Fail to obey signs when passing an OPP cruiser

User avatar
Bookm
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Stratford, Ontario

by: Bookm on
Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:34 pm

Reflections wrote:
Definition, “stunt”
8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
Lack of consideration for others.......hhhhmmmmmmm
:evil:
Naw... Reflections nailed it! The word "or" breaks this sentence into 3 separate possibilities for conviction. If "and" had been used instead, THEN the "endangerment" portion would be required for all of it.

"Marked Departure" of speed is in the definition of "Race" or "Contest", not "Stunt".


User avatar
ticketcombat
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:59 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

by: ticketcombat on
Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:45 am

Bookm wrote:Naw... Reflections nailed it! The word "or" breaks this sentence into 3 separate possibilities for conviction. If "and" had been used instead, THEN the "endangerment" portion would be required for all of it.

"Marked Departure" of speed is in the definition of "Race" or "Contest", not "Stunt".
Actually the word "by" is what's at play here:
Definition, “stunt”
8. Driving a motor vehicle [A]without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or [C]in a manner that may endanger any person by,
The
"or" means any of the above, so a stunt under section 8 is causing either A or B or C. But the word "by" defines A, B, and C. In other words you are causing A, B, or C "by" doing any of the following which is listed in subsections i to iv.
Fight Your Ticket!


User avatar
Bookm
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Stratford, Ontario

by: Bookm on
Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:08 pm

I ain't no English professor (hehe), but I believe the "By" being on the left of the comma restricts subsections i to iv to "[C]" only. If the "By" had been on the right of the comma, [A], AND [C] would have been associated to subsections i to iv.

I think it could be argued that the officer's conduct would fall under . Sure it would be a stretch, but purposely blocking the "passing" lane is, by far, my biggest pet peave with Canadian driving philosophy.

OK, I could be convinced that he didin't actually "stunt", but he was EASILY subject to prosecution under:
147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a driver of a,

(a) vehicle while overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

(b) vehicle while preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or

(c) road service vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (2).


If the cruiser is considered a "road service vehicle", then there is no offence and he was simply being a pompous, arrogant, power-trippin' a$$.


WAIT!!!... I put myself in the cops shoes in an attempt to understand his actions:
- Fantino has publicly stated that his officers are expected to obey every speed limit and set an example for this new era of "slower is safer".
- I can imagine how upsetting it must be for an officer to see other drivers exercising THEIR opinion of what an appropriate speed is, and joyously pulling away from him, while he's stuck at that dang "Fantino-limit" even though he knows it's too slow (I've never seen an OPP cruiser driving the speed limit until Fantino's era).
- So the OPP take advantage of Fantion's new solution and lash out at the vast majority of this provinces population who clearly refuse to accept 100 as a reasonable speed on the 401.
- Basic human reaction.


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:47 pm

Bookm wrote: I put myself in the cops shoes in an attempt to understand his actions:
- Fantino has publicly stated that his officers are expected to obey every speed limit and set an example for this new era of "slower is safer".
Put it this way, I will always be within 15km/hr of the posted limit unless a fellow officer needs assistance and that is it. 90% of my moving speed enforcement is parallel mode (same direction) waiting for drivers to "catch me" and then "LOCK" the speed. So many drivers are oblivious to rear antenna, do the ole slow down once they identify the cruiser and then still pass the marked car above the speed limit :shock: This way I don't have to drive unnecessarily fast. So then either issue a speeding or disobey sign offence.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:47 pm

hwybear wrote:So many drivers are oblivious to rear antenna, do the ole slow down once they identify the cruiser and then still pass the marked car above the speed limit
Drivers not looking far enough ahead... or paying attention? Out of curiosity... how many times have you been driving along in a marked cruiser and had a driver rocket up behind you and blow past you without changing speed at all? How about on a two-lane highway? :shock:
Bookm wrote:purposely blocking the "passing" lane is, by far, my biggest pet peave with Canadian driving philosophy.
You're not alone. Considering all of the amazing driving I see daily, I'm wondering if it would be possible to take a gorilla, train it, and see if it can pass an Ontario driver license exam (in a simulator, of course).


User avatar
ticketcombat
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:59 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

by: ticketcombat on
Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:50 pm

Bookm wrote:I ain't no English professor (hehe), but I believe the "By" being on the left of the comma restricts subsections i to iv to "[C]" only. If the "By" had been on the right of the comma, [A], AND [C] would have been associated to subsections i to iv.
That's one heck of a comma! If you are right, then basically the definition of a stunt is anyone driving without consideration to other drivers. That basically takes out every driver in TO. Hey, maybe that was Fantino's plan all along: revenge for TO firing his a$$!
Fight Your Ticket!


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:50 pm

Radar Identified wrote: Out of curiosity... how many times have you been driving along in a marked cruiser and had a driver rocket up behind you and blow past you without changing speed at all? How about on a two-lane highway? :shock:
About once a month in the winter.....daily in the summer (when I become an "evil knievel")

2 lane hwy rarely in a marked car...maybe once a year. Evil Knievel style daily in the summer!!
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Bookm
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Stratford, Ontario

by: Bookm on
Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:34 am

ticketcombat wrote:That's one heck of a comma! If you are right, then basically the definition of a stunt is anyone driving without consideration to other drivers. That basically takes out every driver in TO. Hey, maybe that was Fantino's plan all along: revenge for TO firing his a$$!


It really just illustrates how difficult it is for the average citizen to know EXACTLY what the laws are these days. So many compensate by driving well below the speed limit. I see it all the time.


User avatar
Reflections
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: somewhere in traffic

Moderator

by: Reflections on
Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:10 am

It still remains that the officer was holding up the "normal" flow of traffic. Numeric speed limits are not at issue here. Flow is flow. Any person, and I mean any, should be looking in their rearview mirror and see if there is a line up of cars behind them. If there is, move the hell over. I do believe that the more vehicles in close proximity, i.e. vehicles moving side by side or close to it, hold more chance of collision then those "following the leader" in a nice "train". In my little automation gig, I remove bottlenecks, I wish I could do the same on the roads.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


User avatar
racer
VIP
VIP
Posts: 959
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Contact:

by: racer on
Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:18 pm

Bookm wrote: Exception:
...
c. road service vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (2).[/i]

If the cruiser is considered a "road service vehicle", then there is no offence and he was simply being a pompous, arrogant, power-trippin' a$$.
Road service vehicles must be readily identified as such by their license plates, which say "Road Service Vehicle". Therefore there was an offense. Also, as OHTA 133 tells us,
OHTA 133 wrote:“road service vehicle” means a vehicle operated by or on behalf of a municipality or other authority having jurisdiction and control of a highway while the vehicle is being used for highway maintenance purposes; (“véhicule de la voirie”)
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"

www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:36 pm

racer wrote: Road service vehicles must be readily identified as such by their license plates, which say "Road Service Vehicle".
You have to be making that line up
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:13 pm

hwybear wrote:(when I become an "evil knievel")
You're a motorcycle cop too? Oh great, now I have to re-plan my "ticket avoidance" strategy when travelling to Windsor. :lol:
Road service vehicles must be readily identified as such by their license plates, which say "Road Service Vehicle".
Thought it was by some sort of decal... if at all...


User avatar
racer
VIP
VIP
Posts: 959
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Contact:

by: racer on
Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:25 pm

Any and all Road Service Vehicles I have encountered in my life:
A. Never had an Ontario license plate
B. Had "Road Service Vehicle" plate instead.
C. Never seen one with a decal saying anything about it being a RSV. Usually the only decal(s) they had were the company name decals or municipality decals...

These do not have to follow a whole slew of OHTA laws (kinda scary actually), and can use dyed diesel fuel (it's half the price of diesel, but dirtier)...
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"

www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com


User avatar
Proper1
Member
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:14 pm
Location: Caledonia, Ontario

by: Proper1 on
Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:11 pm

Bookm wrote:I ain't no English professor (hehe), but I believe the "By" being on the left of the comma restricts subsections i to iv to "[C]" only. If the "By" had been on the right of the comma, [A], AND [C] would have been associated to subsections i to iv.

I think it could be argued that the officer's conduct would fall under .


Well, I am a former university English department faculty member, and I wish I hadn't been away a few days ago when this discussion took place. I would have agreed with Bookm (and with the other posters who think that this law may be sloppily written).

You could argue that there should be a comma before the words "or in a manner that may...," but in any case the intended meaning of the sentence is clear. No, check that: the actual meaning of the sentence is clear -- God knows what was intended. The sentence says that there are three separate ways to offend under 8, which are A, or B, or C. The absence of punctuation after the "endanger any person" means that what follows is part of C, and not of A or of B. The comma after "by" serves no grammatical purpose. It merely indicates that the poor drudge who wrote this thing felt that he or she needed to take a breath before diving into the subsequent phrases.


User avatar
Reflections
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: somewhere in traffic

Moderator

by: Reflections on
Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:54 pm

Every single law needs a few commas being the long winded babbling gobbly goop that goes on and on trying to include every single possibility with one or two simple phrases because the government has GOD-like powers and childlike responsibility so that they can read them only as they wish


Damn my comma button is broken I hope that doesn't sound like I am rambling like the written law
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “Failing to obey signs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests