The Fast Lane

Hello everyone,

I've been wondering about this for some time. Hopefully someone with more knowledge/experience with the HTA can provide some insight.

First, the sections on which my question are based:

Section 128 (Rate of speed)

128. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than,

...

(f) the maximum rate of speed posted on a highway or portion of a highway ...

Section 147 (Slow vehicles to the right)

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

Given common sense and courtesy, s. 147 on its own definitely helps to maintain the flow of traffic. However, if one assumes that drivers are following the HTA in its entirety, everyone in the leftmost lane would be travelling at or below the posted speed limit.

My question: is a driver in the leftmost lane really violating the HTA when he is travelling at the maximum legal rate of speed, even if other drivers are intent on exceeding it? What would a police officer do in this situation; would he ticket the slow driver, or go after the speeders?

I do not in any way practice or condone this type of driving, I am just curious.

In my opinion, it is a violation of HTA 148(2) if a driver does not move right when overtaken by another vehicle - regardless of vehicle speed.

Yes, you must yield to faster vehicles. They may be committing an offence by speeding, but you're still committing an offence by not yielding. One doesn't cancel out the other.

As for what a police officer would, that would be entirely up to them. I personally would rather see lane hogs get a ticket versus someone going slightly over on the highway. That being said, with the general war on speed, I'm thinking the speeder is more likely to get the tag.

What if a hog is on the HOV? Can he be ticketed?

There are probably signs posted prohibiting drivers from moving right in an HOV lane except in designated areas.

Allow me to shed some light on this:

http://www.drivers.com/article/149/

now, continue the conversation

Squishy's reference to 148 (2) is this:

Vehicles or equestrians overtaken

(2) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the overtaking vehicle or equestrian to pass.

No reference to "speed limit" in there. In British Columbia, their version of the HTA does include wording to the effect that you must move to the right, unless you happen to be going the speed limit - but that's not the case in Ontario.

And then there's Germany and Switzerland, where simply driving anywhere but the right-most lane unless you are overtaking will earn you a one-way conversation with the Autobahn polizei.

Reflections wrote:

Allow me to shed some light on this:

http://www.drivers.com/article/149/

now, continue the conversation

that was interesting read especially Gordon Thompson's protest by driving at the limit, what does this say about the limit?

i don't believe we should have blanket speed limit, simply because Ontario/North-American drivers won't be able to handle it; if anything they need to pave a new road and force some graduated speed handling/manoeuvring licensing with certified cars (proper tires, brakes, maintenance etc) & plates and tolls to drive on that road ... how many times would i have to win Lotto Max to implement this?

now and again i drive exactly at the limit, just to gauge how drivers around me deal with it; some tailgate even though the left lane is wide-open to overtake, but i actually find a lot of drivers driving much slower than limit especially on highways with posted 100km/h limits

the war on speed is warranted especially with all these kids closing roads, and doing private races with honda go-karts

the only real place i see constant speed enforcement is on the 407, and you need to be driving 150+, that detachment ignores anything below 150

What they'd need to do is look at "best practices" from around the world to improve driver and road safety. But that ain't cool...

And get rid of the section that specifically allows passing on the right.

Radar Identified wrote:

What they'd need to do is look at "best practices" from around the world to improve driver and road safety. But that ain't cool...

It's not that it ain't cool, it just won't get you re-elected!

Squishy wrote:

And get rid of the section that specifically allows passing on the right.

Yes, they should... the only exceptions being:

- Car is turning left

- Car on the left is stopped

- Traffic speed is less than 60 km/h and the pass is made with less than a 20 km/h speed differential

(Yeah I got that from Germany... sorry.)

Reflections wrote:

It's not that it ain't cool, it just won't get you re-elected!

True for the most part... with these notable exceptions: If you're the current Premier, or possibly the MP from Scarborough-Agincourt, it ain't cool.

So the general consensus seems to be keep to the right unless passing, which I agree with. However I still think that the speed limit complicates things a bit. What if someone wants to obey the HTA but the right lane is traveling at (assume 400 series) 90? Could he be charged for passing them at 100 (assuming he is blocking in speeders)? I know he could definitely be charged for passing at 101 or more.

Also s148 is very confusing in the context of the whole HTA. It basically states that if someone behind you on a single lane road wants to speed then it is illegal to drive at the speed limit. So your options on single lane roads are basically:

1) Speed (violate 128)

2) Keep going (violate 148)

3) Pull over and wait for every speeder to pass

Option 3 is the only legal one, but that is unrealistic as you might be waiting for several hours in busy traffic. I think this section needs an exemption for motorists traveling at the speed limit (or section 128 needs to be removed) - but obviously we can't expect the current government to disassemble this elaborate tax scheme.

I don't think you're interpreting section 148 correctly. It says pull out to the right, not pull over to the right. In other words assist in letting other vehicles pass by sharing the road.

Stanton wrote:

I don't think you're interpreting section 148 correctly. It says pull out to the right, not pull over to the right. In other words assist in letting other vehicles pass by sharing the road.

Which, sadly in and around the GTA including the 401 to especially London, QEW to Niagara, etc, etc in my experience, no one ever does. The left lane is treated like any other lane and this makes it dangerous since impatient people start passing on the right and who can blame them when the people in the left lane are ignoring the law.

There REALLY needs to be a National Campaign on:

- How to PROPERLY merge onto a Highway (ie get up to speed of traffic in order NOT to cause gridlock)

- How to drive on the right side of the road (or middle lane on 3 lane roads) UNLESS you are passing, leave the left for passing and overall faster traffic if you are going slower.

Radio, TV, mail-outs, sh*t needs to happen, no one is obeying these simple concepts and its not just the usual suspects who you might think, its across the board no one remembers anything they read in their "book" before passing the learnings permit.

Everyone blames "volume" for all the gridlock but honestly more times than not it is the two simple things above that cause the gridlock, NOT volume (sure it doesnt help).

Yes, this is a bone of contention for me.

Here's a good one. Not the left lane, but that lane was moving at a faster pace than I felt comfortable with in the rain. Driving down the 400, I see hazard lights up ahead on a slow-moving vehicle. No problem, once I pass this centre-lane bandit of a white Cherokee, I'll move over and pass. Nope! (Chuck Testa) The VW mirrors my lane change for no apparent reason, doing 65 km/h while I'm doing 95. Sure, we eventually do pass some vehicles, and I suspect the VW was moving over for the upcoming on-ramp, but 1) hazard lights are on, so make damn sure the lane change is predictable and intuitive, 2) way too early, nothing was in front of the VW when it changed lanes, and 3) there were several opportunities for it to move over to allow faster traffic to pass. By that time, the Cherokee and several other vehicles had queued up behind us and I didn't want to do the ~110 km/h that vehicles were doing in the left lane, especially not accelerating up from 65 km/h. I was stuck.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze74rXm6NQY[/youtube]

By the way, I would loooove to see this driver's response to the first snowfall. The rain wasn't even coming down hard, my wipers were on intermittent before getting caught in the spray of the VW. Nowhere close to bad enough for 65 km/h.

Yeah I didn't even touch on the 'middle lane' bandits

He was travelling faster than those in the slow lane it seems so for me the puzzling thing is why did he have his hazard lights on at all? Seemed unnecessary (and sadly I see people like him occasionally too) and if he was truly worried, he should have been in the right lane obviously.

Here is a question, for those in the know and it leads into the issue I mentioned in the prior post, if you see someone merging onto the highway from an on-ramp is there a law that says if you are in the right lane you have to move to the middle lane to let them in? (I suspect there isn't but could be wrong and can't remember)

I suspect this is why some slow drivers drive in the middle, just to avoid some oncoming traffic trying to merge in.

While this seems like the courteous thing to do, yield your right lane to oncoming traffic by moving to the middle lane, to me the onus is on the person merging to get up to the speed of traffic so he can successfully merge into the traffic. Instead what often happens is you have some people switching lanes to help them merge, people slowing down to help them merge and both of these cause gridlock.

I drive the highways everyday and often near the tipping point of gridlock and no gridlock, some days I get lucky and manage to get through this one particular bottle-neck (merging) spot before it starts backing up. Other days I see it firsthand exactly what I described and everything coming to a crawl, yet others I arrive to an already completely gridlocked highway and I know damn well it starts with the people not speeding up enough to merge properly and then further compounded by others compensating for them.

jayjonbeach wrote:

Here is a question, for those in the know and it leads into the issue I mentioned in the prior post, if you see someone merging onto the highway from an on-ramp is there a law that says if you are in the right lane you have to move to the middle lane to let them in? (I suspect there isn't but could be wrong and can't remember)

The law places the onus on the driver merging or changing lanes to do so only if safe. There is no requirement to assist motorists in merging (though nothing wrong with doing so if needed).

I'd say it's reasonable to help those vehicles that can't easily get up to speed, like tractor trailers, campers, fully loaded pickups, boat trailers, etc. I also try to move over for a long queue of merging vehicles whenever I can, but sometimes doing so would cause congestion in the centre lane so I try to maintain my speed as much as I can and hope the others can merge properly.

For single passenger vehicles trying to merge, heck, our Escort had all of 110 HP when brand spanking new and it gets up to 100 by the end of the on-ramp with no problem. No sympathy for those who try to merge at 60-80 km/h, and I won't move over for them unless safety becomes a factor (e.g., they're so obviously clueless that I either slow down/move over or they'll wind up on the shoulder).

There is no special law for merging onto a highway, it is treated as any other lane change (i.e., onus is on the vehicle changing lanes, traffic already in the lane has right-of-way). I've heard an argument before that highway on-ramps should fall under an uncontrolled intersection, thus traffic yields to vehicles on the right, but as the lanes are completely parallel at the point of the merge, I didn't buy that argument as I don't believe it is an intersection.

you guys didnt know?

the right lane has been the new left lane for yrs.

everyone just dive bombs the left lane and parks at 100-120 depending and dont care who or what is behind them. right lane...free and clear for km's.

That's cause I keep it clear with my slow driving.

You're welcome.

Slow merging = Stoopidity, but that's just my personal opinion.

However, there have been numerous times I have gotten on to the 407 at Neyegawa heading east and some sally who for whatever reason decides it's ok to get to the end of the ramp doing 70!!

The flow of traffic in this area is around 110-120 at pretty much all times of the day. This is an example of unreasonable caution causing issues for other drivers. I think that these people too need a road side meeting with a nice officer to explain what merging is about.

Reflections wrote:

Slow merging = Stoopidity, but that's just my personal opinion.

However, there have been numerous times I have gotten on to the 407 at Neyegawa heading east and some sally who for whatever reason decides it's ok to get to the end of the ramp doing 70!!

The flow of traffic in this area is around 110-120 at pretty much all times of the day. This is an example of unreasonable caution causing issues for other drivers. I think that these people too need a road side meeting with a nice officer to explain what merging is about.

If you're lucky, they'll be even stupider and merge before the end of the ramp so you can leave the carnage behind!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcMId8XYzZs[/youtube]

So by about 35 seconds how fast were you going and what is the speed limit?

And we are missing if the Jeep cut anyone off.... just sayin.

I'm doing 100 and the limit is 100, notice how I'm not gaining on any traffic except the Jeep? It's a 9-year old Ford with a plugged cat.

Traffic was light enough that the vehicle coming up on the Jeep slowed down for it and eventually passed it on the left. After the slow merge, the Jeep eventually passed me at the next off-ramp.