Are you passing to the right of the last vehicle on the left, or are you passing to the left of the last vehicle on the right?
|
|
|
It's FILTERING, NOT lane splitting!
- Thread starter nesobriquet
- Start date
Are you passing to the right of the last vehicle on the left, or are you passing to the left of the last vehicle on the right?
awyala
Guest
Firstly Bunda got nabbed in your beloved 172 net. That was pure and simply an abuse! Bunda, by wiggling his bike past the mirrors of another car at walking pace, getting charged with 172 had nothing to do with filtering and everything to do with an over zealous cop with a mentality like yours! Secondly Bunda eroded his credibility (as is mentioned by the Judge) by contradicting himself under the cross by stating contrary to his prior position that he did not actually see every vehicle (in the single lane) indicating a left turn!
Bunda did not set a precedent for a cop with a hard on for 172. Your persistent and perpetuating fear mongering of 172 in this forum however does set (safe) filtering back many years.
Filtering is still legal (in certain incarnations) as I have argued and shown. Once again you make weak sweeping generalizations.
And lastly, prosecutors drop ambiguous cases because they want to keep high win tallies, like you! Why bother arguing a precedent setting case and losing? Better to dismiss the charges and keep a falsely reported high win record and not allow cases like filtering to be exposed for debate. I would relish the chance to face up to an over confident and poorly versed prosecutor like you, just so they don't drop the case and it can go down as precedent....like the Copabianco case! Just like you, some tool of a cop didn't understand 154 and unlike you a genius lawyer went to the French version of the law to clear up the intention and ambiguity of the "safety" qualifier in the clause.
I doubt very much by your lack of resourcefulness or creativity or understanding you have 100% win record as a defender!
Best keep to your high rates notarizing documents in your strip mall, second floor, "practice". Osgoode Hall doesn't stand for much here it seems.
OpenGambit
Banned
I don't assume anything, nor did I ever suggest that they actually are the same. if you actually read my sticky above, you would notice that I say that assuming a bike takes up the same room as a car doesn't make sense.
However, I am saying that HTA 154 makes no distinction. If you want there to be a distinction, then you should be going through the steps to get the law changed. But I guess you are kinda preoccuped with my name now...
awyala
Guest
Firstly, the point of "last" vehicle is unclear. How does it being the last vehicle bare on the situation? In terms of sharing the left or right lane, I'll expand below in great detail. As I said, the cop when pulling me over did ask "what lane were you in?" So clearly this matter could be relavent, but I will clarify why what I did was legal, regardless of which lane I shared (in stopped traffic).
We can go over this again but I already covered passing to the left and or right. Passing to the left of the vehicle in the right lane, if there is sufficient room, even if the vehicle to the right is moving (at slower than traffic flow speed) is allowed.
Passing to the right of a vehicle (in their lane) is not allowed, unless there is room AAAAAAAAND they are signalling a left turn (OOOOOR, as I will contend, they are stopped). However passing to the right of a vehicle that is stopped in the left lane is not addressed if there is a multi-lane situation. That (turn signal) clause is in relation to a single lane situation where it is necessary to share the lane in order to pass. In a multi-lane situation one may change to the right lane and pass a vehicle to the right of the vehicle on the left.
In a full on filtering in stopped traffic situation with cars stopped and occupying both lanes, you can share the lane with the vehicle in the right lane (provided there is sufficient room), and pass all cars. Even if the (left turn indicator) clause applies in multi-lane situations, a filtering bike can simply filter in the right lane to the left of the vehicle in the right lane.
The ambiguity is where in a multi-lane situation permits passing in the left lane to the right of a stopped vehicle in the left lane. i.e. sharing a left lane. Certainly this is not allowed if the lane is "not free of oncoming or overtaking traffic". But as the left lane is stopped, it is not actually "overtaking". That last point would be applicable when passing to the right of cars (and needing to change lanes to do so). It is not related to passing in the right lane, of a slow moving or stopped vehicle. In FACT it is the obligation of slow moving vehicles in the right lane to turn out to the curb and grant faster traffic behind them room to pass! I could argue that stopped or slow moving traffic in a filtering situation MUST grant me (the faster moving traffic behind) all available space to pass within the right lane!!! In fact BY LAW my right to pass the slower vehicle in the right lane supersedes a counter argument that a car is leaving room to their right for bicycles! If a vehicle is slow or stopped in the right lane, they should be moving all the way to the right of the lane....according to the HTA!
However that being said, enforcing 147 is a stretch given that normal traffic is at a standstill and it cannot be expected for vehicles on the right to move over.
Slow vehicles to travel on right side
147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).
But my point here is, I am entirely allowed to pass, even a moving vehicle (if slower than normal) within the right lane, and it is actually their obligation to move over! I will not (seriously) go so far as to say they should move over as a filter at a red light. But in that grey area where traffic starts moving when the light turns green, a filtering bike is best to slot into the right lane, as there is some play in the law even if the right lane begins to move again and you haven't found an opening yet. DO NOT ride in the left lane in any circumstance if it begins to move! You must not share the left lane when it is moving! You must slot into line before the left lane traffic moves. This is a clear infraction as movement in the left lane institutes a clear case of "over taking traffic", thus breaching the rule of passing cars in the right lane (the left lane must be free of overtaking or oncoming traffic).
Edit:
Just to review for clarity.
Passing to right of vehicle
150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or
(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (1).
So, we can understand that we are allowed to pass to the right of a vehicle if it is safe + (vehicle to the right is about to make a left turn or has signalled that intention) ; (there is paved road sufficient for 2 or more LINES (not lanes) in each direction.) OR (is a 1-way situation (meaning you can spill over into an unpaved shoulder in this case))
Now as I have argued intensely and extensively before, the semicolon between clause a) and b) is not an "and" situation. It is NOT a comma! A semi colon indicates a new sentence that is related to a previous sentence. There for, it is not necessary for clauses a) AND b) to be in effect + "safety" to make a pass to the right legal.
So to break it down:
"safety" + a) = legal
"safety" + b) = legal
"safety" + c) = legal
while some would argue only:
"safety" + a) + b) = legal
"safety" + c) = legal
while...
"safety" + b) = illegal ( I however argue that this is in fact legal ) as the semi colon between a) and b) does not add them as two bound clauses.
for example: Johnny had to choose between his: ball; glove; bat; or helmet. In this case Johnny has to choose 1 item.
as opposed to Johnny had to choose between his: ball, glove, bat; or helmet. This is harder to understand but this could be read as being able to choose between the first 3 items jointly or only the helmet alternatively.
In our case we have the following: passing to the right ok if done: safely and, a); b); or c). Note the use of the "and," binding the first quantifier "safely" with the following clauses. "and," is not used to bind clause a) to b) where it had been used as a device earlier. Thus this strongly suggest the semicolon between a) and b) does not unify them as a joint clause but rather allows any of the 3 clauses, a) or b) or c) to be bound with the "safely" quantifier to make the act of passing to the right legal.
In further support of my interpretation if you read or understand passing to the right only in an (safely + a) + b) = legal) manner. Then we have a real problem with everyone's driving! What this means is, even if there is sufficient room, multiple lanes, or lines, to the right of a vehicle, the only way anyone can pass to the right, is if the vehicle on the left is indicating or in the process of making a left turn!!!!
This means, even if there is room to pass to the right, in a multi-(line) situation, if the left most vehicle is not signalling for a left turn, you cannot pass!!! That is if you understood clause a) and b) to be bound as a joint condition!!!!!!
This is why, yet again, in addition to my grammar based argument, that a) and b) are separate clauses and can independently be bound with the "safety" qualifier to make the act of passing to the right LEGAL.
Once again "safety" + b) = legal
PS ......line of vehicles DOES NOT EQUAL (painted) lanes! Meaning I don't require 2 painted lanes on the road to pass to the right of a vehicle. I only require sufficient room for 2 or more lines of vehicles. And since, as Gambit pointed out, a motorbike is a vehicle...then...
car + motorbike (width) = sufficient room for 2 or more vehicles......even if car + car is not possible! The law doesn't say "2 car widths" is necessary. 1 car + 1 bike is sufficient to allow enough room for a bike to pass.
And before we go back to Bunda.....in his single lane (pass on the right) situation. A) the cop was an *** for seeking 172 instead of 150, and B) Bunda damaged his own credibility by contradicting himself, and C) Bunda admitted to wiggling his bike past the mirrors of another car, thus proving he didn't have sufficient room for his (vehicle), meaning there was only room for ONE line of vehicles!
Bunda should have focused his defence on the fact he was walking his bike passed the car to drop the 172 charge, as speed is also a quantifier of the proximity clause of the 172 charge.
Last edited:
awyala
Guest
The distinction is clear when assessing factors that determine "safety". Factors include and not exclusive to: speed, braking power, agility, size, mass, skill level of driver, awareness of driver, available space, nomenclature of vehicle, and so on. The subjective term "safety" is what the cop is left with having to prove against me, NOT the fact that I left my lane! Again refer to Copabianco.
OpenGambit
Banned
Another " you are a bad lawyer cause you aren't helping me make my case" post? lol get in line.
awyala
Guest
You are a bad lawyer because a) you lack creativity, b) you lack the ability to understand precedent, clear text, and are poor at citing support, c) you put down others in a patronizing way, d) you boast of your career and fees, e) you generally give the profession a bad image. It would have been better for you not to have ever mentioned you were a lawyer and stuck to baseless, useless, misinformed information in your posts. That way we would have thought you were fairly credible for a layman. But as a lawyer, you exhibit a lack of qualities that would stand out as a good example of your profession.
Too bad you think your above lay people's opinions of you, because as a service sector employee, your reputation among clients and potential clients is what matters.
Tell us more about how much more money you make and I'm sure it will help in your field / sector, not to mention win you support among the riding community you insist on being a part of. Tell us more how our opinions don't matter while you seek vindication and justification by posting every 10 minutes in threads you profess to not be interested in pursuing causes related to.
PS...there is another member of this forum, clearly and stated to be in the insurance field. He often peppers his advice with caveats about liability and so forth. But you know what, holy fak does he come across as a helpful, informed, professional, who tries to help fellow riders in his spare time. He never condescends, insults or shamelessly promotes his income or qualifications. You Gambit, on the other hand, don't get a pass from public disdain because of your disclaimer signature or after-thoughts.
Last edited:
Do it beside a police cruiser. Then let's hear about what is ALLOWED.
awyala
Guest
I have. If you drop below 20kph, even with the new law one is allowed to be in the lane next to a stopped cruiser. Yet again, evidenced in the law, speed is a determining qualifier of safety. In terms of passing in the same lane of a stopped cruiser, I have done exactly this less than 2 weeks ago, passing a cruiser who had pulled a car over on Yonge St., just south of Queen, going north. I passed in the same lane at less than 13kph and kept on going while there was a lengthy queue in the left lane leading to a red light.
Are there hard on cops out there? Yes! Is there a risk you'll get a ticket? Yes! Are you capable of defending yourself road-side or in court? Possibly not! Is this thread meant as an aid to all those who wish to make up their mind about filtering? Yes! Choose as you see fit.
Your point is appreciated and it should be noted. As you can see I personally love to debate this point, and I don't mind battling it in court or at the road side. Hell I am excited about my appeal coming up in January!!!! If I can win my cause in court, I would be delighted to plaster (and pay for) the transcripts, to add to the Copabianco precedent!
I even appreciate the likes of Gambit (ironically) and Rob for helping to refine my argument. I entirely expect to face up to the mentality exhibited by Gambit, and relish the chance to do so.
To clarify then: Are you passing to the left of the right-hand vehicle directly in front of you, when you begin to filter, or are you passing to the right of the left-hand vehicle, that's directly in front of you when you begin to filter?
awyala
Guest
Both....but bound by the parameters I mentioned in my WOT (post 184) above.
So how close to the centre line would you say that your tires are?
OpenGambit
Banned
I help the community by informing it about the current state of the law and correcting false information from people like yourself.
If you want to engage in advocacy, go nuts, but the fact that you continue to think that its somehow my obligation to assist or lend credibility to your view (because I own a motorcycle?) is laughable.
Last edited:
awyala
Guest
It ranged, but at times directly on the dashed line between the 2 lanes in one direction. At no point was I near the centre line of the entire roadway, just to be clear.
Once again, driving on the line is not illegal, and is quite necessary to engage in a lane change or pass.
So, to be clear here, you voluntarily went from a place where you were driving as much as possible with a lane, to a place where you were straddling two lanes. While it is not illegal to CROSS the line in order to make a lane change, there is no such distinction for driving ALONG the line.
OpenGambit
Banned
If you turn off the OMG anyone who doesn't agree with me is a bad lawyer mode. You would realize that the problem isn't really that your case is not winnable, the problem is that your case is very winnable.
Despite your insults, for the benefit of others, I actually believe that your position is reasonable, (from the point of view of winning the case), but I don't think the case is good from a precedential setting perspective. Here's why.
before the exchange with Spinto got erased, I asserted that 154 does not have application to lane splitting, that means that no, i don't believe that 154 should be interpreted to prevent 2 vehicles from being in the same lane ( as Spinto asserted ), I also don't believe that 154 has application to being in between 2 cars.
It does however have application to being on the line, thats why I am saying the Cop's charge is not unreasonable.
Speaking from a hypothetical point of view and not with reference to your case because I don't know the facts. Without writing a factum, I would argue that 154 prevents prolonged driving on the line or on the shoulder, but doesn't prevent being on the line to execute an otherwise legal manuveour, in this case it is a pass (it just so happened you had to come to a stop because of a light ), it could also be changing lanes, exiting the roadway, driving on the shoulder to avoid emergency vehicles, Etc... There are going to be other issues that need to be tied off, but thats the basic idea.
So whats the problem? the problem is that the existence of a line and 154 in general has little application to lane splitting. Meaning, your case, because of the way it was charged, would likely say nothing about whether your action was legal in a situation where you were a bit more to the right or left such that you weren't touching the line, OR that no line existed at all.
So lets just say you win, that would likely mean that 154 isn't applicable to lane splitting, its a step in the right direction but unfortunately not good enough. Because doesn't take the big offences off the table.
If you lose, that obviously isn't good, because then 154 is possibilty applicable to lane splitting, and that just adds another tool in the toolbox for the Crown.
Unfortunately, the case wasn't charged in the way that needed to be charged in order to get a good decision in favour of lane splitting, It would have been better (from the perspective of getting a good, anti Bunda type decision) if you were charged with careless or stunt driving. But hey, you can't really make it worse.
In short, the problem has alway been, and will continue to be, the catch all sections. which unfortunately also happen to be the big ones.
Last edited:
S. 150 (2) doesn't allow vehicles to overtake from the right via shoulder (unless the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn)... but generally on the 400-series highways, you can't really make a left-turn
however i can't find anything in the HTA about overtaking a vehicle from the left via shoulder, does this mean driving on the left-paved shoulder is LEGAL?
+ I believe that's why we see a lot of signs on paved-shoulders, where they read 'Only for Emergency Stop'; i guess you'll get either a Disobey Sign ticket or S. 151 (5)
however i can't find anything in the HTA about overtaking a vehicle from the left via shoulder, does this mean driving on the left-paved shoulder is LEGAL?
+ I believe that's why we see a lot of signs on paved-shoulders, where they read 'Only for Emergency Stop'; i guess you'll get either a Disobey Sign ticket or S. 151 (5)
Last edited:
awyala
Guest
Actually I went from sharing a right lane where there was room, then changed lanes to share the left lane where there was more room, then back to the right lane, again to share where there was more room. I crossed the line twice but didn't actually ride on the line in sustained manner. I also explained that to the cop when they asked what lane I was in.
awyala
Guest
I believe there is a general rule about not driving on the shoulder with the exception of 150, but I need to look it up. I stay away from shoulders. They are not my forte, and with bikes I find I have ample room within the lane. I'll investigate further.
LannyNguyen
Well-known member
Everytime someone posts up something about lane splitting or filtering, there's always an argument. lol
|
|
|
|
|