Riceburner
Well-known member
Sheesh. AFTER the Games, any vehicle can use the 400 series HOV lanes with 2 or more occupants(what it was before)....unless they keep the 3+ rule.
Pulled over on HOV gardiner
- Thread starter vrus
- Start date
Sheesh. AFTER the Games, any vehicle can use the 400 series HOV lanes with 2 or more occupants(what it was before)....unless they keep the 3+ rule.
PLau
Well-known member
For the record, emergency vehicles can be in the HOV lanes w/o lights on and they don't have to be answering a call to be in that lane.
F@&*, what am I saying, they can drive on the sidewalk for all they care.
One of the things I think is interesting (and I hope Rob will jump in) is the difference in fines. For the provincial HOV lanes that we're not allowed in at all right now, there's a $110 fine and 3 demerits. For the municipal lanes, it's just an $85 fine for misuse of an HOV lane.
Why don't they call it "failure to obey" a lane marking or sign? As long as the markings and signs are in accordance with the law, they can write a ticket under the provincial offences act, can't they?
Why don't they call it "failure to obey" a lane marking or sign? As long as the markings and signs are in accordance with the law, they can write a ticket under the provincial offences act, can't they?
dextasy
Well-known member
agreed, I tried it and for about a year and couldn't do it.....
Don't forget to just sort of bob and weave..
Are you jobless by any chance? Because for most of us, we would have to spend our money filling out paperwork, going to court, etc, so at least a day wasted.
Riceburner
Well-known member
'xactly.
HTA S182(2) Disobey Sign only applies to signs prescribed in REG 615 Signs
Municipalities can't make up their own custom signs and expect enforcement under the HTA.
griff2 suggested the language in S154(1)(c) suggests it might be applicable, but I don't think TPS & city prosecutors would want to risk legal gymnastics and risk handing out HTA tickets in the event the courts decide they're not applicable to HOV lanes. Which would mean hundreds if not thousands of Toronto HOV tickets would get tossed.
It's easier for them to use the $85 by-law charge, which they'll know will result in a conviction if challenged and wouldn't need to be tested in court.
The only published HOV decision I've found was Mississauga (City) v. Joshi [2010] O.J. No. 6009
It's a trial where OPP witnessed the driver crossing the double white lines. Driver & passenger were comedy gold at trial; classic example of piss-poor testimony, and getting destroyed under cross-examination.
1 L.J. REDMOND J.P. (orally):— The court will render its decision in this trial. The identification of the defendant, the place where the occurrence took place, the date of the occurrence are not a question for the court.
2 On the day in question, October the 6th, 2009, in examination in-chief the lead witness for the prosecution, P.C. Vitalis of the O.P.P. gave testimony in evidence to the court that he was on a special patrol detail looking for infractions in high occupancy lanes, and that was his enforcement detail for the day. He told the court he was westbound on Highway 403, west of Mavis Road when he saw the defendant before the court change his lane from lane two to lane one and cross the solid double lines to do so. The officer stated that there are signs posted for the purpose of using lane two, and that individuals or vehicles are not to cross the solid line. Observing the defendant doing so, crossing the solid line, the officer pulled the defendant over. Now the officer indicated to the court that there was one other vehicle ahead of him, but it was not taking away the sight of the defendant who he said he never lost sight of, as this infraction was taking place. The officer was in lane two, he had mentioned, and that there were no obstructions, he said, in observing the defendant's vehicle make the cross over the solid double lines. He said the traffic was heavy. There were no obstructions in the roadway, and as soon as the defendant crossed the double lines, the officer pulled him over. He did the identification. He was satisfied with the defendant's identification.
3 The defence brought forward the defendant, who said that he and the witness before the court were on their way from the 410 to the 403 southbound, originally commencing their trip at around Steeles. This is a trip that they make quite frequently to Hamilton, and they get on the 403 and entered the high occupancy lanes at the appropriate space or place. The defendant, when asked whether he saw the vehicles behind him, said no, he never saw the officer, and that it was not that busy, in other words, the traffic was not that busy. The defendant was persistent in that he did cross over into the HOV on the broken lines permitted to do so. when asked by the prosecution whether he changed lanes to do so, he gave no response. There was no answer.
4 The defence brought forward Mr. Singh, an independent witness who was driving with the defendant on their way to Hamilton. The witness had said that they were not engaged in any conversation and, indeed, the defendant said the same thing. They've been travelling for 30 some days together and they don't talk, they don't play the radio, at least on this particular day, they were not on cell phones this particular day, and the defendant-pardon me, the witness had stated to the court that the defendant had entered into the HOV lane on a broken line, but he could not or did not give any specific reference as to where that took place on the roadway. The witness did see the officer, he stated, behind their vehicle. The defendant did not, and still there was no conversation apparently.
5 The court is of the decision, based on the evidence that it has received in this trial, that on the day in question the weight of the testimony by the officer in examination in-chief and the specificity of that evidence weighs heavily in this court's decision. This court is keening in mind the evidence given to the court that the officer indicated he was specifically on that roadway for no other purpose other than to enforce the high occupancy lane. That was his specific task on the day in question. The court is of the decision that the defendant, who had travelled this route numerous times going to Hamilton, on this particular occasion not probably realizing that he was traversing the solid line, did so on the day in question and that the officer who was immediately behind him with a clear view of what was transpiring, an unobstructed view, observed the defendant doing so.
6 The court is satisfied that it has received evidence so that the prosecutor has made a prima facie case and that the defendant on the day in question did circumvene(ph) the charge before the court, section 154.1(3), and the court is satisfied with this beyond a reasonable doubt. The court will enter a guilty conviction in the name of the defendant to the charge before the court. The set fine for this charge is $85. Does the defendant require time to pay?
7 MR. JOSHI: Right now I could pay.
8 THE COURT: Thank you very much.
9 MR. STEINMETZ: Thank you very much, Your Worship. Thank you, Madam Crown, Madam Clerk, officer.
10 MS. BOURGEOIS: Thank you, Mr. Steinmetz.
2 On the day in question, October the 6th, 2009, in examination in-chief the lead witness for the prosecution, P.C. Vitalis of the O.P.P. gave testimony in evidence to the court that he was on a special patrol detail looking for infractions in high occupancy lanes, and that was his enforcement detail for the day. He told the court he was westbound on Highway 403, west of Mavis Road when he saw the defendant before the court change his lane from lane two to lane one and cross the solid double lines to do so. The officer stated that there are signs posted for the purpose of using lane two, and that individuals or vehicles are not to cross the solid line. Observing the defendant doing so, crossing the solid line, the officer pulled the defendant over. Now the officer indicated to the court that there was one other vehicle ahead of him, but it was not taking away the sight of the defendant who he said he never lost sight of, as this infraction was taking place. The officer was in lane two, he had mentioned, and that there were no obstructions, he said, in observing the defendant's vehicle make the cross over the solid double lines. He said the traffic was heavy. There were no obstructions in the roadway, and as soon as the defendant crossed the double lines, the officer pulled him over. He did the identification. He was satisfied with the defendant's identification.
3 The defence brought forward the defendant, who said that he and the witness before the court were on their way from the 410 to the 403 southbound, originally commencing their trip at around Steeles. This is a trip that they make quite frequently to Hamilton, and they get on the 403 and entered the high occupancy lanes at the appropriate space or place. The defendant, when asked whether he saw the vehicles behind him, said no, he never saw the officer, and that it was not that busy, in other words, the traffic was not that busy. The defendant was persistent in that he did cross over into the HOV on the broken lines permitted to do so. when asked by the prosecution whether he changed lanes to do so, he gave no response. There was no answer.
4 The defence brought forward Mr. Singh, an independent witness who was driving with the defendant on their way to Hamilton. The witness had said that they were not engaged in any conversation and, indeed, the defendant said the same thing. They've been travelling for 30 some days together and they don't talk, they don't play the radio, at least on this particular day, they were not on cell phones this particular day, and the defendant-pardon me, the witness had stated to the court that the defendant had entered into the HOV lane on a broken line, but he could not or did not give any specific reference as to where that took place on the roadway. The witness did see the officer, he stated, behind their vehicle. The defendant did not, and still there was no conversation apparently.
5 The court is of the decision, based on the evidence that it has received in this trial, that on the day in question the weight of the testimony by the officer in examination in-chief and the specificity of that evidence weighs heavily in this court's decision. This court is keening in mind the evidence given to the court that the officer indicated he was specifically on that roadway for no other purpose other than to enforce the high occupancy lane. That was his specific task on the day in question. The court is of the decision that the defendant, who had travelled this route numerous times going to Hamilton, on this particular occasion not probably realizing that he was traversing the solid line, did so on the day in question and that the officer who was immediately behind him with a clear view of what was transpiring, an unobstructed view, observed the defendant doing so.
6 The court is satisfied that it has received evidence so that the prosecutor has made a prima facie case and that the defendant on the day in question did circumvene(ph) the charge before the court, section 154.1(3), and the court is satisfied with this beyond a reasonable doubt. The court will enter a guilty conviction in the name of the defendant to the charge before the court. The set fine for this charge is $85. Does the defendant require time to pay?
7 MR. JOSHI: Right now I could pay.
8 THE COURT: Thank you very much.
9 MR. STEINMETZ: Thank you very much, Your Worship. Thank you, Madam Crown, Madam Clerk, officer.
10 MS. BOURGEOIS: Thank you, Mr. Steinmetz.
suzuki2000
Well-known member
They were just griping on the Edge about all of the motorcycles using the HOV lanes too. Said “can’t they do the math, there is only one person on the bike”….. 
Last edited:
1 person on a max 2 people vehicle vs 1 person in a max 5 people vehicle. I dont think we have the same ratio here.They were just griping on the Edge about all of themotorcycles using the HOV lanes too. Said “can’t they do the math, there is only one person on the bike”…..
Oh the edge... how i dont miss you THAT much
You know he's doing that, and probably catching up on some light reading.
