Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

I hope this isn't considered necro-posting around here. I had something similar happen to me a few weeks ago with the same section 182(2) infraction.

I was in the Napanee area on the 401. Came upon an OPP cruiser in the left lane who couldn't seem to maintain a steady speed, travelling anywhere from 90 up to 110, but who refused to change lanes or allow anyone to pass him. Myself and a growing que of cars were stuck behind this guy because anytime anyone wanted to pass when he was slowing down to 100 or less, he'd turn on his emergency lights and prevent the pass. I saw him do this at least 5 times over a span of 15min. We were going slow enough that transports had started catching us and the road ahead was pretty much clear of traffic since we were travelling slower than the normal flow of traffic.

I passed the cop when he again slowed from 110 and I decided not to follow suit. I passed him in the right lane going 110 and when I got ahead of him, he pretty much instantly pulled in behind me and lit me up.

I'm already planning to fight this in court. He gave me a long winded speech about pulling me over for my safety, accusing me of being the type of driver that gets involved in accidents, and then concluding his diatribe by giving me some advice about passing cops and how "other officers" don't like being passed. WTF?

What I'd like to know is if his use of the emergency lights and his driving behaviour gives me grounds to file a complaint with the OPP? I think what this guy did was disgusting and an abuse of his position.

No point resurrecting an old thread that is not general discussion of current issues. Much of what has been said in the topic you have originally posted this applies, but i'd rather split the thread while it's early. Every ticket is different.

As to your ticket, wait a bit, and request a disclosure. I guess you have already filed that you will dispute the charge.

steb6s wrote:

What I'd like to know is if his use of the emergency lights and his driving behaviour gives me grounds to file a complaint with the OPP? I think what this guy did was disgusting and an abuse of his position.

Sound like the cop should be charged with 132 (unnecessary slow driving) and "interfering with flow of traffic". Must be a new cop on a power trip, no?

In the disclosure request, also ask for the officer's driving and disciplinary record. If he has a history of this sort of behaviour it weakens his credibility on the witness stand.

Radar Identified wrote:

In the disclosure request, also ask for the officer's driving and disciplinary record. If he has a history of this sort of behaviour it weakens his credibility on the witness stand.

Try to get a warrant for that one!!

racer wrote:

steb6s wrote:

What I'd like to know is if his use of the emergency lights and his driving behaviour gives me grounds to file a complaint with the OPP? I think what this guy did was disgusting and an abuse of his position.

Sound like the cop should be charged with 132 (unnecessary slow driving) and "interfering with flow of traffic". Must be a new cop on a power trip, no?

Unnecesary slow driving is driving below the MAXIMUM posted speed limit. Interfering with flow of traffic is not a charge. That section is intended for "interfere with traffic" ie parked on a live lane.

Sounds to me like her was performing a "stunt" and should have his license yanked for a week!

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,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

Bookm wrote:

Sounds to me like her was performing a "stunt" and should have his license yanked for a week!

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,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

I smell a winner

Bookm wrote:

Sounds to me like her was performing a "stunt" and should have his license yanked for a week!

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,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

Do not see that meeting the complete definition....the part of "endanger", which there is no danger.

This is meant for 2 lane highways where Bookm is trying to pass Reflections, and Reflections keeps accelerating, preventing Bookm from passing successfully and then returning to the lane, thus endangering his life with the oncoming traffic.

But it doesn't say that. Surely you're not suggesting this section of the Act isn't worded clearly enough

Bookm wrote:

Surely you're not suggesting this section of the Act isn't worded clearly enough

gov't law making at its best

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

The cop probably wasn't a rookie since he looked to be in his mid-30's/early 40's. He was definitely power tripping. The traffic stop itself took nearly 30minutes and the guy asked me rhetorically at the beginning of the stop, mid-way through, and at the end when he was giving me my ticket how much time I had lost being pulled over.

I have a question about my ticket. On the ticket itself it doesn't state what sign I was disobeying. It only says "disobey sign". That's it. That's got to give me something to work with, right?

On the ticket itself it doesn't state what sign I was disobeying. It only says "disobey sign".

Yes, sort of. I'm guessing he didn't say which sign it was, either. The disclosure request will be key, in that you will get the officer's notes and be able to form a defence from there, among other things. Ask for an explanation and clarification of the charge. He did write the offence location down, right?

Lack of consideration for others.......

Yep. Stunt driving. Cruiser should've been impounded, but you and I both know how likely that is...

I'm with Bear on this one. Doesn't meet the definition of stunt. The way it's written you must drive at a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and cause any of the following:

• lack or attention

• lack of consideration

• endangerment

There was no (excessive) speeding. Doesn't meet "the stunt" requirement.

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

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".

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.

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.

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 This way I don't have to drive unnecessarily fast. So then either issue a speeding or disobey sign offence.

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?

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).

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$$!

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?

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!!

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.

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.

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; ("vehicule de la voirie")

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

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.

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...

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)...

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.

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