Statistics: Posted by Parkin8or — Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:40 am
Statistics: Posted by bend — Fri Sep 02, 2016 9:55 am
human is also a vehicle, if following humans to close.
But cops/911 would not take your case seriously.
Statistics: Posted by bobajob — Fri Sep 02, 2016 8:29 am
Statistics: Posted by UnluckyDuck — Thu Sep 01, 2016 4:48 pm
Statistics: Posted by jimm — Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:15 pm
"vehicle" includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car; ("vehicule")
"bicycle" includes a tricycle, a unicycle and a power-assisted bicycle but does not include a motor-assisted bicycle; ("bicyclette")
Statistics: Posted by bend — Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:58 am
Statistics: Posted by Observer135 — Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:11 pm
Statistics: Posted by UnluckyDuck — Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:23 am
Statistics: Posted by hawa — Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:25 pm
Statistics: Posted by UnluckyDuck — Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:18 am
Statistics: Posted by hawa — Wed Aug 03, 2016 5:52 am
Statistics: Posted by bend — Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:43 am
Statistics: Posted by hawa — Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:49 pm
Statistics: Posted by justadad — Tue May 10, 2016 1:34 pm
Statistics: Posted by gbs — Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:15 am
Statistics: Posted by hwybear — Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:16 am
Statistics: Posted by EphOph — Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:18 pm
To be honest, I don't think that formula is very good...
You need to take into account many variables, road condition, your tires, your vehicle stopping power, your own response time, other cars around you, open space to steer away to avoid a collision and who knows what else that I can't think of.
There was a pilot program MTO tried in Oshawa back in early 90s when they had chevrons painted along 401 and signs stated to keep two chevrons apart.
If my memory serves me right, keeping that distance would mean keeping 100-150 meters back at 100 kmh speed.
Statistics: Posted by bobajob — Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:23 am
Statistics: Posted by Observer135 — Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:02 pm
Statistics: Posted by viper1 — Sat Mar 26, 2016 6:07 pm
Statistics: Posted by Observer135 — Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:32 am
Statistics: Posted by hwybear — Sat Mar 26, 2016 8:43 am
Statistics: Posted by iFly55 — Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:02 pm
Statistics: Posted by hwybear — Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:44 pm
[16] In R. v. Beauchamp (1953), 16 C.R. 270, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated the standard for careless driving is a constantly shifting one which depends on the road, visibility, weather and traffic conditions as well as other conditions which an ordinary driver would take into consideration.
In the matter at bar, clearly the visibility was limited by the fog. Nonetheless, Officer Nelson acknowledged that his visibility extended to 50 metres which provided a limited range of view for Ms Richards. While the road was wet from the fog, no evidence suggested Ms Richards could not stop due to road conditions. No evidence was led there were adverse traffic conditions. Officer Nelson testified that he was travelling at 60 kph and Ms Richards at approximately 40 kph. Therefore, Ms Richards was driving at a reasonable speed for the conditions of limited visibility and wet roads which existed that night. In my view, it cannot be said that she was driving "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway".
[17] In R. v. Ereddia, [2006] O.J. No. 3421 (OCJ), Justice Fairgrieve also commented on the standards for a conviction of careless driving. He stated:
(6) The offence of "driving carelessly", created by s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act, is defined as driving on a highway "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway". The law has been clear for decades that in order to make out the offence under s. 130, the driving must be of such a nature that it amounts to a breach of one's duty to the public and is deserving of punishment: see R. v. Beauchamp (1953), 16 C.R. 270 at p. 278 (Ont. C.A.). A driver is not held to a standard of perfection, and a mere error of judgment is not necessarily sufficient to establish the offence: see R. v. Wilson (1971), 1 C.C.C. (2d) 466 (Ont. C.A.). Careless driving, generally speaking, requires proof of a departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent driver would have exercised in the circumstances, and normally involves, I would think, conduct that includes other less serious Highway Traffic Act infractions.
(7) Mr. Klaiman, counsel for the appellant, also referred in his factum to the pertinent judgment of Killeen Co. Ct. J. in R. v. Namink, [1979] O.J. No. 317 (QL), where, at para. 10, the learned County Court judge stated as follows:
It is trite to say that this is a quasi-criminal charge, and that to make out a charge under this section the evidence must bespeak conduct deserving punishment in the way of a conviction under this section of our Highway Traffic Act. Mere momentary inattention, or a simple kind of error of judgment, does not bespeak the kind of conduct over which the net of this section is cast."
Statistics: Posted by jsherk — Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:41 pm
Statistics: Posted by karra — Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:22 pm
Statistics: Posted by thisiskat — Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:41 pm
Statistics: Posted by jsherk — Mon Jul 13, 2015 6:03 pm
Statistics: Posted by karra — Mon Jul 13, 2015 5:00 pm
Statistics: Posted by thisiskat — Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:15 pm
Statistics: Posted by jsherk — Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:04 pm
Statistics: Posted by thisiskat — Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:03 pm
121 In R. v. Ouseley, [1973] 1 O.R. 729, 10 C.C.C. (2d) 148, 1973 CarswellOnt 837 (O.C.A.), the court opined that the fact two vehicles had collided in a rear-end collision does not necessarily prove that the offence of following too closely had been committed, where there is no evidence of the distance separating the two vehicles:Only one thing is clear from the cases I have read, and that is that each case must be decided on its own facts. Here, I think, the deciding factor is that there is no evidence that the defendant was following too closely. He may not have been keeping a proper lookout -- that is more likely the case, since his passenger yelled "watch out" and it was then that the defendant slammed on his brakes. Only the witness, LaPlante, testified to the distance that the defendant was travelling behind the small truck -- LaPlante drove the first car. His evidence was not reliable on other points and this estimate was made by viewing the vehicles in his rear-view mirror and it seems to me to be only a guess. The other two Crown witnesses who were in the small truck did not testify as to the distance the defendant was behind them, in fact they did not notice him behind shortly before the accident. There is no evidence to indicate the distance, or to contradict the defendant, except that of LaPlante, which I cannot accept as accurate and, therefore, I must dismiss the charge.
At the trial it was proved that the respondent's car struck another vehicle which it was following, and that the driver of the lead vehicle had occasion to slow down gradually and stop just before the impact. There was no evidence whatever, apart from the impact, as to how closely behind the lead car the respondent's car was being driven at any time. As part of the Crown's case there was introduced a statement by the respondent to the following effect: "I saw her brake ahead of me. I braked and started to skid and hit her." There was also evidence that the surface of the street was icy and not in good condition.
Mr. Campbell, on behalf of the Crown, asserts that in those circumstances the Crown had made out a prima facie case. We do not agree. His proposition would go so far as to suggest that on each occasion where a rear-end collision occurs, at some fleeting second, the following car committed an offence under s. 105(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, and that nothing more need be proved than the fact of the collision. In our view, the impact itself would sustain logical inferences other than that the respondent was following too closely and contravened s. 105(1). The trial Judge held, and we agree with him, that the collision may have been caused, quite logically, by inattention on the part of the respondent, or by excessive speed by him. He was not charged with careless driving, however, and we can see no reason why he should have been convicted of this offence, where there was no evidence whatever as to the distance which separated the two cars until the actual impact.
Statistics: Posted by iFly55 — Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:37 pm
Statistics: Posted by jsherk — Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:32 pm
Statistics: Posted by jsherk — Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:38 am
Statistics: Posted by thisiskat — Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:18 am
Statistics: Posted by jsherk — Sun Jul 12, 2015 12:33 pm
Statistics: Posted by jsherk — Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:45 am
Statistics: Posted by Radar Identified — Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:46 pm