Changes to the HTA | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Changes to the HTA

markopas said:
Have they put a date when they plan to vote on amending this law if it ever passes?
Click to expand...

It passed first reading. There would need to be a second reading and a vote. While searching for that I also found that another modification to the HTA was put forth, to make it illegal to drive your vehicle with a significant amount of snow on it. Unfortunately it appears that the Legislative Assembly website crashed while I was trying to pull the links.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
It passed first reading. There would need to be a second reading and a vote. While searching for that I also found that another modification to the HTA was put forth, to make it illegal to drive your vehicle with a significant amount of snow on it. Unfortunately it appears that the Legislative Assembly website crashed while I was trying to pull the links.
Click to expand...

Who comes up with this ****? Who's the idiot that decided to make this as a law so that I make sure they don't get my vote next election.
 
Clearing Vehicles of Snow - John Yakabuski

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2967

This one has only passed first reading, at this point.

Highway Traffic Act Amendment - Glen Murray

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2956

This has also passed first reading.

And in case anyone is wondering, a bill to allow Sikhs to ride their motorcycles without helmets was submitted again, last December, and passed first reading.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2915

*EDIT* I'm actually in favour of the act requiring that snow be cleared from vehicles though I think that it should rewrite existing code, rather than adding new. Section 74, that states windows must afford a clear view, could apply. The section pertaining to loads, 111, could be rewritten to include things like snow and ice. Having been hit by both a large amount of snow and sheet ice, that has come off trucks in hundred pound lots, I think that there should be some sort of requirement and penalty.
 
Last edited:
Sikhs are good people but when I look at how most religions say if life is in danger one isn't required to follow everything to the letter. I have a hard time believing that Sikhism would be any different in this respect. I wonder if the people who advocate for helmet-less motorcycle riding in the GTA actually plan to do so themselves once it is allowed.
 
The law regarding giving pedestrians the whole roadway at a cross-walk is the result of drivers typically giving pedestrians a meter or less of space.

I believe that if drivers follow the Driver's Handbook and give pedestrians half of the roadway (single lane in each direction), that probably may not result in any charges. The idea is to try to reduce pedestrian near-misses or worse occurrences of collisions with pedestrians.
 
trebororr said:
The law regarding giving pedestrians the whole roadway at a cross-walk is the result of drivers typically giving pedestrians a meter or less of space.

I believe that if drivers follow the Driver's Handbook and give pedestrians half of the roadway (single lane in each direction), that probably may not result in any charges. The idea is to try to reduce pedestrian near-misses or worse occurrences of collisions with pedestrians.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately a lot of the pedestrian incidents are the result of pedestrians not behaving properly. Once the amber 'don't walk' signal starts flashing, it's illegal for a pedestrian to cross. Crossing the road 20 yards down from a red light, or don't walk signal, doesn't make it suddenly legal to cross.

Both sides of the equation need to be addressed. The problem is, in Toronto at least, only one side of the issue seems to ever be looked at.
 
Last edited:
For the snow load situation, I've used s. 84 (unsafe vehicle) to cover that one. The snow load and the way it becomes unstable creates an unsafe condition for other users. It's not a part of the load so s. 111 isn't really appropriate. The snow and ice coming off can, and has, caused real damage in the past.
 
Just saw this thread. The crosswalk change is annoying. Did it get passed? If so how many average joes/janes know of this?
 
kiwi said:
Just saw this thread. The crosswalk change is annoying. Did it get passed? If so how many average joes/janes know of this?
Click to expand...

I tried digging through the debates regarding this and even my eyes started to glaze over. It did get a second reading. The status on the Legislative Assembly site doesn't indicate Royal Assent, so it hasn't been passed. There's also no reference to it being forwarded to a Standing Committee. I would presume that it died along with the last Provincial election.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bi...sCurrent=false&detailPage=bills_detail_status
 
Is that Minister Del Duca's post? He keeps on repeating the MTO mantra about Ontario's road's being among the safest in North America. Had a chat with him three weeks ago; came away quite unsatisfied. He needs to hear from all us or we are going to keep on being unsatisfied.
 
trebororr said:
Is that Minister Del Duca's post? He keeps on repeating the MTO mantra about Ontario's road's being among the safest in North America. Had a chat with him three weeks ago; came away quite unsatisfied. He needs to hear from all us or we are going to keep on being unsatisfied.
Click to expand...
Lol. I wonder how they measure safest.. Amount of ticket revenue from speeding?
 
kiwi said:
Lol. I wonder how they measure safest.. Amount of ticket revenue from speeding?
Click to expand...

In the past they measured it against BC, to see who could create the most draconian laws. To me the troubling thing about this announcement is the comment about 'keeping' Ontario's roads as the safest on the continent. There's always room for improvement, but this strikes me as being more 'governance by sound-bite.'
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Unfortunately a lot of the pedestrian incidents are the result of pedestrians not behaving properly. Once the amber 'don't walk' signal starts flashing, it's illegal for a pedestrian to cross. Crossing the road 20 yards down from a red light, or don't walk signal, doesn't make it suddenly legal to cross.

Both sides of the equation need to be addressed. The problem is, in Toronto at least, only one side of the issue seems to ever be looked at.
Click to expand...

There is a nasty related issue in my neighborhood. The Shopper's Drug Mart / post office at Chinguacousy and Sandalwood is on the northeast corner and due to concrete dividers on the intersection approach, the only way out of that plaza southbound is to go behind the Shopper's and turn left. Unfortunately, this is almost directly across the street from a short set of stairs leading down to the sidewalk from the Cassie Campbell recreation center, and that in turn is next door to a couple of schools. Kids cross the street into the Shopper's parking lot directly from those stairs (illegally, in my opinion). If that happens at the moment that someone (me, a couple of times) is turning left (south) out of that plaza, there's a big potential conflict between the left-turning car and the pedestrians. It doesn't help that Chinguacousy is a busy street. When traffic clears, the car will start going across the street at the same moment that the kids step off the sidewalk (often running) ... The last time this happened, it was 4 wheel ABS to get stopped before hitting them.

It's bad roadway design to have that set of steps positioned where they have it. I'd like to see something (handrail ... bushes ... landscaping ... ???) to stop the temptation to cross immediately south of the driveway across the street; making the pedestrians go even just 10 or 20 metres south would give left-turning drivers time to react.
 
Brian P said:
There is a nasty related issue in my neighborhood. The Shopper's Drug Mart / post office at Chinguacousy and Sandalwood is on the northeast corner and due to concrete dividers on the intersection approach, the only way out of that plaza southbound is to go behind the Shopper's and turn left. Unfortunately, this is almost directly across the street from a short set of stairs leading down to the sidewalk from the Cassie Campbell recreation center, and that in turn is next door to a couple of schools. Kids cross the street into the Shopper's parking lot directly from those stairs (illegally, in my opinion). If that happens at the moment that someone (me, a couple of times) is turning left (south) out of that plaza, there's a big potential conflict between the left-turning car and the pedestrians. It doesn't help that Chinguacousy is a busy street. When traffic clears, the car will start going across the street at the same moment that the kids step off the sidewalk (often running) ... The last time this happened, it was 4 wheel ABS to get stopped before hitting them.

It's bad roadway design to have that set of steps positioned where they have it. I'd like to see something (handrail ... bushes ... landscaping ... ???) to stop the temptation to cross immediately south of the driveway across the street; making the pedestrians go even just 10 or 20 metres south would give left-turning drivers time to react.
Click to expand...

I just had a quick look and to me it looks like the roadway is reasonably well designed; it's the rec centre that's screwed up. No one could possible look at a design like that and NOT think that it would have people walking out into traffic. As a resident of the area you should probably talk to a few of your neighbours, quickly before the election, and say that this needs to be addressed. Perhaps with a foot bridge? They're more likely to put a signal in, though, and Brampton already has enough 100 foot long 'blocks.' Unfortunately I don't believe that crossing there is actually illegal; it's just stupid, given that there is an actual traffic control device a few metres up the street.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I just had a quick look and to me it looks like the roadway is reasonably well designed; it's the rec centre that's screwed up. No one could possible look at a design like that and NOT think that it would have people walking out into traffic. As a resident of the area you should probably talk to a few of your neighbours, quickly before the election, and say that this needs to be addressed. Perhaps with a foot bridge? They're more likely to put a signal in, though, and Brampton already has enough 100 foot long 'blocks.' Unfortunately I don't believe that crossing there is actually illegal; it's just stupid, given that there is an actual traffic control device a few metres up the street.
Click to expand...
If you had to walk down to the corner, wait for the lights, and walk back every time you go to the Shoppers, would you? Be honest.
 
fastar1 said:
If you had to walk down to the corner, wait for the lights, and walk back every time you go to the Shoppers, would you? Be honest.
Click to expand...

Depends on the distance. If it was halfway through the block, then I would just cross. If I was a stone's throw from the intersection, as in the described location, I'd likely go to the controlled intersection. Especially so, given how busy that area is.
 
Actually, I admit it's closer than I first thought from a glance at Google Maps. I'd probably walk towards the intersection while looking for an opportunity to dart across the road if a hole opened up in traffic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom