|
|
|
Fail to drive in a marked lane
- Thread starter Iceman
- Start date
I don't believe it would apply for S154(1)(a)
But if this is about lane splitting/filtering on an unmarked road... there are a slew of other arrestable charges that can easily be applicable: S172, etc
Where highway divided into lanes
154. (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic,
154. (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic,
(a) a vehicle shall not be driven from one lane to another lane or to the shoulder or from the shoulder to a lane unless the driver first ascertains that it can be done safely;
But if this is about lane splitting/filtering on an unmarked road... there are a slew of other arrestable charges that can easily be applicable: S172, etc
Iceman
Well-known member
No lane splitting for me.lol. I was recently in a single vehicle accident where I was charged with 149a, on a road with no lane markings. I'm hoping it'll be a simple defence.
I have a spotless record, I'm already eating an at-fault accident with insurance. I'm hoping to keep my abstract clean for work.
Thanks for the help.
I have a spotless record, I'm already eating an at-fault accident with insurance. I'm hoping to keep my abstract clean for work.
Thanks for the help.
149(1) is something different.
149. (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).
149. (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).
Not sure on the legal end. But i'd get some pictures of that road ASAP. it may have just been paved and not have pavement markings down yet. if its an old crusty country road, then you are probably in no rush to take photo's. Either way this can be explained in a picture very simply:
154. (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic,
No clearly marked lanes, no issue possibly.
154. (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic,
No clearly marked lanes, no issue possibly.
Maybe clearly marked means a nice solid line down the middle according to the law??? I don't know, just offering up a thought.
Might help if we knew why you were stopped and ticketed? Did an officer see another vehicle take evasive action to avoid hitting your vehicle? were you driving left of center? Did the ticket come from a collision investigation? Is the road paved? Is it a dirt road? If it is a dirt road then the officer selected the wrong section of the HTA, and you should have no issue getting it dismissed during first appearance. Lastly on your bike or in a cage?
Some of these answers, you might not want to post here.
If it is a simple HTA infraction the crown and police aren't scanning GTAM for info....lol Plus not to mention none of these details would provide info as to where it occurred, (which is why the info I asked are generic responses). There are millions of dirt and paved roads in Ontario.
Iceman
Well-known member
Paved road in a residential area, gravel shoulders no sidewalks. I was ticketed as a result of a single vehicle accident (my truck). I hit a parked car. (Yes I know, dumb@&$)
Well ... obviously you are guilty of something, since there was a collision and there's not a whole lot of argument about whose fault it was.
If you wish to select the offence that you are guilty of, "failure to drive in marked lane" is one of the least significant of a number of choices. You may wish to consider that before attempting to contest the charge. Better that, than careless/dangerous ...
If you wish to select the offence that you are guilty of, "failure to drive in marked lane" is one of the least significant of a number of choices. You may wish to consider that before attempting to contest the charge. Better that, than careless/dangerous ...
Agreed, 100% i am actually surprised, that the officer didn't go with careless. Remember if you show up at court and say your fighting the charge the crown, (as long as it is within 6 months of the date of offence), can withdraw the lesser charge and go with a more serious offence. I would say the officer wrote you this ticket in an "attempt" to give you a break.
Iceman
Well-known member
I agree totally. The officer actually recommended I fight it, after he told me he was not going to charge me with careless. Not sure why he'd do all that if he thought it'd get worse in court.
Thanks again everybody for the help and advice. I'm going to have to figure out what I really want to do with this mess I've created.
|
|
|
|
|