Yet those same people offer advice to these drivers to get off their tickets when they finally get caught.....that just doesn't make sense!
In my perfect world, the legal system wouldn't be a game where each side tries to "win" the case. If you know you're guilty, just pay the fine. 'Not guilty' pleas should be reserved for actual mistakes. If loopholes are found, then only the ones where someone could reasonably believe their actions were lawful should be allowed. Some of the HTA can be interpreted more than one way, and that should be what court cases are about - genuine misunderstandings. None of this "bilingual signs" stuff - do you speak English? Then GUILTY!
I once believed that tickets were a good form of "education". Expensive enough to sting a bit, but not life-altering punishment. Get a few tickets TODAY and you're some kind of monster. Insurance companies tell you to take a hike! Employers then have trouble hiring you (if driving is involved), so your job prospects become rather limited.
I see your point Bear, and I rarely reply to guys who are just looking for an easy "out" after doing an obviously stupid thing. But most posts involve a driver who made an honest mistake rather than a truly devious driving style. If they don't talk all "gansta", I'll try to help them out if I can. After all, it was an actual JP who convinced ME I should start learning how to defend myself
Usually, it's just young'ns who still think they know it all and drive a tad too... ummm... "immaturely"! But they DO grow up eventually. I just hope they still have a decent chance at a successful career after they outgrow their "crazy years". I would never have the career I have today if I grew up driving under today's rules. I'd probably still be pumpin' gas at minimum wage at the garage down the street, LOL.
...that actually makes sense!!Squishy wrote: Some of the HTA can be interpreted more than one way, and that should be what court cases are about - genuine misunderstandings. None of this "bilingual signs" stuff - do you speak English? Then GUILTY!
For one when it comes to following to close. IMO i dont think this is a necessary law. The only reason someone follows to close is because someone is noy obeying lane discipline. Unless there is a massive traffic jam (401 in rush hour in toronto) then every vehicle is following to close.
When it comes to following to close i dont think its right but the only reason it happens is because and this is always the same thing. There is a group of cars traveling in a pack they encounter someone else that is a road block so they are all to close.
I mean if someone is tailgating a specific car that is one thing. But usually this always happens because someone else will not move. If the guy who is the road block usually almost always blocking the passing lane was following the law, then all the cars behind him would not be following to close.
I dont think we take this as a serious enough offense in this province.
As with regard to double talk on following to close. I think this law is a hard one and can be interpreted to many ways. Starting with who is to blame. Also to close means different for some people. For some it might be 1 car length for others they will only be comfortable with 5.
I can't remember the last time I drove anywhere with a limit above 80 km/h where I was not tailgated.
The rule is pretty simple in most cases - if the car in front of you slams on the brakes, can you react in time to stop? I also consider the apparent performance level of the vehicle I am following - I will leave two seconds behind trucks (drafting, woo!), but will go up to 6 or 7 seconds if I am following a Porsche or something else that might stop on a dime.
The grey area is when the car in front hits a relatively immovable object - you might still get charged with follow too close, but depending on the speed and other circumstances, it may be unreasonable to allow enough distance for the car in front to immediately come to a dead stop.
With that said, I do think that lane discipline should be enforced in Ontario, at least on the 400-series highways. Any time I see this brought up in the media, the officer in question (usually Fantino) finds a way to get around it. I heard a trucker call in and complain about this, and Fantino's response was "Hey, I see truckers parked in the centre lane all the time" (paraphrased).
Im mainly referring to alot of the sections where its 3 + lanes without traffic.
Sometimes on a 1 lane street that people want to go faster on ill just put on my right signal or my 4 ways, slow down, move a bit over to give the other guy room and to let the other guy pass.
On a 3or 4 lane there is no excuse. You should be paying attention and scanning your mirrors. If someone is behind you and you cant move over atleast put on your right turn signal to show the guy behind you your not trying to aggravate him or slow him down.....
The same goes for passing other vehicles. People rarely do this but you should be looking to your left to make sure the guys coming up in that lane are not going way faster then you are. Should wait for a safe distance so you can accelerate to pass the truck or vehicle without having others in that lane slam on their brakes.
This law is like the one for failing to move over for an officer in the right lane with his lights on. There is no excuse to not see a marked cruiser on the side of the road with his lights on and to move over so you don't hit him or slow down.
It's ignorant to do that and dangerous.
My previous post was about four-lane city streets (two in each direction) up to the six+ lane 400-series highways.
I don't know if you misunderstood my post or you think I should move left to allow others to pass me. Unless I am passing other vehicles or preparing for a left turn, I am almost always in the right hand lane driving at around the speed limit. I frequently get tailgated on a multi-lane roadway in the right hand lane. Either it is people who are too lazy to switch lanes and expect me to speed up for them, or, more likely in the case of Toronto, people just don't understand what a safe following distance is.
Your safe following distance is not a discrete distance - it is measured by your reaction time and the braking capabilities of your vehicle and the assumed braking abilities of the vehicle in front (plus a generous margin of error). Thus, it is easy to keep a safe following distance in a traffic jam. It is also why no specifics are set in the HTA, or else we would likely be held to distances suited for the handling of vehicles in the 50s or 60s.Well okay on a one lane street or a traffic jam can be hard to deal with.
I'm going to agree with Squishy here. When you tailgate, you are placing yourself at the mercy of the person you are tailgating. The closer you are to a vehicle in front of you, the more it occupies your field of vision, so there is no way to detect and react to hazards happening down the road. Also, as you get closer to another vehicle, the amount of time you have to react diminishes, and you have to react more abruptly and aggressively. Eventually, it is not possible to react if something unforeseen happens.tdrive2 wrote:For one when it comes to following to close. IMO i dont think this is a necessary law.
While I get fairly irritated at left-lane hogs, I can't believe the number of times I see on a daily basis someone driving on the right lane with someone pasted to their bumper. The tailgater is getting all bent out of shape over the fact that the person in front won't go any faster, but they won't take any initiative to move into another lane and pass in safety when one, two or even five lanes are available to them to do so. So they sit there tailgating for 40 miles and all the while they work their blood pressure through the roof. I see people in cars driving literally six feet off the rear of a semi-truck at 90 km/h, and they won't try to pass the truck. The person in front cannot be held accountable for a tailgater's decision to drive at an unsafe distance. "Sorry for driving so close in front of you."
Driving too close is illegal for a good reason. Yes, poor lane discipline is dangerous and it is a major cause of road rage, but just because someone is doing something stupid is not a valid reason to also do something stupid.
But most of the time a reason someone tailgates is cause someone else is not using proper lane discipline.
Now if the situation allows most people wont care they'll just race around the road block on the right and weave through cars to get around him.
The problem starts in medium traffic where you cant really pass to the right around him but he can easily move over to the next lane.
No matter what happens people are going to get annoyed and begin to tailgate this driver to pass him.
I have seen some really dangerous things happen here.
The only time when i see people not get aggressive when someone is plugging the left lane and blocking traffic is when they can see a Black and White crown vic with the Letters "OPP" marked on it.
Many people talk of raising limits on the road this will never work without proper lane discipline. Poor lane discipline causes alot of problems.
A speeder might get a few peoples attention, he might race around. But once hes gone hes gone. Although one of those left lane hogs can manage to infuriate many drivers and get people to get really mad, emotional, and angry. The guy who does this usually will take himself down and many others. The extreme speeder will usually eventually do himself in. Hell eventually get caught, stuck behind trucks, or do himself in.
Also the fact around the GTA you only seem to get a ticket for going over 130 does not help either. Infact today i was on a small 2 lane highway with a posted speed limit of 90 km/hr. Maximum may i say.
Although i found it interesting to be passed by a marked cruiser driven by a female officer. No one would pass her so a bunch of cars paced her. She was going about 110-119 the whole time, the posted limit was 90.
There you go a fellow officer with no lights on in no emergency going 20-30 over the max posted speed limit what is that all about? We here stories about other officers getting caught for the 50 over law.
A while back i was on the 401 and saw 2 cruisers pull into the left lane traveling way to close (less than 2 car lengths for sure) going 125-135 on the 401 to.
Now i realize you don't really get a ticket around the GTA unless u go over 130. But then when you get a ticket for 140 it's for 40 over what gives? If the officers themselves break the law what does this say in general?
If they think the limit is to low why dont they say so or get it changed. It really bothers me to see officers exceed the maximum posted speed limit.
I realize they have emergencies to get to and need to turn the lights on and need to speed. So be it. But casually going over the limit 20-30 km/hr with no lights on is certainly not getting to an emergency.
If police expect the public to follow the rules and laws and pay their tickets and believe in the system the first thing they must do is set an example of how your supposed to drive and what is acceptable.
If the officers want to go 120-130 on the 401 then the speed limit should reflect this. This also means that 150 is not stunt driving and when you get a ticket for going 140 it should not be 40 over.
i know what you mean about double talk but if the public sees the police en charge of our highways speeding casually20-30 over the limit then this sets a bad example and really sets in place this whole double talk. If anything police should set the example. This means driving the Maximum posted limit. If the limit is to low they should support a higher limit. If they have to get to an emergency so be it.
What i saw today was no emergency. In fact she was doing what every other car was doing she was going 20-30 overt to. The 1 problem i have with it is this is an enforcer of the laws, who should be traveling at the maximum limit and enforcing this law.
When we here about officers getting charged with 50 over that sends a mixed message to the public. When we go on the highway and visually see with our own eyes officers exceeding the limit this really sets a different image in your mind. It's unethical and hypocritical to do so. Officers are great, they put their lives on the line for us all the time and help out. But if your going to speed i hope your not going to charge others for doing the same thing which you seem to think is okay for yourself to do.
I think we've talked about speeding cruisers here before. "No lights" is not the same as "no emergency". Or, rather, "no lights" is not the same as "no call". Sometimes they get a call that doesn't require blues and twos speeding down the road, but does require driving a bit faster. There's usually no way to tell what they're up to, unless you follow the speeding cop all the way to a Tim Horton's drive-through. I think speeding is more a case of "do as they say, not as they do," just as I was allowed to use my cell phone at St. Joseph's Hospital when I worked there, but would have to tell patients to turn them off.