightforward law that says simply keep right except to pass. We have two separate laws that just barely hint at keeping right, one of which is based on a questionable interpretation of a law seemingly meant to allow cars to pass on the left on a two-lane highway (ss. 148 (2)). If 148 (2) was originally meant to apply to multi-lane highways as well, then I think there should be an additional exception that a vehicle does not have to move to the right if in the process of overtaking a third vehicle (otherwise one vehicle blowing by at 200 km/h would mean everyone else has to legally funnel into the right-hand lane). On reading the HTA, I don't think many people would interpret that subsection to mean "keep to the right if someone behind you is approaching faster than you are" unless they were specifically looking for a 'keep right' law. When I first read it, I interpreted it as 'keep to the right half of the roadway when being overtaken', as many of us in the boonies drive down the centre of the road when there is no opposing traffic. Basically, re-write 148 (2) to say something like 'keep to the right edge of the roadway unless in the process of overtaking another vehicle less than 50 m to the front', and add an exception for when a lane to the left must be used to stay on your street or to make an upcoming turn within 250 m. Then enforce the hell out of it, Fantino style.
The confusion with this whole 'keep right except to pass' thing is at least partly because, as far as I know, we have no straightforward law that says simply keep right except to pass. We have two separate laws that just barely hint at keeping right, one of which is based on a questionable interpretation of a law seemingly meant to allow cars to pass on the left on a two-lane highway (ss. 148 (2)). If 148 (2) was originally meant to apply to multi-lane highways as well, then I think there should be an additional exception that a vehicle does not have to move to the right if in the process of overtaking a third vehicle (otherwise one vehicle blowing by at 200 km/h would mean everyone else has to legally funnel into the right-hand lane). On reading the HTA, I don't think many people would interpret that subsection to mean "keep to the right if someone behind you is approaching faster than you are" unless they were specifically looking for a 'keep right' law. When I first read it, I interpreted it as 'keep to the right half of the roadway when being overtaken', as many of us in the boonies drive down the centre of the road when there is no opposing traffic.
Basically, re-write 148 (2) to say something like 'keep to the right edge of the roadway unless in the process of overtaking another vehicle less than 50 m to the front', and add an exception for when a lane to the left must be used to stay on your street or to make an upcoming turn within 250 m. Then enforce the hell out of it, Fantino style.
-
Radar Identified
- High Authority
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Not surprised at all. At all. He probably also thought he was the best driver on the road. Would make a lot of sense. Probably would also improve overall safety; less lane changing, tailgating, etc. My own view on it is that, among many factors (example being that most drivers not only don't know the law, but also get weird ideas like driving in the left lane is the safest place to be), our highway signs say "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT" rather than "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS." I think a lot of drivers see the "slower traffic" and go "dammit I'm NOT slow" and they stay left. That said... I have seen, late at night, the RESCU electronic traffic sign on the DVP lit up with the message: KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS, and, even more clear: DRIVE IN RIGHT LANE UNLESS PASSING ANOTHER VEHICLE. :D Too bad it is only displayed between about 1:00 and 4:00 AM. :(
Squishy wrote:
Just today, there was an EMT Tahoe followed by a fire truck coming in the opposite direction from me. There was a concrete median and heavy traffic on my side, so I put on my four-ways but didn't stop (was watching for any indication that they would jump the median). Some guy in the opposite direction (same as the EMT) just stopped in the middle of the road, and for some reason poked the front of his car into the left lane. So there are cars pulled over all along the right lane, this car is in the middle lane, and the front of the car is partly blocking the left lane.
It was as if he was purposefully blocking off those vehicles. Unbelievable.
I was in Toronto, by the way.
Not surprised at all. At all. He probably also thought he was the best driver on the road.
Squishy wrote:
Basically, re-write 148 (2) to say something like 'keep to the right edge of the roadway unless in the process of overtaking another vehicle less than 50 m to the front', and add an exception for when a lane to the left must be used to stay on your street or to make an upcoming turn within 250 m. Then enforce the hell out of it, Fantino style.
Would make a lot of sense. Probably would also improve overall safety; less lane changing, tailgating, etc.
My own view on it is that, among many factors (example being that most drivers not only don't know the law, but also get weird ideas like driving in the left lane is the safest place to be), our highway signs say "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT" rather than "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS." I think a lot of drivers see the "slower traffic" and go "dammit I'm NOT slow" and they stay left. That said... I have seen, late at night, the RESCU electronic traffic sign on the DVP lit up with the message: KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS, and, even more clear: DRIVE IN RIGHT LANE UNLESS PASSING ANOTHER VEHICLE. 
Too bad it is only displayed between about 1:00 and 4:00 AM. 
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
There is also that group of drivers who think the left lane is the 'passing lane', the centre lane is the 'travel lane', and the right lane is the 'merge lane'. :shock: Why? Why?! :cry:
There is also that group of drivers who think the left lane is the 'passing lane', the centre lane is the 'travel lane', and the right lane is the 'merge lane'.
Why? Why?! 
-
Reflections
- High Authority
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Because they are driving in accordance with "generally accepted" driving rules, not the real rules. The three lane approach actually works, if all drivers abide. Still waiting for the day that all the drivers on the road think alike.............I'll be a while.........
Squishy wrote:
There is also that group of drivers who think the left lane is the 'passing lane', the centre lane is the 'travel lane', and the right lane is the 'merge lane'.
Why? Why?!
Because they are driving in accordance with "generally accepted" driving rules, not the real rules. The three lane approach actually works, if all drivers abide. Still waiting for the day that all the drivers on the road think alike.............I'll be a while.........
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
People are less likely to spend time in the right lane for 2 reasons... 1) Some of tie actual merge lanes are extremely short and you really have to push your vehicle to get up to speed 2) Even where you don't, too many Ontario drivers aren't aware of the far right pedal and seem to let their engine accelerate on its own, thus merging at 60km/h.
People are less likely to spend time in the right lane for 2 reasons...
1) Some of tie actual merge lanes are extremely short and you really have to push your vehicle to get up to speed
2) Even where you don't, too many Ontario drivers aren't aware of the far right pedal and seem to let their engine accelerate on its own, thus merging at 60km/h.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
-
PetitionGuy
- Newbie
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:43 pm
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
are you sure about that? personally....since old Julian has been on his HTA crusade BSing stats along the way....I've about lost any respect I had for the guy in the first place - which wasn't that much to be honest his bullying....and his endless court appearances defending himself constantly for breaking the law to uphold the law makes him about the worst leader any Police establishment could have...I'd love to see the legal bill the taxpayers have shelled out because of his actions Fantino has single-handedly solidified the "us vs them" mentality....and it's gonna take the OPP years to lose the damage that man has done
hwybear wrote:
Fantino has been an excellent leader for us.
are you sure about that?
personally....since old Julian has been on his HTA crusade BSing stats along the way....I've about lost any respect I had for the guy in the first place - which wasn't that much to be honest
his bullying....and his endless court appearances defending himself constantly for breaking the law to uphold the law makes him about the worst leader any Police establishment could have...I'd love to see the legal bill the taxpayers have shelled out because of his actions
Fantino has single-handedly solidified the "us vs them" mentality....and it's gonna take the OPP years to lose the damage that man has done
-
Radar Identified
- High Authority
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Think that Reflections & FiReSTaRT covered why a lot of people think that way. If I see traffic merging ahead, I just change one lane to the left, let them on, then move back to the right. A lot of people just don't want to be bothered. Or maybe people are just weird. I'll often see two cars, literally middle of nowhere, no one around them for miles, both in the centre lane, and one is driving three inches off the other one's bumper. :shock: Now that's another "go figure" situation.
Squishy wrote:
There is also that group of drivers who think the left lane is the 'passing lane', the centre lane is the 'travel lane', and the right lane is the 'merge lane'.
Think that Reflections & FiReSTaRT covered why a lot of people think that way. If I see traffic merging ahead, I just change one lane to the left, let them on, then move back to the right. A lot of people just don't want to be bothered. Or maybe people are just weird. I'll often see two cars, literally middle of nowhere, no one around them for miles, both in the centre lane, and one is driving three inches off the other one's bumper. Now that's another "go figure" situation.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
NASCAR fans, obviously.
NASCAR fans, obviously.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
are you sure about that? Absolutely!!! The best that I have seen at the helm in my career. All you see is newpaper writings and most times is biased reporting at that. The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees.
PetitionGuy wrote:
hwybear wrote:
Fantino has been an excellent leader for us.
are you sure about that?
Absolutely!!! The best that I have seen at the helm in my career.
All you see is newpaper writings and most times is biased reporting at that. The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
are you sure about that? Absolutely!!! The best that I have seen at the helm in my career. All you see is newpaper writings and most times is biased reporting at that. The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees. The rest of us folk see him as alarmist, twisting facts around to suit his purpose, borderline paranoid about anyone driving, and willing to take away our rights because something in his mind makes it safer. He is the public face of the 172, not the politicians who voted for it, or even those who drafted it. Now I am sure he is a great boss and all, but he is not OUR boss. He TRIES to become OUR boss though...
hwybear wrote:
PetitionGuy wrote:
hwybear wrote:
Fantino has been an excellent leader for us.
are you sure about that?
Absolutely!!! The best that I have seen at the helm in my career.
All you see is newpaper writings and most times is biased reporting at that. The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees.
The rest of us folk see him as alarmist, twisting facts around to suit his purpose, borderline paranoid about anyone driving, and willing to take away our rights because something in his mind makes it safer. He is the public face of the 172, not the politicians who voted for it, or even those who drafted it.
Now I am sure he is a great boss and all, but he is not OUR boss. He TRIES to become OUR boss though...
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
Ontario Traffic Ticket | Ontario Highway Traffic Act
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
Ontario Traffic Ticket | Ontario Highway Traffic Act
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
are you sure about that? The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees. Sure he's great for the employees, but isn't his job to protect and to serve the general public? I'm willing to bet there's 15,000+ (and growing) families out there who have suffered irreparably under this new regime who don't give a *EDIT* about how great his officers think he is.
hwybear wrote:
PetitionGuy wrote:
hwybear wrote:
Fantino has been an excellent leader for us.
are you sure about that?
The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees.
Sure he's great for the employees, but isn't his job to protect and to serve the general public? I'm willing to bet there's 15,000+ (and growing) families out there who have suffered irreparably under this new regime who don't give a *EDIT* about how great his officers think he is.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Not to mention the Ontario residents who would like to freely assemble and express their political views and even some of his own employees that pissed him off and suffered the consequences of his abuse of power because of it.
Not to mention the Ontario residents who would like to freely assemble and express their political views and even some of his own employees that pissed him off and suffered the consequences of his abuse of power because of it.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
are you sure about that? Absolutely!!! The best that I have seen at the helm in my career. All you see is newpaper writings and most times is biased reporting at that. The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees. I know of Three officers off the hop, whom don't see it like that. A one way trip to Thunder Bay with personal CHEAT NOTES is not for the better! Perhaps we need more fairy tales like this http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoa ... 1-sun.html
hwybear wrote:
PetitionGuy wrote:
hwybear wrote:
Fantino has been an excellent leader for us.
are you sure about that?
Absolutely!!! The best that I have seen at the helm in my career.
All you see is newpaper writings and most times is biased reporting at that. The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees.
I know of Three officers off the hop, whom don't see it like that.
A one way trip to Thunder Bay with personal CHEAT NOTES is not for the better!
Perhaps we need more fairy tales like this http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoa ... 1-sun.html
[img]http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l352/toastedwhitebread/Untitled-TrueColor-03.jpg[/img]
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
Sorry to ask a redundant question but what is actually going on about this. I have read a few articles and now seen cases where people won because of this issue with the road side trial. So is it basically any time lawyers are going to take this to the crown or supreme court and if they rule the road side trial (impoundment for speeding) is infact unconstitutional and would wave your right to a fair trial they are going to A) scrap this law B) re write it to remove the impoundment on the spot? As to Julian Fantino. Im sorry but IMO this guy is FOS, Full of himself, beleives speed is the root of all evil, and i hate his smug, smirk, smart ass, hard ass tought guy impression with the threats he gives the public. He beleive he can get rid of all your rights just for speeding. Come on people this guy is OBSESSED with speed limits as much as i am in the opposite way. Here is is a conference near the 400, talking about safe trucking practices. then he rants off going on about "intercepting some individual at 158 blablablabla...." [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD3PQf-kZ5A[/youtube] He also takes credit for reducing all the deaths last summer on our roads when he totally forgets we were in a period of declining economic activity, gasoline was EXPENSIVE, and it was one of the rainiest summers ever recorded, especially in GTA region. This guy is about as obsessed as with speed as he is obsessed with abusing his power, and taking rights from other's.
Sorry to ask a redundant question but what is actually going on about this.
I have read a few articles and now seen cases where people won because of this issue with the road side trial.
So is it basically any time lawyers are going to take this to the crown or supreme court and if they rule the road side trial (impoundment for speeding) is infact unconstitutional and would wave your right to a fair trial they are going to A) scrap this law B) re write it to remove the impoundment on the spot?
As to Julian Fantino.
Im sorry but IMO this guy is FOS, Full of himself, beleives speed is the root of all evil, and i hate his smug, smirk, smart ass, hard ass tought guy impression with the threats he gives the public.
He beleive he can get rid of all your rights just for speeding.
Come on people this guy is OBSESSED with speed limits as much as i am in the opposite way. Here is is a conference near the 400, talking about safe trucking practices.
then he rants off going on about "intercepting some individual at 158 blablablabla...."
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD3PQf-kZ5A[/youtube]
He also takes credit for reducing all the deaths last summer on our roads when he totally forgets we were in a period of declining economic activity, gasoline was EXPENSIVE, and it was one of the rainiest summers ever recorded, especially in GTA region.
This guy is about as obsessed as with speed as he is obsessed with abusing his power, and taking rights from other's.
Re: JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter
And hwybear to your response about how these laws have slowed people down. You claim before these "tough" laws. ILl make a point about ethics perhaps. Do you agree with the qoute "Sometimes good people have to do bad things." Well i don't. I have ZERO respect for this man. I share his wish of safer roads, but face the fact he took powers he did not have and abused them ad took away your rights at the side of the road at the officers discression and impounding your car. Just because you have good intensions and are perceived as a good person of public service does not ALLOW you to do corrupt, unconstitional things you have do not have the authority to do. He was the face of this law. McGunity Piped in but Julian was the face of this new law. Ill always associate this law with him and many others do aswell. Infact i have often referred to those stunt drivers charged under S.172 of the HTA as part of "Fantinos most wanted club." We live in a free society with rights, that people do not like to be abused or taken away. I am sure many of us do not wish for Canada or Ontario to become some sort of police or Nanny state. And okay back to the point. Its fine that you guys say this slows people down, but i just hope you guys remember that you used unconstitional powers to do so! AND took away someone's right, and they never even had a day in court. You you also know what, you guys could also get people to stop going 30 over to. You could have big Machine guns on your crown vics and just blow the *EDIT* out of your car for going 30 over and throw the car in Jail. This law might have slowed people down, but does slower always = safer? I am sure most of the people of this new law were not real street racers either, they werent the ones who rip down our residential streets or school zones at 50 over. Nope, not at all. You guys got all these people for driving 150 on 400 series highways who in some cases might have been doing nothing dangerous or just going with the flow of traffic. I think sometimes people forget how unrealistic our phony 100 km/hr limit is. You can do many things to slow people down, but i have no respect for methods that include taking peoples rights as citizens of this country and province. I am also tired of these people who get labbed as morons, *EDIT*, and criminals the whole works for doing something. It's fine to not like speeders but the way Fantino talks about these people is if they are some sort of animals, criminals, or vilains to society, and that bothers me. I never had such idea that driving 151 on the 401 in the middle of the night in a straight line would make you such a person. Alot of people have been treated very unfairly and were robbed of their rights, and Fantino is the face, dady, and poster boy of this 50 over. I have never seen him on TV talk about lane discipline, allowing others to pass, or any other bad and inconsiderate things people do that seem to be okay according to him. We already have the HTA to deal with speeders. We didnt need these unconstitional laws and threats from Mr Fantino. On a second thought i love that Video. I think everytime he talks about or reffers to 172 he just gets that feeling of joy and happyness to the point he can't talk anymore and this must be the reason for his terrible, gramar and slurred speech. Did anyone breathalize him? Maybee he could have one of his own Breathalize him under the suspicion of slurred speech. Oh ya with the new laws they could take his license away for 3 days, oh boy.
And hwybear to your response about how these laws have slowed people down. You claim before these "tough" laws.
ILl make a point about ethics perhaps.
Do you agree with the qoute "Sometimes good people have to do bad things."
Well i don't. I have ZERO respect for this man. I share his wish of safer roads, but face the fact he took powers he did not have and abused them ad took away your rights at the side of the road at the officers discression and impounding your car.
Just because you have good intensions and are perceived as a good person of public service does not ALLOW you to do corrupt, unconstitional things you have do not have the authority to do.
He was the face of this law. McGunity Piped in but Julian was the face of this new law.
Ill always associate this law with him and many others do aswell.
Infact i have often referred to those stunt drivers charged under S.172 of the HTA as part of "Fantinos most wanted club."
We live in a free society with rights, that people do not like to be abused or taken away. I am sure many of us do not wish for Canada or Ontario to become some sort of police or Nanny state.
And okay back to the point. Its fine that you guys say this slows people down, but i just hope you guys remember that you used unconstitional powers to do so! AND took away someone's right, and they never even had a day in court.
You you also know what, you guys could also get people to stop going 30 over to.
You could have big Machine guns on your crown vics and just blow the *EDIT* out of your car for going 30 over and throw the car in Jail.
This law might have slowed people down, but does slower always = safer?
I am sure most of the people of this new law were not real street racers either, they werent the ones who rip down our residential streets or school zones at 50 over.
Nope, not at all. You guys got all these people for driving 150 on 400 series highways who in some cases might have been doing nothing dangerous or just going with the flow of traffic. I think sometimes people forget how unrealistic our phony 100 km/hr limit is.
You can do many things to slow people down, but i have no respect for methods that include taking peoples rights as citizens of this country and province.
I am also tired of these people who get labbed as morons, *EDIT*, and criminals the whole works for doing something.
It's fine to not like speeders but the way Fantino talks about these people is if they are some sort of animals, criminals, or vilains to society, and that bothers me. I never had such idea that driving 151 on the 401 in the middle of the night in a straight line would make you such a person.
Alot of people have been treated very unfairly and were robbed of their rights, and Fantino is the face, dady, and poster boy of this 50 over.
I have never seen him on TV talk about lane discipline, allowing others to pass, or any other bad and inconsiderate things people do that seem to be okay according to him.
We already have the HTA to deal with speeders. We didnt need these unconstitional laws and threats from Mr Fantino.
On a second thought i love that Video. I think everytime he talks about or reffers to 172 he just gets that feeling of joy and happyness to the point he can't talk anymore and this must be the reason for his terrible, gramar and slurred speech.
Did anyone breathalize him? Maybee he could have one of his own Breathalize him under the suspicion of slurred speech. Oh ya with the new laws they could take his license away for 3 days, oh boy.
Law Upheld
Court of Appeal overturns stunt driving ruling Published On Thu Mar 18 2010EmailPrintRepublishAdd to Favourites The Canadian Press The Ontario Court of Appeal on Thursday overturned a lower court ruling that found the province's 2007 stunt racing law was unconstitutional, and ordered a new trial for an Oakville woman. The problem for the court is a provision in the law that includes a penalty of up to six months in jail, in addition to fines ranging from $2,000 to $10,000, the seizure of the vehicle and a licence suspension of up to two years after a first conviction. "The stunt driving provision provides for the potential of incarceration, the speeding provision does not," wrote Justice David Doherty for the three-judges on the Court of Appeal. "This distinction is constitutionally significant. The Legislature cannot ... imprison without fault." The Crown had appealed after Justice Geoffrey Griffin of the Ontario Court of Justice in Napanee overturned the guilty verdict against Jane Raham, 62, last September. The grandmother of four was charged in April 2008 with travelling at 131 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, which brought an automatic conviction for stunt driving. The provincial law labels 50 km/h or more over the posted speed limit as stunt driving, which means much more severe penalties than a normal speeding charge. Raham had testified she sped up to pass a large truck on Highway 7 as she was driving home from the Ottawa area. "I did, out of a sort of fear reaction, pick up speed to get past him," she told the court. Judge Griffin overturned her conviction last fall, saying the way stunt driving is classified means once the offence is proven by facts, it cannot be defended. "If one were to describe a stunt driver, the appellant would not immediately spring to mind,'' the judge wrote in his ruling. However, the Court of Appeal ruled Griffin erred in finding the law unconstitutional because it requires no criminal intent when speeding. "Fairness dictates that the respondent should have a new trial at which she will have the opportunity to advance a due diligence defence if so advised," wrote Justice Doherty. A due diligence defence on the stunt driving charge amounts to a claim that the defendant took all reasonable care to avoid committing the offence. "I am pleased with todays decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal that upheld the constitutionality of the street racing provisions," said Attorney General Chris Bentley in a statement. "I would like to thank the Crowns and police who work hard every day to keep our roads safe." Raham who has 60 days to appeal the Court of Appeal's ruling overturning her acquittal, wasn't the only one to convince a court the stunt driving law was unfair. A Newmarket judge dismissed stunt driving charges last fall against Alexandra Drutz, an 18-year-old woman charged with going 157 km/h on Highway 407 north of Toronto. Justice Peter West ruled that having a potential penalty of up to six months in jail for driving 50 km/h over the posted limit violates the Charter of Rights because the law does not allow the accused to present a defence.
Court of Appeal overturns stunt driving ruling
Published On Thu Mar 18 2010EmailPrintRepublishAdd to Favourites
The Canadian Press
The Ontario Court of Appeal on Thursday overturned a lower court ruling that found the province's 2007 stunt racing law was unconstitutional, and ordered a new trial for an Oakville woman.
The problem for the court is a provision in the law that includes a penalty of up to six months in jail, in addition to fines ranging from $2,000 to $10,000, the seizure of the vehicle and a licence suspension of up to two years after a first conviction.
"The stunt driving provision provides for the potential of incarceration, the speeding provision does not," wrote Justice David Doherty for the three-judges on the Court of Appeal.
"This distinction is constitutionally significant. The Legislature cannot ... imprison without fault."
The Crown had appealed after Justice Geoffrey Griffin of the Ontario Court of Justice in Napanee overturned the guilty verdict against Jane Raham, 62, last September.
The grandmother of four was charged in April 2008 with travelling at 131 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, which brought an automatic conviction for stunt driving.
The provincial law labels 50 km/h or more over the posted speed limit as stunt driving, which means much more severe penalties than a normal speeding charge.
Raham had testified she sped up to pass a large truck on Highway 7 as she was driving home from the Ottawa area.
"I did, out of a sort of fear reaction, pick up speed to get past him," she told the court.
Judge Griffin overturned her conviction last fall, saying the way stunt driving is classified means once the offence is proven by facts, it cannot be defended.
"If one were to describe a stunt driver, the appellant would not immediately spring to mind,'' the judge wrote in his ruling.
However, the Court of Appeal ruled Griffin erred in finding the law unconstitutional because it requires no criminal intent when speeding.
"Fairness dictates that the respondent should have a new trial at which she will have the opportunity to advance a due diligence defence if so advised," wrote Justice Doherty.
A due diligence defence on the stunt driving charge amounts to a claim that the defendant took all reasonable care to avoid committing the offence.
"I am pleased with todays decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal that upheld the constitutionality of the street racing provisions," said Attorney General Chris Bentley in a statement.
"I would like to thank the Crowns and police who work hard every day to keep our roads safe."
Raham who has 60 days to appeal the Court of Appeal's ruling overturning her acquittal, wasn't the only one to convince a court the stunt driving law was unfair.
A Newmarket judge dismissed stunt driving charges last fall against Alexandra Drutz, an 18-year-old woman charged with going 157 km/h on Highway 407 north of Toronto.
Justice Peter West ruled that having a potential penalty of up to six months in jail for driving 50 km/h over the posted limit violates the Charter of Rights because the law does not allow the accused to present a defence.
Similar Topics
Featured Topics
Summons for HTA 82 (9)
Hi so I have a bizzare situation. Today I received a summons for "being the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Vehicle Identification Number ###, failed to submit the vehicle, equipment or drawn vehicle for inspection or tests as required by an officer" for a vehicle I previously owned. Apparently a violation of HTA 82(9).
The date of offense is June 15, the summons was issued on October 26th and I…
Too many points all of a sudden
I'm in a bit of a pickle and hope you generous folks don't mind shedding some light
on my situation.
I have an Ontario driver's license . I've recently received a rash of
tickets 4 of them over the last 12 months or so.
If my trials don't go well I could end up with a suspended license. My
trials are scheduled in a 3 months. I'm moving to PEI in about 2
weeks. As of right now my record shows 0…
Improper left turn
Hi, I need some help for the ticket of lmproper left turn.
When i drove my car from east to west, intending to make a left turn and stop in front of stop line. There was a car in front of me, which has turn on yellow light. The light was turning red and then I thought I cannot leave in the intersection and turned, an incoming car was runing the light and hit me. No one got hurt but both cars had…
Manual for Genesis VP Directional?
Have a ticket in which the radar used was a Genesis VP Directional. I had downloaded the manual for a Genesis VP but I now realize that the unit is not the same so it is the wrong manual. My trial is very soon so I do not have time to ask for disclosure of the manual.
Does anyone have access to an electronic version of the manual for Genesis VP Directional?
I want to see if it specifies a tuning…
Speeding ticket
Hey Guys, I need some help regarding an issue.
I was pulled over today in the city of Oakville for going 75 in a 40 zone. However, I am 100 percent certain that I was going only 50 in the 40 zone. When I was pulled over, I was driving my Dad's car which I felt was the reason I was getting stopped since two teenagers driving a 2013 S Class. He asked does I know why I am being pulled over and I…
Tickets and filing 11b
hello guys,
I really need help on fighting my 9 tickets i received from one police officer. Here is some background of what happened!
I was caught speeding 66km on a 40km (school zone) on January 29, 2010. I was driving my friend's car and turns out she didnt renew the validation on the vehicle and didnt leave the up to date insurance paper on the car.
After waiting almost 40 mins in my car i…
Accident reports with no damage/payout - insurance effect?
Hey question that I think here's probably the best place to get the answer:
I was charged with a careless driving offence in oct, trail in early april, so as of right now my insurance record is 100% clean... except the officer did file an accident report at the scene where I was classified at fault due to it being PI (although very minor). The person I hit did not sue etc, so the insurance company…
Failed to stop for school bus
Very much unintentionally passed a stopped bus, with sign and flashing lights. Didn't realize I had done it until I was at the end of the bus. I'll save you my sob story, but it was truly accidental. I'm generally very cautious and have a perfect driving record. Never been stopped.
While I realize if a cop had seen me that I would have gotten a ticket, there were none in sight. Though I may very…
Officer forgot to sign the ticket.
I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).
The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to…
110 in a 80km while passing?
I was passing a vehicle that was going slow for me and there was an oncoming vehicle coming at me. I speed up to get around the person I was passing and the oncoming vehicle turns out to be a cop who turns around and tickets me for going 110km in a 80km zone. How does it work with passing a vehicle? Once I passed the vehicle I went back down to my original speed of just under 100. The officer…
Antique Radar Detector...
I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.
Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police force uses the old x-band frequency.
- Though it is…
S.128 and S.172(1) and s.130 and s.8(1) - is possible all to
Is it possible that one be charged with s.128 and s.172(1) and s.130 and s.8(1) under Reg. 678/90 at the same time?
There were no deviced used to register speed.
It's claimed that I drove 140km/h in the area of 60km/h, which wasn't true. I was speeding, no not anywhere close to this speed (max 100km.h).
How best to defend it?
I was offered to plea guilty to stunt driving with minimu fine, no…
First ticket, reduced to 115 in 100 zone
Hi guys, I'm still a little in shock of getting my first traffic ticket...
On Monday afternoon, I was returning from Toronto to Ottawa on HW416, I was driving about 15 over 100 like always. Then a car came very close to me on the left lane and made me nervous, I speed up unintentionally to pass the car and change lane, but while doing that a police car pull out of the median. He was hiding in…
Transport Trucks limited to 105 km/h?
May i ask this question regarding transport trucks limited to 105 km/h. Moving road blocks or safety?
IMO it isnt speed that kills. I find transport trucks infact help keep the road going. With cars that choose to not move to the right and slow down the middle lane the trucks would try to pass in their passing lane therefore the slower traffic would move right.
Putting the trucks down more is just…
Notified of motion to adjourn
Hello,
Received a notice from the police that a motion is being put forward to adjourn upcoming trial date. Notice indicates that an officer has sworn an affidavit that the crucial witness cannot attend date trial is set for (we know there is a social engagement at 7:30 pm for the witness, trial time is 1:30 pm). This further delay is a big problem to my daughter's case. She is moving away to…
Failing to move to the right for emergency vehicle
Hi all,
This is what happened. I was travelling west on a four lane city street that was very light with traffic. I was making a left hand turn into a wide driveway of a business. There was traffic lights about 100 yards past the driveway and were red for the east-west traffic. I was in the left lane with my signal on and there was no oncoming traffic due to the red light. I was slowed right down…
[Ont]Got a ticket for 13(2) obstructing plate, need help
I was driving my families older car and got pulled over, and the police officer informed me my plate was dirty. He issued me a ticket of $110 for the 13(2) act and obstruct plate as the offense. He informed me that such a plate could be used to avoid red lights as well as 407 tolls, also that buying a new plate can help to lower the ticket if I fight the charge, and that he also took a picture…
Red light camera ticket. Moving for emergency vehicle
Hello,
I received a red light camera ticket. In the picture, you see an ambulance in front of me with flashing lights. I had moved to alleviate the traffic behind me for the emergency vehicles coming behind it.
Is this a possible defense, if so, does anyone know any good case law to justify this position?
Thank you
J
151Km/hr in Montreal - Ontario Resident
what happens if they charge someone for driving at 151Km/hr in montreal and they put for trial, appear after some months and sadly lost the trial ?
In montreal its $300 fine and 5demerit points ...
I heard Ontario and Qubec share the information. So once the trial is over ( and when the file moved to ontario) will his car gets towed and licence get suspended for 7days (later to 30 days ) ? and he…
A question about disclosure
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
Fail to obey stop sign sec. 136(1)(a)
This weekend my father was involved in an accident with a transit bus in Burlington, ON. After the police showed up he was charged with "Fail to obey stop sign" Sec. 136(1)(a). At this particular intersection there NO stop signs but there are traffic lights. There is construction going on there so one of the light posts is smaller.
Driving conditions were terribly wet and visibility was low.…
Consequential Curiosity...
So my boyfriend and I recently started dating. I have a vehicle that was insured. Insurance cost too much and I found it was just as easy to walk to work due to how close it was. But I didn't want to get rid of my car just yet, plus I'm still making payments on it as well. When we moved into our appartment together, I had it towed to my parking spot out back.
Due to a lack of communication, my…
I was involved in a major accident and i don't know if I will be charged or not.
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of street racing in the area. I was not charged on the scene for this but I'm scared i am going to be…
Failure to surrender insurance
I got a ticket for failure to surrender insurance because I did not have my new insurance stubs with me, just a bunch of expired ones. My policy number has not changed, so I asked the officer to just run the policy number so I could prove that I was in fact insured. He said they don't have that ability, handed me the ticket and reminded me that my car could have been impounded.
Do police really…
G2, 1 month from full G test, 49 over. Clarification?
So I'm in a bit of a pickle and would appreciate if someone could clarify something for me.
I'm less than a month away (test on April 6th) from getting my full G license, and got a speeding ticket recently. The ticket was for 49km/h over the posted limit of 100km/h on the 403 in Oakville/Halton region, but was reduced from the initial ~60km/h over.
I have no problem paying the fine and accepting…
