I Saw You: V.2.0 | Page 263 | GTAMotorcycle.com

I Saw You: V.2.0

Rob MacLennan said:
Missed the '5 minutes'. Must have blanked on it, because it doesn't really meet my definition of 'rush.'
Click to expand...
there is a section where it does say that it's illegal to do more than 5 lane changes on a period of a minute or something like that
 
ZX600 said:
there is a section where it does say that it's illegal to do more than 5 lane changes on a period of a minute or something like that
Click to expand...
Yes, the "or something like that" is closer to correct:
From Ontario Regulation 455/07 (note 2.(1)3(iii), and yes, you should continue on to read 2(2) for the definition of "lawful rate of speed".
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).
 
rafiki911 said:
Obviously but he just posted the type of bike the time that he saw it and what buildings it was going to... posting that type of information on an open forum is just plain dumb. Would you like it if someone posted where your home was...where your bike was every night? I think not.
Click to expand...
I agree with you Rafi, just comes to show how clueless people are
 
ZX600 said:
there is a section where it does say that it's illegal to do more than 5 lane changes on a period of a minute or something like that
Click to expand...

No time period is stated. It's another of those statutes with nebulous wording, that can see your vehicle yanked out from under you.
 
ZX600 said:
there is a section where it does say that it's illegal to do more than 5 lane changes on a period of a minute or something like that
Click to expand...
I've had a cop, say in reference to this statement:

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).

that he took it to mean, if you change lanes twice within 6 seconds (i.e. you come up behind a vehicle on the 401, move to the left to go around it and move back to the right after the pass), that's what he considered "advance through traffic". Yikes!

-Jamie M.
 
toysareforboys said:
I've had a cop, say in reference to this statement:

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).

that he took it to mean, if you change lanes twice within 6 seconds (i.e. you come up behind a vehicle on the 401, move to the left to go around it and move back to the right after the pass), that's what he considered "advance through traffic". Yikes!

-Jamie M.
Click to expand...

The word "repeatedly" implies something far worse than that situation. it's intended to target people who weave through traffic.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
The word "repeatedly" implies something far worse than that situation. it's intended to target people who weave through traffic.
Click to expand...
I'm sure in court that's true, but in the officers eyes!!? :( impound, license suspension, etc.

-Jamie M.
 
Front and Blue Jay Way:

The some old guy with a really old school bike (looks like WWII style) and side cart. First time I saw him, he parked on that corner blocking both traffic and foot traffic. At first I thought he broke down, but nope there he goes. Second time was when the light turned red going westbound on Front. You turned right (kinda), made a half-assed u-turn and right back onto Front St. Stay classy buddy.
 
joeyjoejoe said:
Front and Blue Jay Way:

The some old guy with a really old school bike (looks like WWII style) and side cart. First time I saw him, he parked on that corner blocking both traffic and foot traffic. At first I thought he broke down, but nope there he goes. Second time was when the light turned red going westbound on Front. You turned right (kinda), made a half-assed u-turn and right back onto Front St. Stay classy buddy.
Click to expand...

I think that I've seen a Ural sidecar rig in that area, in the past.
 
joeyjoejoe said:
Front and Blue Jay Way:

The some old guy with a really old school bike (looks like WWII style) and side cart. First time I saw him, he parked on that corner blocking both traffic and foot traffic. At first I thought he broke down, but nope there he goes. Second time was when the light turned red going westbound on Front. You turned right (kinda), made a half-assed u-turn and right back onto Front St. Stay classy buddy.
Click to expand...

I see this guy all the time around Front/Jarvis. Love it
 
toysareforboys said:
I've had a cop, say in reference to this statement:
... 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).
...
Click to expand...


With this law police can interpret however they want with no repercussions on their part, but to properly satisfy the law it also must be "while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed."

..Tom
 
V-Tom said:
With this law police can interpret however they want with no repercussions on their part, but to properly satisfy the law it also must be "while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed."

..Tom
Click to expand...
When you are overtaking a vehicle on the highway, we'll assume the vehicle is doing 105kph, so you'd have to do 115kph to pass it in a reasonable amount of time. How high a speed is "a marked departure"? Doesn't that mean if you're breaking the speed limit AT ALL they have grounds?

-Jamie M.
 
V-Tom said:
With this law police can interpret however they want with no repercussions on their part, but to properly satisfy the law it also must be "while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed."

..Tom
Click to expand...

Just remember that "lawful rate of speed" doesn't mean "speed limit", where HTA 172 is concerned. It's also up to the officer's interpretation.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Just remember that "lawful rate of speed" doesn't mean "speed limit", where HTA 172 is concerned. It's also up to the officer's interpretation.
Click to expand...


Yeah I said that the officer could interpret however they wanted (and take your vehicle away no matter how it ends in court), but "marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" sounds like a condition that needs to be satisfied or it wouldn't be there. Just changng lanes alone isn't enough to satisfy the law.

..Tom
 
V-Tom said:
Yeah I said that the officer could interpret however they wanted (and take your vehicle away no matter how it ends in court), but "marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" sounds like a condition that needs to be satisfied or it wouldn't be there. Just changng lanes alone isn't enough to satisfy the law.

..Tom
Click to expand...

It is that, in the section quoted. You could get nailed for multiple lane changes at 20 Kmh, though, if the officer thought that was too fast, to react to changing conditions.
 
Me: blue kawi, white helmet
You: grey ninja? Redish helmet? ...
Where: transfer from DvP to 404 on the 401 / Sheppard exit.

If I cut u off I am extremely sorry, I just saw u pass me when I changed lanes to take my exit , I don't know if I did cut u off or not ... so if I did I am sorry ...

Sent from phone
 
Me: on my bike in the left lane of the DVP, south of Eglinton this morning at 9:30, in slow traffic

You: the Twatwaffle on the (I think) grey R1, passenger helmet hanging off the side passing everyone on the right shoulder at 50 or 60. Filtering/lane splitting debate aside (I'm all for it) you don't do it at such a marked departure in speed from the flow of traffic.

I sincerely hope the Police catch up with you and make your life a living hell... before your time is up.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom