My son got charged with "Drive motor vehicle validation improperly affixed". We have a sticker attached to the ownership, and had one on the plate. I followed the same procedure every ownership purchase for the last 32 years of owning a car. The Peel Police charged him with that and nothing else. Does anyone have any options for me to consider? Or should I just #2 and speak with the Prosecutor? We propose we had it on my car, but it was removed. To support our theory, last week my son was pulled over in the same car (which was his first time ever) because he looked "spooked" to a Police Officer. The car had ownership and insurance, but the insurance slip had expired by a month. The new one was in the centre dash but he didn't know that. He got charged for only that. We expect that to get tossed. If he didn't have the sticker on the plate then, he would have gotten a ticket by this picky perticular Officer.
My son got charged with "Drive motor vehicle validation improperly affixed". We have a sticker attached to the ownership, and had one on the plate. I followed the same procedure every ownership purchase for the last 32 years of owning a car. The Peel Police charged him with that and nothing else. Does anyone have any options for me to consider? Or should I just #2 and speak with the Prosecutor?
We propose we had it on my car, but it was removed. To support our theory, last week my son was pulled over in the same car (which was his first time ever) because he looked "spooked" to a Police Officer. The car had ownership and insurance, but the insurance slip had expired by a month. The new one was in the centre dash but he didn't know that. He got charged for only that. We expect that to get tossed. If he didn't have the sticker on the plate then, he would have gotten a ticket by this picky perticular Officer.
Haven't seen jsherk around in a while, so I'm gonna take a chapter from his book. I suggest you plead NOT GUILTY and request a trial with the officer present. Once you get your court date, request disclosure and review the officers evidence. That's the only way you can properly defend yourself. After reviewing the disclosure, you can call the prosecutors office and request an early resolution meeting. On a side note - was the sticker placed on both the back of the ownership as well as the TOP RIGHT corner of the license plate? Those are the two places they need to be. If not, it is a charge. The charge was for "affixed improperly" which means that the sticker was there, but not in the right spot. If it was in the right spots, this case should be a slam dunk.
Haven't seen jsherk around in a while, so I'm gonna take a chapter from his book.
I suggest you plead NOT GUILTY and request a trial with the officer present. Once you get your court date, request disclosure and review the officers evidence. That's the only way you can properly defend yourself. After reviewing the disclosure, you can call the prosecutors office and request an early resolution meeting.
On a side note - was the sticker placed on both the back of the ownership as well as the TOP RIGHT corner of the license plate? Those are the two places they need to be. If not, it is a charge. The charge was for "affixed improperly" which means that the sticker was there, but not in the right spot. If it was in the right spots, this case should be a slam dunk.
That is very true, wonder what's keeping him away :? I hope the officer was not simply looking for cash grab situation, because if the ticket was issued for "incorrect placement" that is what it is IMO. And yes, we all no the cash does not go to him, he is following orders...
UnluckyDuck wrote:
Haven't seen jsherk around in a while...
That is very true, wonder what's keeping him away
I hope the officer was not simply looking for cash grab situation, because if the ticket was issued for "incorrect placement" that is what it is IMO.
And yes, we all no the cash does not go to him, he is following orders...
They don't. You only need a sticker on your plate. Although it's probably best to just put it on both to avoid any hassle.
UnluckyDuck wrote:
On a side note - was the sticker placed on both the back of the ownership as well as the TOP RIGHT corner of the license plate? Those are the two places they need to be. If not, it is a charge.
They don't. You only need a sticker on your plate. Although it's probably best to just put it on both to avoid any hassle.
Based on some new wording in the HTA, the sticker no longer needs to be placed on the back of the ownership, only the plate. There is some case law (non-binding) that supports this. Based on the OP's post it sounds like there was no sticker on the plate which would still be illegal. Not sure how being stopped a week earlier is a defence.
UnluckyDuck wrote:
On a side note - was the sticker placed on both the back of the ownership as well as the TOP RIGHT corner of the license plate? Those are the two places they need to be. If not, it is a charge. The charge was for "affixed improperly" which means that the sticker was there, but not in the right spot. If it was in the right spots, this case should be a slam dunk.
Based on some new wording in the HTA, the sticker no longer needs to be placed on the back of the ownership, only the plate. There is some case law (non-binding) that supports this. Based on the OP's post it sounds like there was no sticker on the plate which would still be illegal. Not sure how being stopped a week earlier is a defence.
I think what he is trying to say is, the sticker might have fallen off the plate at some point between the two stops, If the sticker was not there the driver would have received a ticket for this violation at the same time as the insurance infraction, the fact that he was not charged is proof it was there. (just trying to decipher OP wording)
Stanton wrote:
Based on some new wording in the HTA, the sticker no longer needs to be placed on the back of the ownership, only the plate. There is some case law (non-binding) that supports this. Based on the OP's post it sounds like there was no sticker on the plate which would still be illegal. Not sure how being stopped a week earlier is a defence.
I think what he is trying to say is, the sticker might have fallen off the plate at some point between the two stops, If the sticker was not there the driver would have received a ticket for this violation at the same time as the insurance infraction, the fact that he was not charged is proof it was there. (just trying to decipher OP wording)
Quite often that charge is laid because the driver talked himself into it, or, the driver was getting a break on something else so the cop laid that charge which is no points. If the validation sticker is missing, it would still come up as valid when the cop ran the plate during the stop. If the plates came up as being valid, but the sticker was missing, then it is likely someone stole the sticker to glue onto their plate to make it look like they have valid plates. The number on the sticker on the back of the ownership is the same number in the middle of the validation sticker on the plate and can be entered on to cpic as lost or stolen. You will need to go get a replacement.
Quite often that charge is laid because the driver talked himself into it, or, the driver was getting a break on something else so the cop laid that charge which is no points. If the validation sticker is missing, it would still come up as valid when the cop ran the plate during the stop. If the plates came up as being valid, but the sticker was missing, then it is likely someone stole the sticker to glue onto their plate to make it look like they have valid plates. The number on the sticker on the back of the ownership is the same number in the middle of the validation sticker on the plate and can be entered on to cpic as lost or stolen. You will need to go get a replacement.
did this change, I recently got my sticker, and on the instructions is clearly states where to put the stickers, on top/right number plate and on the back of the ownership They don't. You only need a sticker on your plate. Although it's probably best to just put it on both to avoid any hassle.
did this change,
I recently got my sticker, and on the instructions is clearly states where to put the stickers, on top/right number plate and on the back of the ownership
bend wrote:
UnluckyDuck wrote:
On a side note - was the sticker placed on both the back of the ownership as well as the TOP RIGHT corner of the license plate? Those are the two places they need to be. If not, it is a charge.
They don't. You only need a sticker on your plate. Although it's probably best to just put it on both to avoid any hassle.
--------------------------------------------------------------
* NO you cant touch your phone
* Speeding is speeding
* Challenge every ticket
* Impaired driving, you should be locked up UNDER the jail
That's incorrect, the law actually changed a few years ago. You were actually required to affix the sticker to your permit until July of 2012. The regulation for vehicle permits used to read (emphasis added by me): "A permit for a motor vehicle shall be validated by means of evidence of validation provided by the Ministry and affixed in the appropriate space provided on the permit" It now reads: "Evidence of validation not intended for the number plate may be affixed in the appropriate space provided on the permit for the vehicle"
waddya_know wrote:
Nothing changed. It has simply been decided that failure to put the sticker on the registration does not put you in a law-breaking situation.
That's incorrect, the law actually changed a few years ago. You were actually required to affix the sticker to your permit until July of 2012.
The regulation for vehicle permits used to read (emphasis added by me):
"A permit for a motor vehicle shall be validated by means of evidence of validation provided by the Ministry and affixed in the appropriate space provided on the permit"
It now reads:
"Evidence of validation not intended for the number plate may be affixed in the appropriate space provided on the permit for the vehicle"
Last edited by Stanton on Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thank you for the explanation, this is great peace of info. This actually explains the purpose of having that little sticker that you "should" attach to the back of ownership, it simply helps to show that you did have a validation on your plate but some how (stolen or fell off) is gone missing. Now, I have a question, HTA says you can not drive a car unless the permit is validated. If I have validated the permit but it was stolen and I was stopped and the officer runs my plate and verifies it was validated, do I still get a ticket because the sticker is not attached for one reason or another?
screeech wrote:
Quite often that charge is laid because the driver talked himself into it, or, the driver was getting a break on something else so the cop laid that charge which is no points. If the validation sticker is missing, it would still come up as valid when the cop ran the plate during the stop. If the plates came up as being valid, but the sticker was missing, then it is likely someone stole the sticker to glue onto their plate to make it look like they have valid plates. The number on the sticker on the back of the ownership is the same number in the middle of the validation sticker on the plate and can be entered on to cpic as lost or stolen. You will need to go get a replacement.
Thank you for the explanation, this is great peace of info.
This actually explains the purpose of having that little sticker that you "should" attach to the back of ownership, it simply helps to show that you did have a validation on your plate but some how (stolen or fell off) is gone missing.
Now, I have a question, HTA says you can not drive a car unless the permit is validated. If I have validated the permit but it was stolen and I was stopped and the officer runs my plate and verifies it was validated, do I still get a ticket because the sticker is not attached for one reason or another?
Yes. If the permit was valid but the sticker was missing you could still be charged under the same section as the OP (in fact it's basically the same situation as the OP alleges). Now if it was legitimately stolen and you were unaware, you'd have to convince the officer or the Courts of that. You'd have to demonstrate some evidence of due diligence in periodically checking your plate for the sticker and/or replacing it ASAP upon learning it's missing. For instance, if it is stolen and you report it to the police, it's not carte blanche to drive around for several months without replacing it. Unfortunately many people fabricate stories about why their sticker or missing (or even better why they have one when they shouldn't) so police won't always take you at your word without some fact checking or supporting evidence. FYI the MTO does record the serial number on your plate sticker. So while I don't disagree it's a good idea to affix the second copy to your permit, police can still verify that you have the correct sticker on your car even without it.
Observer135 wrote:
Thank you for the explanation, this is great peace of info.
This actually explains the purpose of having that little sticker that you "should" attach to the back of ownership, it simply helps to show that you did have a validation on your plate but some how (stolen or fell off) is gone missing.
Now, I have a question, HTA says you can not drive a car unless the permit is validated. If I have validated the permit but it was stolen and I was stopped and the officer runs my plate and verifies it was validated, do I still get a ticket because the sticker is not attached for one reason or another?
Yes. If the permit was valid but the sticker was missing you could still be charged under the same section as the OP (in fact it's basically the same situation as the OP alleges). Now if it was legitimately stolen and you were unaware, you'd have to convince the officer or the Courts of that. You'd have to demonstrate some evidence of due diligence in periodically checking your plate for the sticker and/or replacing it ASAP upon learning it's missing. For instance, if it is stolen and you report it to the police, it's not carte blanche to drive around for several months without replacing it. Unfortunately many people fabricate stories about why their sticker or missing (or even better why they have one when they shouldn't) so police won't always take you at your word without some fact checking or supporting evidence.
FYI the MTO does record the serial number on your plate sticker. So while I don't disagree it's a good idea to affix the second copy to your permit, police can still verify that you have the correct sticker on your car even without it.
You see, this where I find this a bit a bitter pill to swallow. I never check my plates to make sure the sticker did not come off or some one did not steal it, never... The only time I ever look at it is when I get the new one and clean the old one so I can make sure the new one is on there securely. So if anything happened to it, it could go months un-noticed. At the same time, I know what you mean, police get all kinds of song and dance excuses and have heard it all. So there is no simple way of determining who is be hones and truthful and who is blowing smoke. I think HTA should be revised to include some sort of guidance in this regard to provide better tools to the officers in making a determination when an offence should be issues if an when it has been verified the validation was purchased. I seen to recall for similar type of offences police had the discretion of giving 48 hours grace period to the driver to bring proof to the police station and he/she would cancel the ticket, if not, the ticket would stand and driver would have deal with it in court. I don't think this is happening any more, no idea why, but if you ask me, it was a great way to weed out innocent people from having to go to court and tie up the system.
You see, this where I find this a bit a bitter pill to swallow.
I never check my plates to make sure the sticker did not come off or some one did not steal it, never...
The only time I ever look at it is when I get the new one and clean the old one so I can make sure the new one is on there securely.
So if anything happened to it, it could go months un-noticed.
At the same time, I know what you mean, police get all kinds of song and dance excuses and have heard it all.
So there is no simple way of determining who is be hones and truthful and who is blowing smoke. I think HTA should be revised to include some sort of guidance in this regard to provide better tools to the officers in making a determination when an offence should be issues if an when it has been verified the validation was purchased.
I seen to recall for similar type of offences police had the discretion of giving 48 hours grace period to the driver to bring proof to the police station and he/she would cancel the ticket, if not, the ticket would stand and driver would have deal with it in court. I don't think this is happening any more, no idea why, but if you ask me, it was a great way to weed out innocent people from having to go to court and tie up the system.
ooh let me go re-read mine That's incorrect, the law actually changed a few years ago. You were actually required to affix the sticker to your permit until July of 2012. The regulation for vehicle permits used to read (emphasis added by me): "A permit for a motor vehicle shall be validated by means of evidence of validation provided by the Ministry and affixed in the appropriate space provided on the permit" It now reads: "Evidence of validation not intended for the number plate may be affixed in the appropriate space provided on the permit for the vehicle"
ooh let me go re-read mine
Stanton wrote:
waddya_know wrote:
Nothing changed. It has simply been decided that failure to put the sticker on the registration does not put you in a law-breaking situation.
That's incorrect, the law actually changed a few years ago. You were actually required to affix the sticker to your permit until July of 2012.
The regulation for vehicle permits used to read (emphasis added by me):
"A permit for a motor vehicle shall be validated by means of evidence of validation provided by the Ministry and affixed in the appropriate space provided on the permit"
It now reads:
"Evidence of validation not intended for the number plate may be affixed in the appropriate space provided on the permit for the vehicle"
--------------------------------------------------------------
* NO you cant touch your phone
* Speeding is speeding
* Challenge every ticket
* Impaired driving, you should be locked up UNDER the jail
The vehicle validation sheet you get from ServiceOntario with the two stickers remains the same. It'll still give you instructions to place the one sticker on the back of the permit, and then instructions for the plate sticker on personal/commercial vehicles.
bobajob wrote:
ooh let me go re-read mine
The vehicle validation sheet you get from ServiceOntario with the two stickers remains the same. It'll still give you instructions to place the one sticker on the back of the permit, and then instructions for the plate sticker on personal/commercial vehicles.
oh I get it, the regulation changed i.e. the law, not what they put on the instructions The vehicle validation sheet you get from ServiceOntario with the two stickers remains the same. It'll still give you instructions to place the one sticker on the back of the permit, and then instructions for the plate sticker on personal/commercial vehicles.
oh I get it, the regulation changed i.e. the law, not what they put on the instructions
bend wrote:
bobajob wrote:
ooh let me go re-read mine
The vehicle validation sheet you get from ServiceOntario with the two stickers remains the same. It'll still give you instructions to place the one sticker on the back of the permit, and then instructions for the plate sticker on personal/commercial vehicles.
--------------------------------------------------------------
* NO you cant touch your phone
* Speeding is speeding
* Challenge every ticket
* Impaired driving, you should be locked up UNDER the jail
There was never any actual law or regulation providing a grace period, it was something officers would simply do (and still do). Unfortunately it's a bit more complicated now due to e-ticketing. It's a very good system in that it simplifies the ticket submission process and speeds up disclosure, but tickets are now automatically filed to the Courts. The officer no longer has a means of holding onto the ticket for a few days prior to submitting it. Realistically though for this offence, I can't see many officers giving you a grace period anyways. Either they believe your sticker was stolen, etc. or they don't. In my experience it was always pretty easy to tell if the sticker had been ripped off a plate or not.
Observer135 wrote:
I seen to recall for similar type of offences police had the discretion of giving 48 hours grace period to the driver to bring proof to the police station and he/she would cancel the ticket, if not, the ticket would stand and driver would have deal with it in court. I don't think this is happening any more, no idea why, but if you ask me, it was a great way to weed out innocent people from having to go to court and tie up the system.
There was never any actual law or regulation providing a grace period, it was something officers would simply do (and still do). Unfortunately it's a bit more complicated now due to e-ticketing. It's a very good system in that it simplifies the ticket submission process and speeds up disclosure, but tickets are now automatically filed to the Courts. The officer no longer has a means of holding onto the ticket for a few days prior to submitting it. Realistically though for this offence, I can't see many officers giving you a grace period anyways. Either they believe your sticker was stolen, etc. or they don't. In my experience it was always pretty easy to tell if the sticker had been ripped off a plate or not.
I realize there was never such a thing as a grace period as far as the law is concerned, the officer was doing this just to be nice (that's my view anyway), it was up to the officer to make the decision, I had no idea they still do this, I have not heard of it in so long I thought it was no longer an option. Would you mind elaborating on the e-ticket part of your comment? Are you saying that as soon as the ticket is issued a copy is transmitted directly to the court? I'm curious how the mechanics of e-ticket works especially when it comes to officer's notes, it seems the notes are made on the terminal in the cruiser and no notebook is in use anymore.
Stanton wrote:
There was never any actual law or regulation providing a grace period, it was something officers would simply do (and still do). Unfortunately it's a bit more complicated now due to e-ticketing. It's a very good system in that it simplifies the ticket submission process and speeds up disclosure, but tickets are now automatically filed to the Courts. The officer no longer has a means of holding onto the ticket for a few days prior to submitting it. Realistically though for this offence, I can't see many officers giving you a grace period anyways. Either they believe your sticker was stolen, etc. or they don't. In my experience it was always pretty easy to tell if the sticker had been ripped off a plate or not.
I realize there was never such a thing as a grace period as far as the law is concerned, the officer was doing this just to be nice (that's my view anyway), it was up to the officer to make the decision, I had no idea they still do this, I have not heard of it in so long I thought it was no longer an option.
Would you mind elaborating on the e-ticket part of your comment? Are you saying that as soon as the ticket is issued a copy is transmitted directly to the court?
I'm curious how the mechanics of e-ticket works especially when it comes to officer's notes, it seems the notes are made on the terminal in the cruiser and no notebook is in use anymore.
My knowledge of e-tickets is limited and Im not sure how standardized the system is across the Province. My general understanding is that while its not instantaneous, e-tickets are automatically sent to the Court offices each weekday. For e-notes, officers would enter them after having issued a ticket. The notes are associated to a specific ticket and once submitted they become "locked" and can no longer be changed. Officers can add additional supplementary notes if needed, but each set of notes would be time stamped.
My knowledge of e-tickets is limited and Im not sure how standardized the system is across the Province. My general understanding is that while its not instantaneous, e-tickets are automatically sent to the Court offices each weekday. For e-notes, officers would enter them after having issued a ticket. The notes are associated to a specific ticket and once submitted they become "locked" and can no longer be changed. Officers can add additional supplementary notes if needed, but each set of notes would be time stamped.
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
