HTA 172 - Actions that can result in charge | GTAMotorcycle.com

HTA 172 - Actions that can result in charge

DECIMIS

DECIMIS

Well-known member
As a new rider this year, something has become apparent to me: I do not know what actions are considered in violation of this law. I can't seem to find a list, and my apologies if this topic has been discussed.

HTA172 No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager.

What are actions that can result in this charge?

1. Exceeding the posted limit by 50km/h?
2. Raising one wheel off the ground?
3. Raising your bum off the seat (standing on pegs)?
4. Riding with no hands?

I *think* those can result in a charge. What about:

5. Riding with one hand?
6. Three bikes, riding in three lanes, but all 'lined up'?
7. Weaving within your lane?

Thanks for your help and input. I may keep editing this post to create a consolidated list... unless it already exists <ducks for cover!>.
 
Definition, “race” and “contest”

2. (1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “race” and “contest” include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.

3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,

ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or

iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (1).

(2) In this section,

“marked departure from the lawful rate of speed” means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (2).

Definition, “stunt”

3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “stunt” includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.

3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.

4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.

5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.

6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat.

7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or

iv. making a left turn where,

(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;

(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and

(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3.
 
Last edited:
"circular red indication" "circular green indication"

Who writes this stuff??!!
 
I have yet to find a well written piece of Regulation. At least there are not too many spelling mistakes like in the Environmental Protection Act
 
skip said:
8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway
Click to expand...
this part is a "blanket" rule.

%100 cops discretion on what "driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention" is.

______________________________

you can have a circular red and arrow green and be allowed to go.
 
Last edited:
DECIMIS said:
As a new rider this year, something has become apparent to me: I do not know what actions are considered in violation of this law. I can't seem to find a list, and my apologies if this topic has been discussed.

HTA172 No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager.

What are actions that can result in this charge?

1. Exceeding the posted limit by 50km/h?
2. Raising one wheel off the ground?
3. Raising your bum off the seat (standing on pegs)?
4. Riding with no hands?

I *think* those can result in a charge. What about:

5. Riding with one hand?
6. Three bikes, riding in three lanes, but all 'lined up'?
7. Weaving within your lane?

Thanks for your help and input. I may keep editing this post to create a consolidated list... unless it already exists <ducks for="" cover!="">.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem; the vague nature with which this piece of law was written leaves much open to interpretation. As written standing on your pegs to handle a large bump in the road, something that is actually suggested in the Rider's Handbook, would qualify for a charge. I could take almost any charge under the HTA and find a way to apply HTA 172 to it.

5. Not explicitly illegal, but could result in an 'operation without due care and attention' charge.
6. Could result in a charge under 172 if the officer thought that the riders were doing it to impede the flow of traffic.
7. Could result in a charge under 172 for "...drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle..." and has resulted in 'careless' charges.

Also note the definition of “marked departure from the lawful rate of speed." It is not the speed limit. You could in fact be travelling at well under the speed limit and if the officer feels it was unsafe for conditions, the speed is then “marked departure from the lawful rate of speed."</ducks>

See also the sticky post "Filtering and the state of the law..." for information regarding charges under HTA 172 for lane splitting and filtering. One past member of this board was charged under 172 for splitting and, despite having been found not guilty, had to sell his bike to cover towing and storage fees.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Therein lies the problem; the vague nature with which this piece of law was written leaves much open to interpretation. As written standing on your pegs to handle a large bump in the road, something that is actually suggested in the Rider's Handbook, would qualify for a charge. I could take almost any charge under the HTA and find a way to apply HTA 172 to it.

5. Not explicitly illegal, but could result in an 'operation without due care and attention' charge.
6. Could result in a charge under 172 if the officer thought that the riders were doing it to impede the flow of traffic.
7. Could result in a charge under 172 for "...drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle..." and has resulted in 'careless' charges.

Also note the definition of “marked departure from the lawful rate of speed." It is not the speed limit. You could in fact be travelling at well under the speed limit and if the officer feels it was unsafe for conditions, the speed is then “marked departure from the lawful rate of speed."

See also the sticky post "Filtering and the state of the law..." for information regarding charges under HTA 172 for lane splitting and filtering. One past member of this board was charged under 172 for splitting and, despite having been found not guilty, had to sell his bike to cover towing and storage fees.
Click to expand...

1984-george-orwell-cover.jpg


So many laws, you are undoubtedly breaking one by just existing. Big problem in the US....
 
Thanks for the replies guys. Thanks for sharing that info Skip, and thanks Rob for addressing some of my questions. I've read that book Dresden and did not like it - but definitely can see how some aspects apply!

I'm beginning to understand the public's problem/objection to HTA 172. It is concerning! :(

Learned some things here, so thanks again!
 
yes, be careful. just don't give police any excuse.
police own us and they know it. nothing we can do.

they can truly ruin your life. and not about defence. you're guilty on the spot.

the law is open to any interpretation, and 99% of police aren't exactly philosophers.
 
Apollo95 said:
yes, be careful. just don't give police any excuse.
police own us and they know it. nothing we can do.

they can truly ruin your life. and not about defence. you're guilty on the spot.

the law is open to any interpretation, and 99% of police aren't exactly philosophers.
Click to expand...

All of my +1

Oh, and if they get enough convictions, they'll get a raise.
 
skip said:
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.




(2) In this section,

“marked departure from the lawful rate of speed” means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (2).

Definition, “stunt”

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or
Click to expand...

These are my personal favorites. Sounds like a description of traffic on a 400 series highway but hey.... The bikes are the problem. :rolleyes:
 
johnscruiser said:
Why is that any less safe than legally driving with 9 people in the box of my truck?
Click to expand...

The intent of the law was to address very specific behaviours that police and prosecutors were seeing with some frequency. Unfortunately they left the wording quite vague, to try and avoid loopholes.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
The intent of the law was to address very specific behaviours that police and prosecutors were seeing with some frequency. Unfortunately they left the wording quite vague, to try and avoid loopholes.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, I see. Guess when I called in to report the aggressive driver trying to shake 9 kids out of the box of his truck by swerving back and fourth on the 401, it didn't make it to the list. The cop actually asked me to speed up to see if the cab was full of people, which it was, then he replied "as long as the cab is full, you can have as many people of any age in the box" ummm wow. Learn something new every day!
 
Not true any more they changed the law that you can now only have as many passengers as seat belts. It is now illegal to ride in the back of a pickup

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
johnscruiser said:
Ahhh, I see. Guess when I called in to report the aggressive driver trying to shake 9 kids out of the box of his truck by swerving back and fourth on the 401, it didn't make it to the list. The cop actually asked me to speed up to see if the cab was full of people, which it was, then he replied "as long as the cab is full, you can have as many people of any age in the box" ummm wow. Learn something new every day!
Click to expand...

Unless this was many years ago, as far as I know you cannot have ANY passengers in the box of a truck, on public roads.
 
It was changed by premier dad shortly after a minivan accident in caledon I believe. Used to be OK as long as all the seat belts were used to have as many people as you could fit in a vehicle. Around 5 years sounds right.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
Scuba Steve said:
It was changed by premier dad shortly after a minivan accident in caledon I believe. Used to be OK as long as all the seat belts were used to have as many people as you could fit in a vehicle. Around 5 years sounds right.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

nope... as long as all the seatbelts are used you can have someone in the box of a truck. If that is changed please provide the HTA code.

edit: here's a hint
HTA Ontario Regulation 613 10(b) a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly

Edit 2:
The driver's handbook says:
"Novice drivers must have a seatbelt for every passenger."
Novice drivers... not all drivers. If it was illegal to have more passengers then seatbelts then it would say All drivers and Novice drivers.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/handbook/section2.1.7.shtml
 
Last edited:
613 10(b) deals with cars with seats that were manufactured without seat belts.

i can't find where it says what counts as a 'seating position' though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom