JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter

Moderators: Reflections, admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Decatur, bend

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

by: racer on
Thu May 07, 2009 4:10 pm

Squishy wrote::shock: We have a move over law?
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"

www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Thu May 07, 2009 4:47 pm

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.


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Thu May 07, 2009 4:50 pm

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.
         Image


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Thu May 07, 2009 5:15 pm

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.


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Thu May 07, 2009 5:49 pm

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?!
         Image


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Thu May 07, 2009 6:02 pm

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.


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

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Thu May 07, 2009 8:16 pm

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


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Thu May 07, 2009 8:50 pm

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)
         Image


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Thu May 07, 2009 9:28 pm

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.


tdrive2
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:49 pm

by: tdrive2 on
Thu May 07, 2009 9:57 pm

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.


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Thu May 07, 2009 10:02 pm

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?
         Image


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

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Thu May 07, 2009 10:25 pm

tdrive2: I think, based on his previous posts and conversations, Squishy probably keeps right more than anyone else on this forum.


tdrive2
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:49 pm

by: tdrive2 on
Thu May 07, 2009 10:33 pm

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.


tdrive2
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:49 pm

by: tdrive2 on
Thu May 07, 2009 10:38 pm

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.


User avatar
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Thu May 07, 2009 11:25 pm

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.
         Image


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests