Careless Driving Charge Dropped!

[alaywa]

Cop stuck me with a lame charge...admittedly took 25 mins in the car to find a charge, came out with "Driving without due care...". He admits to me it took him that long to find an appropriate charge.

What was my actual offence? He claimes I split lanes on the 401...which I did not and immediately denied.

He argued that had I not been splitting lanes he wouldn't have needed to chase me down for a km on the shoulder.

Traffic was congested but moving smoothly at 40 to 60 kph. Plenty of room for a motorcycle to change lanes, and from his distant view across multiple lanes, how the hell could he have seen a split lane?!?!

I changed lanes from blocking position to blocking position which must have appeared to be lane splitting from as far back as he was.

Anyways I was prepped for a trial battle, had all types of notes, diagrams, cross questions ready etc. Was anxious and worried it would be a word vs word case as there were no witnesses.

End result, cop doesn't show, leaves no notes for the prosecutor, leaves no instruction....charges dropped! What a total waste of time.

When the cop handed me the charge I asked him "Officer, do you honestly feel I deserve this charge, it's $500 and heavy on the points, and for what? I didn't split lanes!"

He said "Come let's talk it over in court" followed by "this is for your own good, you don't know how many motorcycle accident scenes I have seen"

What to make of all that?!?!

By the way, I just got another one the other day for 154....I was filtering in stopped traffic at a red light. I didn't get time to defend myself to the cop as I had to make a call to a client and let them know I would be late. But when he came back with a ticket for "failure to drive in a marked lane" I explained my case, and he said "I see your point, and I'm not sure I agree. We can take up the matter in court. I will go home and do my homework and you can as well".

So I'll keep you posted on how that one goes....as filtering is a hot topic in this forum and I for one advocate it is NOT against the law. We shall see how this pans out. I have been pulled over for it 4 other times and all 4 other times been let go after explaining myself. This time I didn't have the time to explain BEFORE he went to the cruiser to write the ticket.

 

[dankyyz]

Any reply would be so unqualified. you just want to feel better?

I'm pretty sure i could tell if someone was splitting by watching them go down the line...pretty simple. If you were going back and forth ACROSS the line, then you are not splitting. Ish. Are you signaling? Are you just dipping into lanes like a yoyo, taking advantage of small openings in traffic? Do you have a pipe that is loud enough that popo can hear your throttle as you are "working the lanes"?

And we are definately only hearing one side of this story. I'm pretty sure his might be different.

He didnt show. You got off. Its all good right?

 

[alaywa]

True on many counts...I do feel better but also just sharing my experience. Disclosure didn't come in time for the trial so I never got to hear his side either! I was almost looking forward to it to be honest.

Was I working the lanes....perhaps, I was changing back and forth when openings presented themselves. I was signalling and shoulder checking every time. My can is not so loud, medium I would say...but no need to blip hard at 40 to 60 kph, I wasn't passing with marked speed differentials...5 to 8kph max...so no need for ham fisting of the throttle.

But from 5 to 6 car lengths back I highly doubt he would have the ability to gauge the perspective properly, to be able to tell if I was beside a car, or 3 feet in front of it, as I was in a lane blocking position and changing lanes to another lane blocking position.

He should have showed up if he was that confident to hand down such a sever charge against me is all I'm saying. That was a waste of time.

 

[dankyyz]

Yea. True enough. If they drag you to court they should show. I get it.

Drag and YAY all at the sime time.

d

True on many counts...I do feel better but also just sharing my experience. Disclosure didn't come in time for the trial so I never got to hear his side either! I was almost looking forward to it to be honest.

Was I working the lanes....perhaps, I was changing back and forth when openings presented themselves. I was signalling and shoulder checking every time. My can is not so loud, medium I would say...but no need to blip hard at 40 to 60 kph, I wasn't passing with marked speed differentials...5 to 8kph max...so no need for ham fisting of the throttle.

But from 5 to 6 car lengths back I highly doubt he would have the ability to gauge the perspective properly, to be able to tell if I was beside a car, or 3 feet in front of it, as I was in a lane blocking position and changing lanes to another lane blocking position.

He should have showed up if he was that confident to hand down such a sever charge against me is all I'm saying. That was a waste of time.

 

[Metastable]

Really curious about the filtering one, because the cars are not moving if they are stopped. One thing that crossed my mind the other day, and the answer is probably no... but I don't know if it is spelled out anywhere.

Here goes.....
If a vehicle is stopped, is it considered to be parked? probably no, but.... -> what is the difference between someone who is in their car and is stopped on the edge of the road with their car running on an street where you are allowed to do this, vs someone who is in their car and is stopped at a light on the exact same road and on the same spot? There are some places where this can happen. How does the law differentiate this? If a stopped car is considered to be parked, then there may be some legal room to maneuver on that issue.

Dunno - just something that crossed my mind.

 

[Metastable]

After reading this - it is almost like they lump parking or stopped under the same thing... ie you can't stop/park unless you are in a municipality.
Hmmmmmmm

So if this is the case and you are on the 401 and the traffic comes to a stop, then TECHNICALLY you should keep on moving if you can.... so that you are not in contravention of this law.



*********************************

Parking on roadway

170. (1) No person shall park, stand or stop a vehicle on a roadway,

(a) when it is practicable to park, stand or stop the vehicle off the roadway; or

(b) when it is not practicable to park, stand or stop the vehicle off the roadway unless a clear view of the vehicle and of the roadway for at least 125 metres beyond the vehicle may be obtained from a distance of at least 125 metres from the vehicle in each direction upon the highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (1).

Where subs. (1) does not apply

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to that portion of a roadway within a local municipality, other than a local municipality that was a township on December 31, 2002 and, but for the enactment of the Municipal Act, 2001, would have been a township on January 1, 2003. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (2); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.

Idem

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to that portion of a roadway within a local municipality that was a township on December 31, 2002 and, but for the enactment of the Municipal Act, 2001, would have been a township on January 1, 2003 in respect of which there is a by-law prohibiting or regulating parking, standing and stopping. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (3); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.

Idem

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a road service vehicle that is parked, standing or stopped safely. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (4).

Regulations, parking, etc.

(5) The Minister may make regulations prohibiting or regulating the parking, standing or stopping of vehicles upon a highway or any part of a highway or upon any class or classes thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (5).

Effect of regulation on municipal by-law

(6) The part of every municipal by-law that is inconsistent with or has the same effect as a regulation made under subsection (5) is revoked on the day the regulation comes into force. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (6).

Removal of vehicle parked at prohibited place

(7) Whenever a police officer, police cadet, municipal law enforcement officer or an officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act finds a vehicle on a highway in contravention of this section or the regulations, he or she may move the vehicle or require the driver or operator or other person in charge of the vehicle to move it. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (7).

Disabled vehicle

(8) The provisions of this section do not apply to the driver or operator of a vehicle that is so disabled while on a highway that it is impossible to avoid temporarily a contravention of the provisions. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (8).

Precaution against vehicle being set in motion

(9) No person shall park or stand a vehicle on a highway unless he or she has taken the action that may be reasonably necessary in the circumstances to prevent the vehicle from moving or being set in motion. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (9).

Warning lights on commercial motor vehicles

(10) Every commercial motor vehicle, when on a highway on which the speed limit is in excess of 60 kilometres per hour at any time when lighted lamps are required to be displayed on vehicles, shall be equipped with a sufficient number of,

(a) flares, lamps or lanterns that have been approved by the Ministry, capable of continuously producing two warning lights, each visible from a distance of at least 150 metres for a period of at least eight hours; or

(b) portable reflectors that have been approved by the Ministry. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (10); 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 28 (1).

Flares on disabled commercial motor vehicle or trailer

(11) When any commercial motor vehicle or trailer is disabled during the period when lighted lamps are required to be displayed on vehicles and the vehicle cannot immediately be removed from the roadway on which the speed limit is in excess of 60 kilometres per hour, the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle shall cause the flares, lamps or lanterns to be lighted, and shall cause them or portable reflectors approved by the Ministry to be placed and maintained on the highway until the time that lighted lamps are not required to be displayed on vehicles or the removal of the vehicle, one at a distance of approximately 30 metres in advance of the vehicle and one at a distance of approximately 30 metres to the rear of the vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (11); 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 28 (1).

Vehicles interfering with traffic

(12) Despite the other provisions of this section, no person shall park or stand a vehicle on a highway in such a manner as to interfere with the movement of traffic or the clearing of snow from the highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (12).

Application of subs. (12), where by-law in force

(13) The provisions of subsection (12) with respect to parking or standing in such a manner as to interfere with the movement of traffic or with the clearing of snow from the highway do not apply to a portion of a highway in respect of which a municipal by-law prohibiting or regulating parking or standing in such a manner as to interfere with traffic or with the clearing of snow from the highway, as the case may be, is in force. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (13).

Penalty

(14) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $20 and not more than $100. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (14).

 

[Thom]

Deleted

 

[alaywa]

Well without going into the case of every possible charge they might throw at you for filtering, in this case they used 154. But, and as I explained to the officer after he issued the ticket, I actually was wholey within a lane, furthermore I am allowed to share lanes. I asked if he recalls or it is allowed to share lanes at a red light when one car is waiting for the light and another makes a right turn. He replied "yeah it's allowed but there is room", then I looked at him with a look of "well officer", but said "well in my case there IS room to filter. He then replied "But you can't just go ahead of the line". To which I replied "you can't? Is that against the law? But cars do it to make a right turn, or if another car is making a left and moves over in a single lane situation."

He then stated but it's not safe because the cars can move and cut you off when they get angry, to which I replied "but that would be their crime not mine, additionally, they have no room to move sufficiently to cut me off. Also would you agree that we are allowed to share the lane with parked cars?" He said "Yes"...I followed with "there is even a greater likelihood of the 'door prize' and an escalated risk factor as I have to determine through the rear window, or mirror if there is an occupant. While filtering in gridlock is actually safer. I share the lane, carefully at 15kph, and only do so when it is safe.

I also told him that I lived in the UK for 8 years and filtered and lane split routinely as it was legal...but when coming here I made sure to read the HTA carefully to see if it was legal. I told him I determined lane splitting to be way to high a risk to pass 154 due to the "safety" ambiguity (as in what is safe can be rather subjective based on an officer's opinion)...I could never argue lane splitting is safe (in Ontario citing the HTA)....while filtering on the other hand I could argue is safe based on other HTA precedent and my experience which must be considered as a factor by an officer. Even where splitting is allowed, I would concede it is a very advanced skill and has an elevated danger factor well above the Ontario HTA threshold.

Now I argued all this respectfully in a boyish "but dad... can I stay up a little later?" tone, and his attitude changed dramatically to an open one as he began to ponder my points.

That's when I folded the ticket and put it in my pocket and asked if he minded if I disputed this in court. He said of course I could, that's where we take this if there is a difference of opinion, and that they sometimes need the Justice to sort these matters out. He then said he would need to go home and do his homework and suggested I do the same.

All in all a nice officer, and I admire his open attitude.

So I'll keep you guys posted on my formal arguments and the outcome of the trial.

 

[alaywa]

After reading this - it is almost like they lump parking or stopped under the same thing... ie you can't stop/park unless you are in a municipality.
Hmmmmmmm

So if this is the case and you are on the 401 and the traffic comes to a stop, then TECHNICALLY you should keep on moving if you can.... so that you are not in contravention of this law.



*********************************

Parking on roadway

170. (1) No person shall park, stand or stop a vehicle on a roadway,

(a) when it is practicable to park, stand or stop the vehicle off the roadway; or

(b) when it is not practicable to park, stand or stop the vehicle off the roadway unless a clear view of the vehicle and of the roadway for at least 125 metres beyond the vehicle may be obtained from a distance of at least 125 metres from the vehicle in each direction upon the highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (1).

Where subs. (1) does not apply

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to that portion of a roadway within a local municipality, other than a local municipality that was a township on December 31, 2002 and, but for the enactment of the Municipal Act, 2001, would have been a township on January 1, 2003. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (2); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.

Idem

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to that portion of a roadway within a local municipality that was a township on December 31, 2002 and, but for the enactment of the Municipal Act, 2001, would have been a township on January 1, 2003 in respect of which there is a by-law prohibiting or regulating parking, standing and stopping. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (3); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.

Idem

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a road service vehicle that is parked, standing or stopped safely. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (4).

Regulations, parking, etc.

(5) The Minister may make regulations prohibiting or regulating the parking, standing or stopping of vehicles upon a highway or any part of a highway or upon any class or classes thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (5).

Effect of regulation on municipal by-law

(6) The part of every municipal by-law that is inconsistent with or has the same effect as a regulation made under subsection (5) is revoked on the day the regulation comes into force. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (6).

Removal of vehicle parked at prohibited place

(7) Whenever a police officer, police cadet, municipal law enforcement officer or an officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act finds a vehicle on a highway in contravention of this section or the regulations, he or she may move the vehicle or require the driver or operator or other person in charge of the vehicle to move it. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (7).

Disabled vehicle

(8) The provisions of this section do not apply to the driver or operator of a vehicle that is so disabled while on a highway that it is impossible to avoid temporarily a contravention of the provisions. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (8).

Precaution against vehicle being set in motion

(9) No person shall park or stand a vehicle on a highway unless he or she has taken the action that may be reasonably necessary in the circumstances to prevent the vehicle from moving or being set in motion. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (9).

Warning lights on commercial motor vehicles

(10) Every commercial motor vehicle, when on a highway on which the speed limit is in excess of 60 kilometres per hour at any time when lighted lamps are required to be displayed on vehicles, shall be equipped with a sufficient number of,

(a) flares, lamps or lanterns that have been approved by the Ministry, capable of continuously producing two warning lights, each visible from a distance of at least 150 metres for a period of at least eight hours; or

(b) portable reflectors that have been approved by the Ministry. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (10); 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 28 (1).

Flares on disabled commercial motor vehicle or trailer

(11) When any commercial motor vehicle or trailer is disabled during the period when lighted lamps are required to be displayed on vehicles and the vehicle cannot immediately be removed from the roadway on which the speed limit is in excess of 60 kilometres per hour, the driver or other person in charge of the vehicle shall cause the flares, lamps or lanterns to be lighted, and shall cause them or portable reflectors approved by the Ministry to be placed and maintained on the highway until the time that lighted lamps are not required to be displayed on vehicles or the removal of the vehicle, one at a distance of approximately 30 metres in advance of the vehicle and one at a distance of approximately 30 metres to the rear of the vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (11); 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 28 (1).

Vehicles interfering with traffic

(12) Despite the other provisions of this section, no person shall park or stand a vehicle on a highway in such a manner as to interfere with the movement of traffic or the clearing of snow from the highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (12).

Application of subs. (12), where by-law in force

(13) The provisions of subsection (12) with respect to parking or standing in such a manner as to interfere with the movement of traffic or with the clearing of snow from the highway do not apply to a portion of a highway in respect of which a municipal by-law prohibiting or regulating parking or standing in such a manner as to interfere with traffic or with the clearing of snow from the highway, as the case may be, is in force. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (13).

Penalty

(14) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $20 and not more than $100. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (14).

The problem I have, though I agree it is relatively safe, is arguing the predictability factor in highway gridlock, and the anxious attitude of fellow drivers eager to make a change into the mythical "faster" lane. I just don't feel confident I could argue to an officer or Justice that this is safe (by HTA standards). In the UK I lane split all the time at high speeds. The irony is it ia actually quite safe as 2 cars next to each other at 120kph will not change lanes!!!! They are directly next to each other!!! The danger is in riding on the line past the 2 side by side cars and continuing on the line past a car only on 1 side of you! After a lane split it is best to take the open lane and resume blocking position.

Anyways I digress....I can't argue the predictability factor as I can with a red light. I can see the red light as I approach, and can predict driver reactions all around me. When the light turns green there is a "worm effect" so there is a delay to the point when the cars adjacent to the filtering bike will begin to move. As such it is even more predicable, the behaviour of the cars immediately adjacent. I simply slot in the gap that is either available or becomes available as traffic resumes slowly. But all this is prefaced by the changing of the light, and cars don't typically change lanes just cause the light turned green. However though I lane split when legal....I must admit there is less predictable nature of cars in highway gridlock, and it requires a higher level of skill and braking reflexes. There is no way I can convince a cop I am better than most riders and brake like a champion! Hahahahaha.

So the filtering battle I feel I have a strong case for and this has proven true in the past. Also filtering is called filtering for a reason. It means moving past all of them to (let's say) a destination....the intersection, like water through the coffee into a cup. filtering through highway gridlock just leads to more cars, no "final destination", as such it is less filtering and more lane splitting! Filtering is at maximum 20 car lengths (reduced risk). Highway gridlock is potentially limitless and an elevated risk due to duration.

Like I said, I just don't feel there is legal or cultural precedent to get away with lanes plitting in Ontario.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Actually this case would be very interesting to follow. I find filtering to be safe enough and think that it should be made legal. Why take away the mobility advantage of a motorcycle by treating it the same as an 18wheeler? Hell, some more progressive jurisdictions even have filtering pads, where bikes and scooters stop after they get to the front of the line. Keeps traffic moving for sure.

 

[HunGJaI]

Actually this case would be very interesting to follow. I find filtering to be safe enough and think that it should be made legal. Why take away the mobility advantage of a motorcycle by treating it the same as an 18wheeler? Hell, some more progressive jurisdictions even have filtering pads, where bikes and scooters stop after they get to the front of the line. Keeps traffic moving for sure.

Yeah...Ontario is not that progressive...we should know that by now...

 

[bear22099]

I actually was wholey within a lane, furthermore I am allowed to share lanes. I asked if he recalls or it is allowed to share lanes at a red light when one car is waiting for the light and another makes a right turn. He replied "yeah it's allowed but there is room", then I looked at him with a look of "well officer", but said "well in my case there IS room to filter.

Actually, he was wrong, you are not legally allowed to share a lane, so your example is actually not legal. Using your logic, speeding must be legal because if I am going 1 km/h over the limit they will not ticket me, so it must be legal, and since going 1 km/h over the limit meets the definition of speeding, speeding must then be legal, right?
Just because people do it, does not make it legal. If it did, the jails are full of people that did nothing legally wrong, provided they can prove someone else did it.

 

[alaywa]

Actually, he was wrong, you are not legally allowed to share a lane, so your example is actually not legal. Using your logic, speeding must be legal because if I am going 1 km/h over the limit they will not ticket me, so it must be legal, and since going 1 km/h over the limit meets the definition of speeding, speeding must then be legal, right?
Just because people do it, does not make it legal. If it did, the jails are full of people that did nothing legally wrong, provided they can prove someone else did it.

Can you refer me to an HTA section or subsection that says it is illegal? From my readings it is legal in many instances, including when a car assess of the more vulnerable bicyle that it is safe and proceeds to share a lane with a bicyle. That's just one example of "if there is room, it's ok". It is also permissible to share a lane with a parked car "if there is room". Also when passing to the right, of a left turning vehicle in a single lane situation "if there is room", also passing on the right of a slow moving vehicle which has turned into the right of the lane giving "room" to share and pass on the left side within the lane.

Could you please indicate to me where is stated to ever share a lane with another vehicle it is considered illegal?

I value your contention as it helps me with my case. Thanks.

I will refer you to 148 and 150, where it clearly states you can pass within the same lane.

Overtaking and passing rules
Passing meeting vehicles
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s148s1. -->148.<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s148s1. --> (1) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting another vehicle shall turn out to the right from the centre of the roadway, allowing the other vehicle one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (1).
Vehicles or equestrians overtaken
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s148s2. -->(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. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (2).
Exception
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s148s3. -->(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person in charge of a road service vehicle or a road-building machine or apparatus while the machine or apparatus is engaged in the construction of a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (3).
Vehicles meeting bicycles
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s148s4. -->(4) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting a person travelling on a bicycle shall allow the cyclist sufficient room on the roadway to pass. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (4).
Vehicles or equestrians overtaking others
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s148s5. -->(5) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the vehicle or equestrian overtaken, and the person overtaken is not required to leave more than one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (5).
Bicycles overtaken
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s148s6. -->(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).
Driver unable to turn out is to stop
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s148s7. -->(7) Where one vehicle is met or overtaken by another, if by reason of the weight of the load on either of the vehicles so meeting or on the vehicle so overtaken the driver finds it impracticable to turn out, he or she shall immediately stop, and, if necessary for the safety of the other vehicle and if required so to do, he or she shall assist the person in charge thereof to pass without damage. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (7).
Passing vehicle going in same direction
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s148s8. -->( 8 No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway,
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 ( 8.
Driving to left of centre prohibited under certain conditions
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s149s1. -->149.<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s149s1. --> (1) No vehicle shall be driven or operated to the left of the centre of a roadway designed for one or more lines of traffic in each direction,
(a) when approaching the crest of a grade or upon a curve in the roadway or within 30 metres of a bridge, viaduct or tunnel where the driver’s view is obstructed within that distance so as to create a potential hazard in the event another vehicle might approach from the opposite direction; or
(b) when approaching within 30 metres of a level railway crossing. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 149 (1).
Exception
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s149s2. -->(2) Subsection (1) does not apply,
(a) on a highway divided into clearly marked lanes where there are more such lanes for traffic in one direction than in the other direction;
(b) to a road service vehicle where precautions are taken to eliminate the hazard; or
(c) on a highway while it is designated for the use of one-way traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 149 (2).
Passing to right of vehicle
<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s150s1. -->150.<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s150s1. --> (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or
(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (1).

I highlighted a couple points in red for you as well. Basically you cannot pass a vehicle on it's left unless the lane beside it (being on coming or same direction) is free of oncoming or over taking traffic. When filtering at a red light this is true. The cars to your left, though IN THE LANE NEXT TO YOU, are actually not "oncoming" or "overtaking"! They are stationary and it is safe to pass.

Section 150 b) also states in a multi "line" (not lane!!) situation where there is "sufficient width" I AM allowed to pass to the right of a vehicle. This is important because in some countries "undertaking" i.e. passing on the slow lane side of another vehicle is strictly illegal. In Ontario that would be passing on the right of another vehicle. But here on Ontario "undertaking" is legal, and I AM allowed to pass on the right of a vehicle "if there is sufficient room" in a "multi-line situation". This means if there is a lane wide enough to contain multiple "lines" of vehicles than sharing can take place. This also does NOT say multi-lines of cars! It says vehicles. Motorcycles are considered vehicles. 1 car + 1 bike in the same lane (in my case) is a multi-"line" situation with sufficient width to pass.

 

[Holmes]

Wait... so is filtering legal and they are just calling it lane splitting? Or is it just out right illegal (what about in the different regions York, Durham, Simcoe etc..)?

And just to clarify Lane filtering is the act of sharing a lane with a non moving vehicle (be it car, truck or bike) where as lane splitting is the act of riding between moving vehicles on the dotted line?

Im confused

 

[turbodish]

I will refer you to 148 and 150, where it clearly states you can pass within the same lane.

And those sections clearly outline the specific circumstances in which doing so is permitted. Nothing in that gives any allowance for motorcycles or other small vehicles to filter through stopped traffic.

 

[turbodish]

Wait... so is filtering legal and they are just calling it lane splitting?

No, filtering is not legal.

As for the OP's original careless driving charge on the highway, the cop screwed up. The cop should have charged him with HTA172 for frequent lane changes in close proximity to other traffic in order to progress through traffic at a markedly greater speed than that other traffic. Maybe next time will be the charm though.

 

[Holmes]

Hey turbo do you have anything that backs that up? The HTA that has been copied above leads me to believe it would be legal, what are you basing your statement on? Legal **** boggles my mind!

 

[bear22099]

I highlighted a couple points in red for you as well. Basically you cannot pass a vehicle on it's left unless the lane beside it (being on coming or same direction) is free of oncoming or over taking traffic. When filtering at a red light this is true. The cars to your left, though IN THE LANE NEXT TO YOU, are actually not "oncoming" or "overtaking"! They are stationary and it is safe to pass.

Section 150 b) also states in a multi "line" (not lane!!) situation where there is "sufficient width" I AM allowed to pass to the right of a vehicle. This is important because in some countries "undertaking" i.e. passing on the slow lane side of another vehicle is strictly illegal. In Ontario that would be passing on the right of another vehicle. But here on Ontario "undertaking" is legal, and I AM allowed to pass on the right of a vehicle "if there is sufficient room" in a "multi-line situation". This means if there is a lane wide enough to contain multiple "lines" of vehicles than sharing can take place. This also does NOT say multi-lines of cars! It says vehicles. Motorcycles are considered vehicles. 1 car + 1 bike in the same lane (in my case) is a multi-"line" situation with sufficient width to pass.

I think you missed the part where it says the vehicle you are passing is turning left. Subsection a and b or c have to be met, not just b. Does not explicitly say a or b or c does it?

 

[alaywa]

Wait... so is filtering legal and they are just calling it lane splitting? Or is it just out right illegal (what about in the different regions York, Durham, Simcoe etc..)?

And just to clarify Lane filtering is the act of sharing a lane with a non moving vehicle (be it car, truck or bike) where as lane splitting is the act of riding between moving vehicles on the dotted line?

Im confused

No no I'm not saying filtering is legal! What I am saying is I BELIEVE (what is commonly defined as "filtering") is not explicitly illegal, nor is addressed in the set of laws in the HTA to cause it to be illegal. There is no mention of the word "filter" or the expression "lane splitting in the HTA". However it's behavior or actions may or may not be covered and ruled to be illegal in the HTA. This is part of the problem and what makes it a grey area. If those words were explicit in the HTA then it would be clear. They could simply state "lane splitting is illegal", etc.

Rather the HTA has a number of sections that apply to the behavior. For example "filtering" involves passing to the right AND left of vehicles. It also involves potentially sharing a lane, and or riding on the line. Some would argue that riding on the line is illegal. This however is also not explicit in the HTA. In fact to make a lane change, as adressed in section 154, one must leave their lane and enter into another, and that this action should only be done, when "safe". All other times one should remain entirely within their lane. But the fact is, for a time a vehicle may be straddling or driving on the line! On a highway this distance will be greater due to speed. So strictly speaking, riding on the line is not illegal, but can be done in a passing situation, temporarily, when "safe".

Like I said, as "filtering" is not mentioned in the HTA, it's characteristics are addressed and I believe they are not illegal in a "filtering" instance.

I am not suggesting you go out and do it....I do it, and I am about to argue it in court (well maybe 8 months from now). I have been pulled over for it 4 times before and all 4 times been let go after explaining my case. It's not so easy to argue, and cops always say the same thing "you can't drive on the line", and "you can just go to the front of the line". These are not laws! This is not actually stated in the HTA, this is a common belief of cops and other drivers out there. I'm trying to get at the heart of the technicallities here because I feel filtering is a) not illegal, and b) not un-safe, and c) common sense! (or it should be).

For clarity. Filtering is moving to the front of a line in stopped traffic while proceeding between the cars. Also more agile vehicles actually change "filter lanes" by going in the space between bumpers if one filter "lane" is blocked by a vehicle somehow. The key element about filtering is that traffic is stopped and there is a front of the line to get to.

Lane splitting is riding at speed, next to other cars also at speed and passing between them, either on the line or in their lane. There is no front of the line to get to, it is simply driving between cars at speed on the line or in their lane. Like I said, though lane splitting is not mentioned in the HTA, I don't feel there is any way it can be argued it is "safe" as section 154 requires if you leave your lane.

The argument I will pose to the Justice is that stopped and predictable traffic at a red light is in fact safe, as even compared to sharing a lane with parked cars (which is legal in the HTA). The "safe" factor of filtering would make the officer's claim I broke the law with regards to 154 not applicable. But if in fact what I was doing is found to be "un-safe" then I would have broken the law as pertains to 154. Simply leaving your lane doesn't break the law! 154 states you CAN leave your lane and not be in a lane "entirely" but only as long as it is safe! This is also understood to be a temporary action. Filtering is also a temporary action and not a manner of driving regularly (as lane blocking would be for example, or with 2 hands on the bars, etc).

 

[alaywa]

And those sections clearly outline the specific circumstances in which doing so is permitted. Nothing in that gives any allowance for motorcycles or other small vehicles to filter through stopped traffic.

"Vehicles" Includes motorcycles. Do a search on the word "motorcycle" in the HTA and you will find it is only used once when the term "vehicle" is defined and stated it will henceforth be used to refer to such vehicles as scooters and motorcycles from that point forward. This is a common misunderstanding in the HTA and shared by the cop. If a car and a motorbike are next to each other, in this instance there IS sufficient width for 2 "vehicles".

This is yet another case of the HTA being rather vague and thus making my point of sharing a lane if sufficient width applies making a case for filtering. Like I said, I'm treading in grey area here.