HTA 172 - Actions that can result in charge | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

HTA 172 - Actions that can result in charge

The whole thing has to be read. I'm looking for case law.

10. Where a motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies for each seating position and not modified so that there is a seat belt assembly for each seating position is driven on a highway,
(a) the driver is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (2) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if there is no seat belt assembly at the driver's seating position;
(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; and
(c) the driver is exempt from clause 106 (4) (a) of the Act with respect to any passenger described in clause (b). O. Reg. 522/06, s. 10.
​
 
couldn't find any case law but there was a bill back in 2001 called "Bill 33, Jay Lawrence and Bart Mackey Memorial Act (Highway Traffic), 2001"

it was suppose to have a third reading, but i guess it got forgotten. -link-
 
Apollo95 said:
yes, be careful. just don't give police any excuse.

......

the law is open to any interpretation, and 99% of 1police aren't exactly philosophers.
Click to expand...

Of what, art thou speaking? Thy shall ingest back your words, fiend!
 
I will look but I was sure that it had been changed to everyone needing a seatbelt except in classic cars made before seatbelts

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
Splash said:
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
Click to expand...
Use of seat belt assembly by passenger
(3) Every person who is at least 16 years old and is a passenger in a motor vehicle on a highway shall,
(a) occupy a seating position for which a seat belt assembly has been provided; and
(b) wear the complete seat belt assembly as required by subsection (5). 2006, c. 25, s. 1.
Not allowed to ride in the back of a truck anymore you can only occupy a seating position that has a seat belt assembly now. Complete section here.
 
Scuba Steve said:
Not allowed to ride in the back of a truck anymore you can only occupy a seating position that has a seat belt assembly now. Complete section here.
Click to expand...
splash's comments that you quoted has him quoting reg 613 10(b) of the HTA which exempts passengers from the requirement of HTA 106 (3)

The only discussion now is what is a "seating position" ?
does it mean a seat, or chair
or can it mean sitting in the back of a pickup.

That hasn't been defined in at HTA or the regs.

rob is looking for a case file where a judge made a ruling on the matter.

i found a bill from 2001 asking for an amendment to the hta to specifically include sitting in the back of a pickup truck. But nothing came of that bill, or rather I couldn't find a final decision being made.
 
Last edited:
A seating position is a seat with a seatbelt in any modern vehicle

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
It is clear that you must occupy a seating position that a seat belt has been provided.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
I am just about positive that in my childhood a neighbour had a pickup that had a couple seatbelts in the box. Then what?!
 
Scuba Steve said:
It is clear that you must occupy a seating position that a seat belt has been provided.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Says who?
 
Rob MacLennan said:
A couple of thousand hits on my initial search, pared down to a few hundred. Three dozen checked so far. Nothing.
Click to expand...
if it doesn't make the search harder you could try cases with 6 people in a car. ie: only 5 seatbelts. The ruling would apply to pickup truck beds
 
dasiffy said:
if it doesn't make the search harder you could try cases with 6 people in a car. ie: only 5 seatbelts. The ruling would apply to pickup truck beds
Click to expand...

My initial search didn't include pickups. I was looking for anything that might define a seating position.
 
Scuba Steve said:
I quoted the reg in post 25

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

I guess you missed the part where I quoted "Novice drivers must have a seatbelt for every passenger." Are you a novice driver?
 
Use of seat belt assembly by passenger
(3) Every person who is at least 16 years old and is a passenger in a motor vehicle on a highway shall,
(a) occupy a seating position for which a seat belt assembly has been provided; and
(b) wear the complete seat belt assembly as required by subsection (5). 2006, c. 25, s. 1.


This applies to every driver what part is not clear?
This is the current HTA the section from the drivers handbook you quoted is outdated
 
Rob MacLennan said:
My initial search didn't include pickups. I was looking for anything that might define a seating position.
Click to expand...
well there's your problem

Scuba Steve said:
This applies to every driver what part is not clear?
This is the current HTA the section from the drivers handbook you quoted is outdated
Click to expand...
this is the e-laws website where you find the HTA -link-
this is the law. whenever looking for a law, don't use the driving handbook. Even though most of it is right, you have to go by the law specifically. That's what counts. When you look up a law, you're looking in a specific act, for rule/sub-rule etc.
you also have to look at the reg's. The reg's are extensions of the act, which contain specifications, expanded explanations, and exemptions.
R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 613 gives an exemption to the everyone over 16 must wear a seatbelt .... rule that you've found and quoted. That supersedes whats written in the HTA.
Scuba Steve said:
OK found when it was changed
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...hange-seatbelt-law-after-fatal-crash-1.616979
Click to expand...
good find. That was a newer bill than i found but it never passed. it stalled november 2, 2006 -link-
 
Does that not show it passed? it shows 3rd reading passed and royal assent received.
[h=2]Debates and Progress[/h][h=4]First Reading[/h]October 16, 2006Minister's Statement and Mr. Tory and Mr. Kormos[h=4]Second Reading[/h]October 17, 2006
Declared carried. Referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.[h=4]Committee[/h]Standing Committee on General GovernmentOctober 23, 2006
October 25, 2006
October 30, 2006October 31, 2006
Reported to the House as amended. Ordered for third reading.[h=4]Third Reading[/h]Debate
October 31, 2006
Principal Debateres:
Mrs. Cansfield, Mr. O'Toole, Mr. KormosDeclared carried. Royal Assent: Thursday, November 02, 2006Coming into force:
4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

Same

(2) Sections 1, 2 and 3 come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.Explanatory Note

Extracted from Chapter 25, Statutes of Ontario 2006.

This Explanatory Note was written as a reader's aid to Bill 148 and does not form part of the law. Bill 148 has been enacted as Chapter 25 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2006.The Bill re-enacts section 106 of the Highway Traffic Act , which governs the use of seat belts. The section is changed to require that all passengers (excluding children) must wear a seat belt. The requirement that children be secured in a car seat, instead of a seat belt, is retained.The re-enacted section sets out rules on how a seat belt is to be properly worn, including specifying that two or more people cannot share one seat belt.The exemptions in the current section (for medical reasons, for driving in reverse and for work that requires frequent stops from a slow-moving vehicle) are retained. However, the section is amended so that passengers who are under 16 years old (excluding children in car seats) may only use the medical exemption.A police officer's or other officer's power to request identification from a passenger who appears to be at least 16 years old is amended so that the passenger must give his or her date of birth, as well as his or her name and address, to the officer.The regulation-making powers in section 106 are expanded respecting child car seats, and to permit exemptions in prescribed circumstances.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom