Ontario Highway Traffic Act

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

We have a move over law?

tdrive2 wrote:What do you mean?

I mean, why do you assume that a 775 HP police vehicle will be used for rush-hour chases? Just because the potential is there does not mean that it will happen. That's like saying we should seize all cars with over 100 HP because they have the potential to go fast when conditions don't allow it.

What happened to "speed is not dangerous"?

tdrive2 wrote:What a massive waste of Tax Payer money.

Did you read the link?

Haha, "Speedy Cop"

I'm not sure how he sold the idea to the Chief. Something about having to remove the rear seat on an '03 to get the dog in? If that was the problem, how does a basically 2.5-seater Camaro solve the dog issue?

Got 2 tickets while in a store parking lot. I was in the car with a passenger and was about to exit the vechicle. One ticket was for not having my up to date sticker and for having an expired insurance card, but the ticket offense reads " fail to surrender insurance card", which i did give to the officer just expired. What does the law say about ...

I think it's mostly to do with all this population growth.

Could be also due to shifting attitudes toward drinking and driving. "One for the road" used to be a literal expression, people would grab a beer and drink it as they drove to their destination. Now we shake our heads at the gall of someone who would stop in traffic, look over at the cop ...

knight_yyz wrote:I can't see into your car therefore ...

That right there is enough for the ticket. There are two separate laws for tint - one states that you must be able to see out, the other states that you must be able to see in.

I think it's mostly to do with all this population growth. Way back in Bookm's day (1903?), you could be impaired and drive down the road without meeting too many cars (limits the input you have to process and decisions you have to make). If you were impaired enough to crash, chances are you would drive into a ditch and maybe hit a tree. Now ...

I haven't heard of any either. I can imagine the P/O driver though: "I was being overtaken, sped up by 10 km/hr, and the officer gave me a 7-point ticket! What will THAT do to MY insurance??? I didn't even know this was illegal let alone this bad!"

Ignorance is a poor excuse. :P

I imagine just a warning of the potential charges and insurance ...

Assuming that this was not on a King's Highway, I think the charge should have been under the City of Toronto Municipal Code 400-21, or the old Metropolitan Bylaw 132/93. I can find neither of those online, so I can't read the text to determine if either specifies a 60 m limit.

The King's Highway includes highways 2-148 along with the 400-series and the QEW. The most popular HOV road in Toronto is probably Don Mills, which as far as I know is not a King's Highway (it's Regional Road 12 or something like that).

I'm not sure if a highway retains the King's Highway designation when responsibility for the road is turned over ...