JP rules - HTA172 violates the charter

Squishy wrote:

We have a move over law?

Yeah, we do... Noone knows about it though. Except www.ohta.ca frequent visitors apparently.

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.

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.

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."

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 ). 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?!

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.

Squishy wrote:

Which section is it?

159.1 ( 1 ) and 159.1 ( 2 )

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.

It was as if he was purposefully blocking off those vehicles. Unbelievable.

I was in Toronto, by the way. Orillia is still awesome.

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 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.....

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

Squishy wrote:

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.

It was as if he was purposefully blocking off those vehicles. Unbelievable.

I was in Toronto, by the way.

Not surprised at all. At all. He probably also thought he was the best driver on the road.

Squishy wrote:

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.

Would make a lot of sense. Probably would also improve overall safety; less lane changing, tailgating, etc.

My own view on it is that, among many factors (example being that most drivers not only don't know the law, but also get weird ideas like driving in the left lane is the safest place to be), our highway signs say "SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT" rather than "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS." I think a lot of drivers see the "slower traffic" and go "dammit I'm NOT slow" and they stay left. That said... I have seen, late at night, the RESCU electronic traffic sign on the DVP lit up with the message: KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS, and, even more clear: DRIVE IN RIGHT LANE UNLESS PASSING ANOTHER VEHICLE. Too bad it is only displayed between about 1:00 and 4:00 AM.

There is also that group of drivers who think the left lane is the 'passing lane', the centre lane is the 'travel lane', and the right lane is the 'merge lane'.

Why? Why?!

Squishy wrote:

There is also that group of drivers who think the left lane is the 'passing lane', the centre lane is the 'travel lane', and the right lane is the 'merge lane'.

Why? Why?!

Because they are driving in accordance with "generally accepted" driving rules, not the real rules. The three lane approach actually works, if all drivers abide. Still waiting for the day that all the drivers on the road think alike.............I'll be a while.........

People are less likely to spend time in the right lane for 2 reasons...

1) Some of tie actual merge lanes are extremely short and you really have to push your vehicle to get up to speed

2) Even where you don't, too many Ontario drivers aren't aware of the far right pedal and seem to let their engine accelerate on its own, thus merging at 60km/h.

hwybear wrote:

Fantino has been an excellent leader for us.

are you sure about that?

personally....since old Julian has been on his HTA crusade BSing stats along the way....I've about lost any respect I had for the guy in the first place - which wasn't that much to be honest

his bullying....and his endless court appearances defending himself constantly for breaking the law to uphold the law makes him about the worst leader any Police establishment could have...I'd love to see the legal bill the taxpayers have shelled out because of his actions

Fantino has single-handedly solidified the "us vs them" mentality....and it's gonna take the OPP years to lose the damage that man has done

Squishy wrote:

There is also that group of drivers who think the left lane is the 'passing lane', the centre lane is the 'travel lane', and the right lane is the 'merge lane'.

Think that Reflections & FiReSTaRT covered why a lot of people think that way. If I see traffic merging ahead, I just change one lane to the left, let them on, then move back to the right. A lot of people just don't want to be bothered. Or maybe people are just weird. I'll often see two cars, literally middle of nowhere, no one around them for miles, both in the centre lane, and one is driving three inches off the other one's bumper. Now that's another "go figure" situation.

NASCAR fans, obviously.

PetitionGuy wrote:

hwybear wrote:

Fantino has been an excellent leader for us.

are you sure about that?

Absolutely!!! The best that I have seen at the helm in my career.

All you see is newpaper writings and most times is biased reporting at that. The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees.

hwybear wrote:

PetitionGuy wrote:

hwybear wrote:

Fantino has been an excellent leader for us.

are you sure about that?

Absolutely!!! The best that I have seen at the helm in my career.

All you see is newpaper writings and most times is biased reporting at that. The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees.

The rest of us folk see him as alarmist, twisting facts around to suit his purpose, borderline paranoid about anyone driving, and willing to take away our rights because something in his mind makes it safer. He is the public face of the 172, not the politicians who voted for it, or even those who drafted it.

Now I am sure he is a great boss and all, but he is not OUR boss. He TRIES to become OUR boss though...

hwybear wrote:

PetitionGuy wrote:

hwybear wrote:

Fantino has been an excellent leader for us.

are you sure about that?

The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees.

Sure he's great for the employees, but isn't his job to protect and to serve the general public? I'm willing to bet there's 15,000+ (and growing) families out there who have suffered irreparably under this new regime who don't give a *EDIT* about how great his officers think he is.

Not to mention the Ontario residents who would like to freely assemble and express their political views and even some of his own employees that pissed him off and suffered the consequences of his abuse of power because of it.

hwybear wrote:

PetitionGuy wrote:

hwybear wrote:

Fantino has been an excellent leader for us.

are you sure about that?

Absolutely!!! The best that I have seen at the helm in my career.

All you see is newpaper writings and most times is biased reporting at that. The public does not see the day to day operations and how things have changed for the better for the employees.

I know of Three officers off the hop, whom don't see it like that.

A one way trip to Thunder Bay with personal CHEAT NOTES is not for the better!

Perhaps we need more fairy tales like this http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoa ... 1-sun.html

Sorry to ask a redundant question but what is actually going on about this.

I have read a few articles and now seen cases where people won because of this issue with the road side trial.

So is it basically any time lawyers are going to take this to the crown or supreme court and if they rule the road side trial (impoundment for speeding) is infact unconstitutional and would wave your right to a fair trial they are going to A) scrap this law B) re write it to remove the impoundment on the spot?

As to Julian Fantino.

Im sorry but IMO this guy is FOS, Full of himself, beleives speed is the root of all evil, and i hate his smug, smirk, smart ass, hard ass tought guy impression with the threats he gives the public.

He beleive he can get rid of all your rights just for speeding.

Come on people this guy is OBSESSED with speed limits as much as i am in the opposite way. Here is is a conference near the 400, talking about safe trucking practices.

then he rants off going on about "intercepting some individual at 158 blablablabla...."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD3PQf-kZ5A[/youtube]

He also takes credit for reducing all the deaths last summer on our roads when he totally forgets we were in a period of declining economic activity, gasoline was EXPENSIVE, and it was one of the rainiest summers ever recorded, especially in GTA region.

This guy is about as obsessed as with speed as he is obsessed with abusing his power, and taking rights from other's.

And hwybear to your response about how these laws have slowed people down. You claim before these "tough" laws.

ILl make a point about ethics perhaps.

Do you agree with the qoute "Sometimes good people have to do bad things."

Well i don't. I have ZERO respect for this man. I share his wish of safer roads, but face the fact he took powers he did not have and abused them ad took away your rights at the side of the road at the officers discression and impounding your car.

Just because you have good intensions and are perceived as a good person of public service does not ALLOW you to do corrupt, unconstitional things you have do not have the authority to do.

He was the face of this law. McGunity Piped in but Julian was the face of this new law.

Ill always associate this law with him and many others do aswell.

Infact i have often referred to those stunt drivers charged under S.172 of the HTA as part of "Fantinos most wanted club."

We live in a free society with rights, that people do not like to be abused or taken away. I am sure many of us do not wish for Canada or Ontario to become some sort of police or Nanny state.

And okay back to the point. Its fine that you guys say this slows people down, but i just hope you guys remember that you used unconstitional powers to do so! AND took away someone's right, and they never even had a day in court.

You you also know what, you guys could also get people to stop going 30 over to.

You could have big Machine guns on your crown vics and just blow the *EDIT* out of your car for going 30 over and throw the car in Jail.

This law might have slowed people down, but does slower always = safer?

I am sure most of the people of this new law were not real street racers either, they werent the ones who rip down our residential streets or school zones at 50 over.

Nope, not at all. You guys got all these people for driving 150 on 400 series highways who in some cases might have been doing nothing dangerous or just going with the flow of traffic. I think sometimes people forget how unrealistic our phony 100 km/hr limit is.

You can do many things to slow people down, but i have no respect for methods that include taking peoples rights as citizens of this country and province.

I am also tired of these people who get labbed as morons, *EDIT*, and criminals the whole works for doing something.

It's fine to not like speeders but the way Fantino talks about these people is if they are some sort of animals, criminals, or vilains to society, and that bothers me. I never had such idea that driving 151 on the 401 in the middle of the night in a straight line would make you such a person.

Alot of people have been treated very unfairly and were robbed of their rights, and Fantino is the face, dady, and poster boy of this 50 over.

I have never seen him on TV talk about lane discipline, allowing others to pass, or any other bad and inconsiderate things people do that seem to be okay according to him.

We already have the HTA to deal with speeders. We didnt need these unconstitional laws and threats from Mr Fantino.

On a second thought i love that Video. I think everytime he talks about or reffers to 172 he just gets that feeling of joy and happyness to the point he can't talk anymore and this must be the reason for his terrible, gramar and slurred speech.

Did anyone breathalize him? Maybee he could have one of his own Breathalize him under the suspicion of slurred speech. Oh ya with the new laws they could take his license away for 3 days, oh boy.

Court of Appeal overturns stunt driving ruling

Published On Thu Mar 18 2010EmailPrintRepublishAdd to Favourites

The Canadian Press

The Ontario Court of Appeal on Thursday overturned a lower court ruling that found the province's 2007 stunt racing law was unconstitutional, and ordered a new trial for an Oakville woman.

The problem for the court is a provision in the law that includes a penalty of up to six months in jail, in addition to fines ranging from $2,000 to $10,000, the seizure of the vehicle and a licence suspension of up to two years after a first conviction.

"The stunt driving provision provides for the potential of incarceration, the speeding provision does not," wrote Justice David Doherty for the three-judges on the Court of Appeal.

"This distinction is constitutionally significant. The Legislature cannot ... imprison without fault."

The Crown had appealed after Justice Geoffrey Griffin of the Ontario Court of Justice in Napanee overturned the guilty verdict against Jane Raham, 62, last September.

The grandmother of four was charged in April 2008 with travelling at 131 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, which brought an automatic conviction for stunt driving.

The provincial law labels 50 km/h or more over the posted speed limit as stunt driving, which means much more severe penalties than a normal speeding charge.

Raham had testified she sped up to pass a large truck on Highway 7 as she was driving home from the Ottawa area.

"I did, out of a sort of fear reaction, pick up speed to get past him," she told the court.

Judge Griffin overturned her conviction last fall, saying the way stunt driving is classified means once the offence is proven by facts, it cannot be defended.

"If one were to describe a stunt driver, the appellant would not immediately spring to mind,'' the judge wrote in his ruling.

However, the Court of Appeal ruled Griffin erred in finding the law unconstitutional because it requires no criminal intent when speeding.

"Fairness dictates that the respondent should have a new trial at which she will have the opportunity to advance a due diligence defence if so advised," wrote Justice Doherty.

A due diligence defence on the stunt driving charge amounts to a claim that the defendant took all reasonable care to avoid committing the offence.

"I am pleased with todays decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal that upheld the constitutionality of the street racing provisions," said Attorney General Chris Bentley in a statement.

"I would like to thank the Crowns and police who work hard every day to keep our roads safe."

Raham who has 60 days to appeal the Court of Appeal's ruling overturning her acquittal, wasn't the only one to convince a court the stunt driving law was unfair.

A Newmarket judge dismissed stunt driving charges last fall against Alexandra Drutz, an 18-year-old woman charged with going 157 km/h on Highway 407 north of Toronto.

Justice Peter West ruled that having a potential penalty of up to six months in jail for driving 50 km/h over the posted limit violates the Charter of Rights because the law does not allow the accused to present a defence.