Section 172 of Highway Traffic Act (Sunts) - Examination

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

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

Section 172 of Highway Traffic Act (Sunts) - Examination

by: tdrive2 on
Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:20 am

Today after looking at the section 172 i noticed a few things. For one street racing is under Stunts as other said. Which means the media is terrible and Fantino sold us this under lies.

Also i couldnt help but notice that stunt driving is not about speeds. Since 50 over is SO SERIOUS and they will tow your ass. I couldnt help but notice this in the section 172 of the highway traffic act under the definition of a 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,

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or


Hold on stop here a second. If the OPP is gonna pull you over for going 150 and impound your car what about those *EDIT* that endanger the road and don't let others pass and plug the roads.

What about those jerks in trucks carrying trailers who drive in the right lane at 115 and cause major lines of traffic. Why don't they get towed??? Tell me.

When has an officer ever applied 172 to all those dangerous drivers who purposely block the passing lane. It's fine to use 172 and impound cars but its a two way street. Speeding is dangerous so is plugging the passing lane and preventing others from passing.

If you read the part that talks about cutting in front of another vehicle to slow its speed.

Obviously this is some serious stuff that causes road range and angers other drivers. Why dont our Police take these things seriously, why dont these people who are also dangerous and are performing a stunt get pulled over.

I remember squishy telling me a stunt was done to get attention.
Stunt:

a difficult or unusual or dangerous feat; usually done to gain attention

That guy who is blocking the passing lane and cutting others off is just as dangerous. He is also performing a dangerous feat causing road rage on the road. He is making the road an absolute hazard by forcing everyone to race around him.

Impound his car to!!!. What is the obsession with speed. Clearly the MTO put that in 172 for a reason. I want to see an OPP officer apply 172 to the next person that does this.

hwybear can you ask the MTO why those signs on the side of the road say " 50 km/hr over the speed limit, X demerit points, roadside suspension, vehicle seizure."

If 172 also defines this type of behavior as a stunt i want answers! Why is there no signs. There must be a mistake. Why do these people not get charged with 172 that perform this.

I don't buy the fact that these people are hard to catch. Infact you can see them in an unmarked car under the bridge with your lidar or radar gun aswell. There easy to spot. There is tons of open road in front of them and they have an army of cars trying to pass them. Why not call the tow truck on them to?

Call it both ways. If your going to tell people its dangerous to drive 151 on the 401 at 3 am in the middle of the night then you better impound those people that on purpose plug the passing lane on a major 3 lane road and causing road rage and making the road hell around them!

Im curious do the officers know this? Have these dangerous people also gotten their licenses suspended and cars towed?

Why didnt Julian Fantino and the media tell us this. When they sold us this law which is a breach of our rights as Candian Citizens they told it was to improve safety. They lied and called it street racing.

Why didnt they also tell the public that this stunt law also applies to this other behavior such as blocking the passing lane, preventing other cars from passing, and cutting in front of another vehicle slowing it's speed beyond what it was traveling?

I suggest someone gets working on this soon. Call up the MTO. Order some signs that also warn us of the penalties for doing this kind of behavior.


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

by: racer on
Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:50 am

Good, points tdrive. I guess more officers need to see this post. If only we could attract a few to this board.
"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
Squishy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 709
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:45 am
Location: Orillia
Contact:

by: Squishy on
Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:24 pm

How well could a ticket like that hold up in court? Not exactly the kind of behaviour 172 is geared towards, but you could make the wording match.

For example, i. and ii. sound to me like it is addressing those who cut in front of a vehicle, brake check them (ii.), and then prevent the other car from passing them in another lane by switching lanes as the other car does (i.). For someone charged under 172 for holding up the left lane, could they argue that they were not doing anything to prevent others from passing them in the centre or right lanes? Passing on the right is legal under Section 150.

"iii." actually does sound like it is describing tailgating, along with "buzzing" a jaywalker or a bystander to a street race.
         Image


User avatar
BelSlySTi
Member
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:35 am

by: BelSlySTi on
Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:43 pm

Squishy wrote:How well could a ticket like that hold up in court? Not exactly the kind of behaviour 172 is geared towards, but you could make the wording match.
Court?
The Trial is at the side of the Road!

What is 172 geared towards , The Newspeak Dictionary meaning of Street Racing?

Image
[img]http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l352/toastedwhitebread/Untitled-TrueColor-03.jpg[/img]


PetitionGuy
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:43 pm
Location: Trana

by: PetitionGuy on
Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:32 am

tdrive - I'm surprised you're just discovering these details now

the details in section 172, that the media don't highlight....aside from the oohh/ahhh 50k over.....are the main reasons to have the whole enchilada repealed

it's pretty obvious what the written details in 172 try to imply....but IMO, all of those descriptions can be easily mis-interpreted based on the mood of the Officer, and the "attitude" of the driver, not to mention the type of vehicle being driven

ex1: a cellphone-equipped mini-van driving baby-momma accidently cuts-off another car by being totally distracted (no collision)....and she gets a warning, or some sort of minor ticket

ex2: another driver does the exact same thing for the exact same reason, but he is 19 and drives a modded Civic....and his car is on the hook and gone for a week


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

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:50 pm

tdrive2 wrote:Today after looking at the section 172 i noticed a few things. For one street racing is under Stunts as other said. Which means the media is terrible and Fantino sold us this under lies.
It is funny that everyone blames the Commissioner, but no one, not one blames McGuinty, Liberals or every MP that voted in favour that actually wrote and passed the law.

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,


IMHO
i) refers to a 2 lane hwy, someone attempting to pass and someone speeds up and does not let them back into the lane.

On a multi-lane hwy if you are in the left lane, you are only passing the person on the right and following the person in front. If the person on the right was to speed up and not allow the vehicle on the left to move to the right lane, that person would in fact be preventing the person on the left from passing.

Quite frankly someone in the passing lane going 105km, passing someone doing 100km and other traffic catches up to that vehicle, sorry about their fate (they are following), wait their turn. Once the vehicle has safely passed 2-3 car lengths that vehicle can then change lanes. No one should be "forced" down the highway at a speed they are uncomfortable with.
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
Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:20 pm

hwybear wrote:...

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,


IMHO
i) refers to a 2 lane hwy, someone attempting to pass and someone speeds up and does not let them back into the lane.

On a multi-lane hwy if you are in the left lane, you are only passing the person on the right and following the person in front. If the person on the right was to speed up and not allow the vehicle on the left to move to the right lane, that person would in fact be preventing the person on the left from passing.

...


I think you're right. That matches up with the fourth definition of stunt: "4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle."

Now in the case of a multi-lane highway - what if the person in the left lane was going, say, just 5 km/h slower than traffic to the right? Cars behind them wouldn't be able to wait their turn, as the lead car isn't even passing vehicles. Could they be charged under S. 172, or would it be 147 or 148 instead?

hwybear wrote:...

Quite frankly someone in the passing lane going 105km, passing someone doing 100km and other traffic catches up to that vehicle, sorry about their fate (they are following), wait their turn. Once the vehicle has safely passed 2-3 car lengths that vehicle can then change lanes. No one should be "forced" down the highway at a speed they are uncomfortable with.


I agree with you from a legal and safety standpoint, although slowing down a column of traffic for your passing needs just seems douchebaggish. :lol:
         Image


User avatar
BelSlySTi
Member
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:35 am

by: BelSlySTi on
Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:36 am

hwybear wrote: It is funny that everyone blames the Commissioner, but no one, not one blames McGuinty, Liberals or every MP that voted in favour that actually wrote and passed the law.

Yeah ok :roll:
http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com ... hlight=bel

I blame everyone who's had a hand in it, from Klees with his parading of the Churchill girl as a poster child for this BILL, right on down to FlipFlop Mcguinty and his "Safer Roads Act *EDIT*!


And for the poor guy Fantino, the guy who get's blamed for everything, who says everyone should be held accountable, everyone except himself.
Step aside Fred Astaire, Julie's got the floor!
[img]http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l352/toastedwhitebread/Untitled-TrueColor-03.jpg[/img]


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

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:07 pm

Squishy wrote: Now in the case of a multi-lane highway - what if the person in the left lane was going, say, just 5 km/h slower than traffic to the right? Cars behind them wouldn't be able to wait their turn, as the lead car isn't even passing vehicles. Could they be charged under S. 172, or would it be 147 or 148 instead?
If you are in the left and being overtaken on the right......would have to observe the traffic in its totality......if the person on the left doing 105km and just finished passing a 100km and waits the 2 to 3 car lengths to safely move over, then does not, think this would be an good "fail to move right". If it is a case of the above where, prior to the car moving to the right, driver "impatient driver" cuts in with mere ft to spare, that person has no reasonable opportunity to move over......more over is this person that now cut to the right "preventing the person from completing the pass and performing a stunt?
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests