Correction for posting, is this law 6 years old

I'm doing some correction, i was little bit upset! new law pass in highway traffic act ;requires motorists when approching a police ,fire or ambulance vehicle stopped with its red lights flashing in same direction of travel, either in a lane or on the shoulder of the road , to slow down and pass with caution. if the road has two or more lanes . the motorist must move over into another lanes. the motorist must move over into another lane , if it can be done safely. well i did not know this so i was on the 401east from london to woodstock , i was in right lane ,there was tractortrailer in front of me he pulled into the middle lane. I noticed police cars with flashing lights ,there was 4 police car .Who had pulled over a pick-up with a trailer with snowmoibles on shoulder of the road , I slowed down but still in far right lane and there was cars and trucks in middle lane. i passed the police , than down a bit i notice that one of police car came after me and pulled me over , he ask me why i did not pull into the middle lane when passing the police with flashing lights on . i told him i did not know about that , he said in rude voice that it been law for 6 years. he went back to his car with my insurance slip ownship and drivers license. i notice 5 car passing me on right far lane . then i seen another police car pull someone over for same reason right in front of me. i got a ticket for 490.00. it was a trap because how often do you see 4 police car who have pull on car over. I tried to explain to police officer i did not know about this law again but he said it was mail out in my drivers renew , i never seen it . i like the law and if i know about it , i would have done it no problems. i wonder how many other were fine today on 401. i had total of 7 car passing me while i was pulled over by the police.in the wrong lane . . because i know i can not afford the fine of 490 and it to late for me but it may save someone else . and it the law . I really did not know about this law . can anyone help me with this here is some questions 1 did anyone receive any information in the mail.2 has anyone fought this in court and won. 3 anyone one know who could help me deal with this .4 tell me how old this law is . the pamplet the officer gave me said on the top new law but he wrote in pen 6 yearsover it . i have asked 20 people today and all 20 did not know that it was law or even heard about this . everyone know about the new racing law , it was over the news for weeks. so if you can help me i would love to hear from you and i'm thinking of going to court and fight this . let me know what you think about this .thanksJUST NEW UP DATE ON OCT 21 , 2008 I WENT TO COURT IN LONDON AND

THE CROWN WITHDREW THE CHARGE AND I WON BUT I DO AGREE WITH THIS LAW AND WILL BE DOING IT FROM NOW ON

I had the exact same experience yesterday. I had just gotten on to the 401 (just 4 lane, outside of Deseronto) and saw a police car with lights flashing at side of highway (well off to the side) far ahead of me. I wasn't even up to 100 km/hr so I stayed at slow speed not knowing what was going on. As I approached closer I saw a car in front of the cruiser pull away so I kept going at slow speed. As I approached closer, and before I actually got to his car, he waved me over to the side. I had no idea what for.

He then told me this was a well publicized law, although he said it was new within the last year. I said it was not something I had ever heard of but he gave me the same $490 ticket. I would also be interested in finding out just how long this rule has been on the books

Yeah, the law is new, but they are hammering down on drivers in the Ontario region. In Napanee or Belleville where your court date will be, depending on exactly where you were pulled over, you may wish to negotiate to a lessor charge. Some agents in that area have had success arguing Disobey Sign, and the sign being the emergency lights. You should at least challenge the ticket as it does carry 3 demerit points plus the fine.

my father also got caught in one of these blitz on the 400...

he dindt know about the law, but he always changes lanes....

but it gets hard to change lanes, when you are already slowing down because you see flashing lights on the side....plus there is traffic...

we mailed in the ticket...

has anybody fought it yet?

Makes no sense. They want to be safer on the side of the road by making other people jump up a lane endangering others! Slowing down should be enough, using extra caution should be enough. I would simply stand up in court ant say "I did not consider changing lanes safe, so I slowed down as required by law". And let them prove that it was in fact safe to change lanes but u didn't. Who is to decide whats safe and whats not for yourself and where is it clearly defined in the HTA??

Possible questions to officeer:

- What was the distance to the emergency vehicle when the defendent first saw it or could clearly see it? Remember 100km/hr is 27.7 m/sec Calculate how many seconds you had to check if lane next to you is empty and to make a change.

- Were there cars in the next lane beside the defendents car?

shmeli wrote:

Makes no sense. They want to be safer on the side of the road by making other people jump up a lane endangering others! Slowing down should be enough, using extra caution should be enough. I would simply stand up in court ant say "I did not consider changing lanes safe, so I slowed down as required by law". And let them prove that it was in fact safe to change lanes but u didn't. Who is to decide whats safe and whats not for yourself and where is it clearly defined in the HTA??

Possible questions to officeer:

- What was the distance to the emergency vehicle when the defendent first saw it or could clearly see it? Remember 100km/hr is 27.7 m/sec Calculate how many seconds you had to check if lane next to you is empty and to make a change.

- Were there cars in the next lane beside the defendents car?

How much to slow down is not defined. Ask the officer if he recorded your speed before and after.

We do have to respect the police for the jobs they do but we don't have to agree with them.

By the way the law is in fact 6 years old - whatever that means "2002, c. 21, s. 1; 2007, c. 13, s. 20.":

Approaching stopped emergency vehicle

159.1 (1) Upon approaching an emergency vehicle with its lamp producing intermittent flashes of red light or red and blue light that is stopped on a highway, the driver of a vehicle travelling on the same side of the highway shall slow down and proceed with caution, having due regard for traffic on and the conditions of the highway and the weather, to ensure that the driver does not collide with the emergency vehicle or endanger any person outside of the emergency vehicle. 2002, c. 21, s. 1; 2007, c. 13, s. 20.

Same

(2) Upon approaching an emergency vehicle with its lamp producing intermittent flashes of red light that is stopped on a highway with two or more lanes of traffic on the same side of the highway as the side on which the emergency vehicle is stopped, the driver of a vehicle travelling in the same lane that the emergency vehicle is stopped in or in a lane that is adjacent to the emergency vehicle, in addition to slowing down and proceeding with caution as required by subsection (1), shall move into another lane if the movement can be made in safety. 2002, c. 21, s. 1.

Same

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) prevents a driver from stopping his or her vehicle and not passing the stopped emergency vehicle if stopping can be done in safety and is not otherwise prohibited by law. 2002, c. 21, s. 1.

Offence

(4) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,

(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000; and

(b) for each subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $4,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2002, c. 21, s. 1.

Time limit for subsequent offence

(5) An offence referred to in subsection (4) committed more than five years after a previous conviction for an offence referred to in subsection (4) is not a subsequent offence for the purpose of clause (4) (b). 2002, c. 21, s. 1.

Drivers licence suspension

(6) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (4), the court may make an order suspending the persons drivers licence for a period of not more than two years. 2002, c. 21, s. 1.

Appeal of suspension

(7) An appeal may be taken from an order under subsection (6) or a decision to not make the order in the same manner as from a conviction or an acquittal under subsection (4). 2002, c. 21, s. 1.

Stay of order on appeal

(8) Where an appeal is taken under subsection (7) from an order under subsection (6), the court being appealed to may direct that the order shall be stayed pending the final disposition of the appeal or until otherwise ordered by that court. 2002, c. 21, s. 1.

Definition

(9) In this section,

"emergency vehicle" means a vehicle described in subsection 62 (15.1), except that it does not include a school bus. 2002

This IS my biggest concern of mine of all HTA violations. This affects my coworkers and my life daily!

Drivers NOT moving over for stopped police vehicles!

This law (Bill 191 2002) has been in effect since 09 December 2002.

Given the technology and advancement of the lighting on cruisers. The OPP cars have LED lights and are visible for at least 1km, if not farther. On an odd occasion there might be 500m visibility due to a curve on a 400 series highway.

There is no reason a motorist can not see us, and move over to another lane, this is not dangerous at all as someone mentioned, you have 1km (35 seconds) to do so. If not slow down. By slow down, go below the posted speed limit.

Too many police have been hit on the highways sitting and that is why the law got passed.

If you don't agree....think of your office chair 1-3 feet away from a vehicle travelling so close, so fast and see how you feel? The big heavy cruiser (my office chair) routinely shakes when motorists don't move over.

Further, back to the ole common courtesy thing again, anything on the shoulder, why not move away from the vehicle on the shoulder, it is good defensive driving, what if a child gets away from their parent and runs from in front of the vehicle OR when a driver is changing a tire and stumbles or falls backward onto the lane..... at least you have that extra lane to react.

Honestly, it won't kill you to move over OR slow down for 60 seconds until you are passed the location of the stopped vehicle on the shoulder!

I witnessed an interesting enforcement technique on this one a couple of days ago.

Saturday, 7 June, on the 401, east of London, about noon, weather fine. OPP cruiser parked off on the north shoulder of the westbound roadway, lights activated. There are three lanes in each direction at that point, and all were carrying traffic.

The police were hitting everybody who didn't move over into the far left lane: merely moving to the middle lane wasn't good enough at that place on that day, as a number of astonished motorists discovered to their great cost. I was not among them, because I happened to move into a gap in the passing lane, but a friend of mine in another car, who moved into the middle lane, was. I doubt that he was the only truly model citizen to have his respect for the OPP shaken by that tactic, on that day.

I wonder if the revenue generated was worth what it cost.

Are you saying there wasn't even an emergency or reason to be on the shoulder other than to enforce this law?

If that's the case, it's an example of the police CAUSING an unnecessarily dangerous situation for hundreds of motorists. I'm sure it will be publicized as an educational exercise though.

Perhaps the solution is to just drive FAST in the fast lane (left lane) all the time!. The speeding ticket would likely be cheaper then the mover-over ticket.

There was a black pickup truck parked in front of the cruiser with the activated lights, but there appeared to be nobody in it when I went past. There were a number of us travelling to the same destination in separate cars, and, comparing impressions, none of us saw any activity around the truck. We believe it was there only as part of a staged scenario.

Speeding in the left-most lane would not have been an option -- traffic had slowed markedly in all lanes, both because of the "emergency," and because slowing was necessary to facilitate all the lane changing that was going on.

Bookm wrote:

Perhaps the solution is to just drive FAST in the fast lane (left lane) all the time!. The speeding ticket would likely be cheaper then the mover-over ticket.

Not so...still $490 for failing to slow down!

Perhaps what the people in the middle lane were being stopped for. Not only does a MV have to move over it must slow down, if the officer was able to get a speed reading on the car there is now an offence as well.

Bookm wrote:

Are you saying there wasn't even an emergency or reason to be on the shoulder other than to enforce this law?.

Law does not state there has to be an "emergency".

It states that an "Emergency Vehicle" be stopped on the shoulder producing intermittent red or red/blue flashes of light.

This is the BIGGEST danger on my life and my coworkers daily. (that was the mild version of how I feel)

I fully support protecting those who protect us.

Being an out-of-province driver who travels the 417 but once a year at best and who has a perfect driving record, I think there needs to be more education on this article and it needs to figure prominently on the Ontario Ministry of Transportation web site.

I too was recently pulled over for the same offence. Upon polling 10 of my closest friends who all reside in Ontario, only 1 was aware of this article.

If 9 out of 10 were not aware of this article, how is an out-of-province driver supposed to be aware of this article especially since the HTA, when printed, is 260 pages long and has 228 articles plus countless sub-articles? I know that ignorance of the law is not a defence, however, I think more education needs to be done around this article.

I challenge any of you to know every article in the Quebec "Code de la securite routiere". It has a total of 676 articles and when printed, totals 227 pages.

You may want to brush up on it if you do travel in my province as the law changed a few years ago when it comes to turning right on a red light. Do you know what are the various rules around this one? Also, beware of driving with a cell phone in hand!

As with most "apparently" good safety initiatives, this one also comes with a potential risk.

First of all, this section describes "slowing down", but a driver may have slowed down to a speed he felt was safe. It's now up to the officer to file the charge based on his own judgment of what was safe. It's these "subjective" calls made by the officer that gets folks upset.

If you want drivers to slow down to 20-30kph (in all three lanes), then you run the risk of causing rear-end collisions occurring well in advance of the emergency scene, as traffic backs up, possibly for miles (ie. on the 401).

A wise man once said, "Slower is Safer", but I'm not sure it's just that simple

Went to court today to deal with this HTA infraction. Turns out the prosecutor was offering a reduced fine of $150 + an additional 20% fee if one pleaded guilty. Given I have 25+ years driving experience and a perfect driving record , I saw no reason not to accept this deal neither did most people in the courtroom with the exception of a few.

By pleading guilty however, one accepted the fact they would lose 3 demerit points and have no further recourse in court. As Quebec has no such law, I took a chance that the impact to my driving record as a result of reciprical agreements between the two provinces would minimal. The worse that could happen is that I indeed lose 3 demerit points for the next two years and I am only out $180 rather than $490.

Althought I was glad to hear both the prosecutor and judge concede that this law is not well publicized, I am however disheartened by the fact that the problem will persist for some time to come as children in Ontario are not being taught the importance of this law.

Why can there not be more positive reinforced publicity/campaigns around this law such as including it in the on-line and paperback version of the driver's manual, testing for it on the written examinations, featuring it prominently on the Ministry of Transportation website, and/or having a public service announcement on TV rather than just rely on blitzes to educate people?

Food for thought

I think it's very unfortunate that you were caught on this, especially as you were a visitor here. It's no comfort, I know, but I think you have a group of particularly knowledgeable Ontario friends, if one in ten of them knew about this law. I doubt very much if one in fifty Ontario drivers is aware of it.

It certainly has not been well publicized -- indeed, I can't remember ever having seen it publicized at all -- except in the form of the highway setups.

Again, as an Ontario resident, I am sorry that you were caught this way.

I have seen signs posted on the 401 EB (from the Windsor/Detroit) border indicating the law.

When Ontario licence plate renewals were occurring from 2003-2005, this information was sent to all owners of motor vehicles....if they decided to not read their literature, so be it.

This law all came about from the following incident. I personally know the two surviving officers in this incident. In June 2000, three officers from the Ontaro Provincial Police pulled over a vehicle suspected in a bank robbery. The OPP cruisers were pulled over and staggered properly and safely on the shoulder of the highway. A transport driver ran into the cruisers, the offers, and suspects. The OPP cruisers were so damaged they were unrecognizable as police vehicles. All were rushed to hospital with grievous injuries. Sergeant Margaret Eve died fo her injuries.

Even if it was not a law......it is plain ole common courtesy/sense to move away from anything on the shoulder.

I agree entirely that sheer common sense would make any alert driver slow down and move over at least one lane to stay well away from any emergency vehicle on the side of the road with its lights activated, law or no law. Personally, I slow down and stay as far away from the thing as possible: whatever's going on over there, I don't want to be part of it.

The problems I (and others) have, though, are (1) with the, well, at best indifferent publicity that the government has given this law, which is why the vast majority of drivers don't know it exists, and (2) a difficulty in understanding why a specific law was even needed to cover what to me as a non-legal person sounds like an instance of careless driving, if not of criminal negligence. I can accept that I have neither the legal training nor, possibly, the intelligence to figure my way out of my problem (2); but I do strongly feel that there should be a meaningful campaign to publicize this law. Awareness and, more to the point, compliance, would spread a heck of a lot faster if there were something more than just the slow word-of-mouth dissemination that being caught, or having friend caught, has been causing to happen so far.

This is what Can happen!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecjB1D2l4yY

It should be all Vehicles not just limited to emergency vehicles!

Proper1 wrote:

I agree entirely that sheer common sense would make any alert driver slow down and move over at least one lane to stay well away from any emergency vehicle on the side of the road with its lights activated, law or no law. Personally, I slow down and stay as far away from the thing as possible: whatever's going on over there, I don't want to be part of it.

Well put!

Proper1 wrote:

a difficulty in understanding why a specific law was even needed to cover what to me as a non-legal person sounds like an instance of careless driving, if not of criminal negligence

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ada/story/

I still know the location of the incident and is visible for approx 1 to 1.5 full km past an overpass. Hwy is flat and level. I am guessing that since the judge made the decision that police can not block a lane or partial lane in an emergency situation, that is when the gov't stepped forward and made the move over law.

Proper1 wrote:

but I do strongly feel that there should be a meaningful campaign to publicize this law. Awareness and, more to the point, compliance, would spread a heck of a lot faster if there were something more than just the slow word-of-mouth dissemination that being caught, or having friend caught, has been causing to happen so far

I would also like to see it put back on the front of every newspaper Province wide for one day (hopefully a Saturday)

hwybear wrote:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ada/story/

I still know the location of the incident and is visible for approx 1 to 1.5 full km past an overpass. Hwy is flat and level. I am guessing that since the judge made the decision that police can not block a lane or partial lane in an emergency situation, that is when the gov't stepped forward and made the move over law.

Good God! That trucker got off??! Courts do seem to do capricious things, sometimes, that the lay person cannot understand.

OK, NOW I see why there is a specific move-over law.

And, I imagine, everybody on this board agrees that it should be heavily publicized. Publicized again, if the government figures that it's been given publicity already.

Solution:

1) Make Radar Detector use LEGAL and mandatory on major highways.

2) Point your radar gun backwards when stopped.

Problem Solved

Even that wouldn't have helped in this case, Bookm (and yes, I know you're kidding), because the trucker's defense was -- are you ready for this? -- that he was following so closely behind the 18-wheeler in front of him that its rear end was all he could see in front of him, and when the first truck moved left to clear the police vehicle, why, he just hit the OPP car before he had time to react. And the judge, JP, or whatever the presiding officer was, bought the story, said the defendant trucker had done nothing wrong, and let him off. I can only assume that "following too close" was not one of the charges the guy was facing.

He must have been tucked in real close. Makes you wonder if he might not have been doing a little drafting, even, to save a bit of gas.

hwybear wrote:

I am guessing that since the judge made the decision that police can not block a lane or partial lane in an emergency situation, that is when the gov't stepped forward and made the move over law.

I was wondering why the officer that pulled me over was directly behind the vehicle he had stopped beforehand. In Quebec, officers still partially block a lane, if not in totality, hence motorists move to the left (but not always completely in the other lane). In some cases, they also have a large flashing yellow sign with arrows that flips up on the roof of their vehicles to indicate which lane motorists should move to.

At the end of the day, I am not sure which of the two is safer for officers. Unfortunately, I think you will inevitably always have idiots who will hit a cruiser/officer no matter what laws or rules of the road are in place.

Guess police cars could always use a school bus arm type of thing (ones that pop forward to make kids walk farther from the front), but out into the lane.....made of flexible plastic with a metal claw on the end.....drive too close the plastic bends allowing the car to pass by, but the vehicle then gets "paint scraped" by "the claw"....

OR

a paint ball type of gun that shoots balls full of pine tar/syrup onto a vehicle that drives too close

Proper1 wrote:

... and yes, I know you're kidding...

Oh no I'm not!

The SWS program was developed in 1995 under the auspices of the Georgia Technical Research Institute and engineers from a consortium of mobile electronics firms including Bell-Tronics, Santeca Electronics, Uniden American and the Whistler Corporation. The SWS system employs the K-band (24.1Ghz) and can transmit up to 64 pre-programmed text messages to radar detectors made by a number of firms. The messages are transmitted by the use of small transmitters that can either be mounted in a fixed location or attached to vehicles. For example, a mobile transmitter could be attached to a school bus providing alerts to drivers about the location of a bus picking up children. The alerts can be received within 1.5 miles of the receiver in ideal conditions. A few representative alerts are: "right lane closed ahead," "train approaching/at crossing," "ice on bridge ahead," "expect 10 minute delay," and "police in pursuit." Uniden's GPS-RD with just about every bell and whistle including GPS, electronic compass, elevation and SWS retails for $229.

Several "serious" Radar Detectors are pre-programmed from the factory to warn a driver (by electronic voice) of the actual hazard ahead. Other "cheapo" radar detectors will still beep at the presence of an SWS alert, but can't tell the driver the details of the alert.

If Ontario Lawmakers would just embrace the potential for the GOOD that RD's could provide (rather than see them as a hinderance to ticket revenue), I have no doubt we would see a major improvement in road safety, at least with regards to the subject topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c87qxDMT55c

(check volume if at the office!)

If I were a cop, I would pay the $229 out of my own pocket to have an SWS transmitter installed in my cruiser.

EDIT: My bad. The SWS transmitter isn't $229... the Uniden RD is.

Rather than promoting speed, there is a better solution.

Have all manufacturer's install a siren/warning device in every vehicle made. When emergency lights are activated it will set off this device. It would start at 1km to give motorists a headup to start slowing down and getting out of the way. The closer one gets the faster the tone becomes, and if it is a solid tone the emergency vehicle is within 50m.

SWS receivers ARE available without police radar detecting ability. They aren't nearly as popular though, for some reason

Most police services are switching to Laser anyway. Might be a good time to look into other (legal) uses for radar detectors. I don't see American cops complaining too much about RD's being legal. They just use Instant-On, Laser, Pacing, etc. There's no shortage of convictions down there.

My idea would work RIGHT NOW. Your idea would take decades to impliment. I win.

Of the 64 messages currently programmed in to high end radar detectors, these are my top 3 for saving lives.

- Emergency Vehicle Ahead

- Train Ahead

- Road Hazard Ahead.

The entire list can be seen here:

http://www.copradar.com/preview/chapt7/mess64.html

#31 would apply to this thread.