It's FILTERING, NOT lane splitting!

[awyala]

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.

Now that we can put our hand bags aside we are getting somewhere. You make a fair point, with my case won, 154 would be off the books, however it would stop a lot of cops from whipping out their laminated cheat sheet when they witness filtering in stopped traffic.

Additionally it will put serious weight behind the notion that a cop must prove the situation wasn't safe! Sadly some cops still haven't picked up on that and still think 154 means "failure to drive in a marked lane". They got to up their game and understanding, which brings more awareness.

The next battles will be related to 150, but not 148 as that clause is understood to legalise passing vehicles in the right lane. 150 and its associated semi colon interpretation is the next hurdle.

172 is just a total pain in the rear but had and has nothing to do with stopped traffic filtering, plane and simple it is being used as a catch all abuse, as is driving without due care. I had a cop charge me with the due care law when he accused me of splitting on the 401. I strenuously and insistently denied it and questioned his tactic in resorting to such an extreme charge that could screw my licence and rates. I also questioned how he was able to even see me clearly from being over 10 cars back and 3 lanes over. I insisted he either made it up or had an extremely poor view as I did not split at all. He never showed in court nor supplied disclosure. I am sick of ticket happy cops bluffing and intimidating.

Anyways, 172 is upon us whether we like it or not, and I'll be damned if misinterpreting cops try to stick 154 on me for what I did. As far as I am concerned a victory in my case is a step in the right direction.


I also had a cop threaten me for filtering past her (undercover) on Dundas near Keele 3 years ago. She chased me down over 5 blocks later, tearing up the street, cause she couldn't keep up with me filtering past cars in the parked lane. Finally after driving like a demon and pulling me over, and after threatening me with stunting, I couldnt help my laugh at her bluff. And I told her flat out she had no merit to charge me with stunting. She bluffed me off again saying she didnt have her ticket book with her and that she would come to my home that night. Guess what....never showed.

You gotta know when to stand you're ground when you know you're right. Personally I dont buy into the 172 mongering.

However let me just conclude this point by saying. One must understand the risks in even (safe) filtering, both from ****** off drivers and ticket happy cops. I filter everyday back and forth from work, and I commute 5 days a week and usually ride for a 6th. I ride all year if I can. And I usually get stopped for filtering about 4 times a year. Of the nearly 10 times I have been stopped since being back in Canada for 3 years, only 2 have decided to ticket me after our road side chats. 1 didn't show in court, and 1 I am currently battling but have had some bureaucratic problems with the trial (haven't even been able to defend myself yet, which is why it has now gone to appeal - not on the matter of losing the argument, but on a ridiculous ruling by the justice to not allow an adjournment!). This may never even get to an appeal trial, as at my hearing with the Judge (before the trial), it may be dropped on the technicality of a stay, as will be nearly 2 years since the offence. I am debating whether I should even raise the spectre of the actual merits of contesting the charge, or not to mention the charge itself to provoke a trial. On one hand, the botching of the proceedings and trial was so poor, I can probably ask for a stay before an appeal trial. On the other hand, I am eager to contest the charge for the official record.

PS the justice who botched my trial was one of those justices that got his job prior to the post requiring anything more than a high school education....you know, back in the good ol' days. Disgusting how justices like that are still allowed to rule over matters that can affect our lives so impact-fully. I happen to have some deep connections in OCH to know how this justice got their job, and it is borderline scandalous!

So my advice is to warn those, that though I feel and argue it is not illegal, if done in a certain fashion, one must know they will be the van guard of a movement to fight for the right or correct legal interpretation to filter. You will be up against angry drivers and ill informed cops, and you better have your biking A game with you as well as your debating A game!

 

[awyala]

Everytime someone posts up something about lane splitting or filtering, there's always an argument. lol

Your mother!




Heheheh I kid. No beef between us.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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.

Actually you didn't, unless you share a lane everywhere you go and are never have the lane to yourself.

 

[awyala]

Actually you didn't, unless you share a lane everywhere you go and are never have the lane to yourself.

lost ya. Could you rephrase?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

lost ya. Could you rephrase?

It's really quite simple. You must START to split or filter, at some point. You don't mystically appear between two cars.

 

[awyala]

It's really quite simple. You must START to split or filter, at some point. You don't mystically appear between two cars.

Yes you are correct. I initiated the filter, I believe in the right lane, to the left of the car that had been in front.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Yes you are correct. I initiated the filter, I believe in the right lane, to the left of the car that had been in front.

At which point, as I said, you chose to not drive "as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane."

 

[awyala]

At which point, as I said, you chose to not drive "as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane."

Sure. Of course. I'm allowed to. You are making the same mistake as the cop. The act must be proven to be unsafe for it to contravene the law, as is clarified and precedent in Copiablanco.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Sure. Of course. I'm allowed to. You are making the same mistake as the cop. The act must be proven to be unsafe for it to contravene the law, as is clarified and precedent in Copiablanco.

Where moving from your lane is concerned. That isn't what you are doing. You are choosing to not drive as completely in one lane as possible. You are also, by virtue of effectively travelling in both lanes, very likey illegally passing to the right of vehicles that are not stopped for the purpose of making a left turn. So, as I said, you are ignoring a precept of law, and then later pointing to that law as justification for your actions.

And as in past such debates, I'm done with you.

 

[awyala]

Where moving from your lane is concerned. That isn't what you are doing. You are choosing to not drive as completely in one lane as possible. You are also, by virtue of effectively travelling in both lanes, very likey illegally passing to the right of vehicles that are not stopped for the purpose of making a left turn. So, as I said, you are ignoring a precept of law, and then later pointing to that law as justification for your actions.



And as in past such debates, I'm done with you.

Ok....."you're done with me". I suppose you have had the final say, stamped your authority, and will now close the thread too?

Have you even read the thread??!?!?!?! I have already spoken about 154, 147, 148, 150, 140, 172, and 165. You need to start with understanding the Copioblanco precedent regarding 154 first, before you declare you're "done with anything".

PS you do know that comes off as pompous don't you?

 

[OpenGambit]

So my advice is to warn those, that though I feel and argue it is not illegal, if done in a certain fashion, one must know they will be the van guard of a movement to fight for the right or correct legal interpretation to filter. You will be up against angry drivers and ill informed cops, and you better have your biking A game with you as well as your debating A game!

this is the exact issue.

I write for the majority of the people who read this board, or people in general, who time and time again just want to know what is going to keep them out of trouble.
I am not writing your arguments for you not because I am not creative or that I don't care, But you should understand that the majority of the people don't actually want to be a test case, they don't want to know what to argue with the cops. They want to know what is going to keep them out of trouble. And for them, the message is simple, as it stands in Ontario today, filtering the way that people think about it is generally illegal.

If you were serious about it, you would take the careless/stunting charge and take that to court. Dancing around 154 just isn't going to do anything substantial.
Generally, when people do test cases, they find a good representative plaintiff and controlled facts.

Malmo Levine (pot), the Prostitution Reference, these are cases where you have a dedicated representative plaintiff who is willing to get a record, and a lawyer who also is an advocate for the cause. Thats the kind of work it takes to change the law.

The law isn't going to get changed by a kid with a bad attitude mouthing off to a cop roadside ( and yes lots of the young people in favour of lane splitting around here also has bad attitudes ). The more they go out there, act like ********, and lose, the worse it is going to be.

Lastly, don't make the mistake of thinking that I have to make your cause mine. You care about this, I care about other things.

 

[awyala]

this is the exact issue.

I write for the majority of the people who read this board, or people in general, who time and time again just want to know what is going to keep them out of trouble.
I am not writing your arguments for you not because I am not creative or that I don't care, But you should understand that the majority of the people don't actually want to be a test case, they don't want to know what to argue with the cops. They want to know what is going to keep them out of trouble. And for them, the message is simple, as it stands in Ontario today, filtering the way that people think about it is generally illegal.

If you were serious about it, you would take the careless/stunting charge and take that to court. Dancing around 154 just isn't going to do anything substantial.
Generally, when people do test cases, they find a good representative plaintiff and controlled facts.

Malmo Levine (pot), the Prostitution Reference, these are cases where you have a dedicated representative plaintiff who is willing to get a record, and a lawyer who also is an advocate for the cause. Thats the kind of work it takes to change the law.

The law isn't going to get changed by a kid with a bad attitude mouthing off to a cop roadside ( and yes lots of the young people in favour of lane splitting around here also has bad attitudes ). The more they go out there, act like ********, and lose, the worse it is going to be.

Lastly, don't make the mistake of thinking that I have to make your cause mine. You care about this, I care about other things.

I'll agree to that.

 

[Monza2112]

Ok....."you're done with me". I suppose you have had the final say, stamped your authority, and will now close the thread too?

Have you even read the thread??!?!?!?! I have already spoken about 154, 147, 148, 150, 140, 172, and 165. You need to start with understanding the Copioblanco precedent regarding 154 first, before you declare you're "done with anything".

PS you do know that comes off as pompous don't you?

++++1

 

[unL33T]

Can anyone direct me to the thread about sharing a lane with parked cars? Last I heard this was legal and I do it (although it's pretty dangerous sometimes since people will open doors, start to pull out without looking for cyclists/motorcyclists, people park way over to the left so you have to leave the lane, and people seem to just hang out beside the cars sometimes) but I'm curious to read more discussion to make sure I'm not really risking a huge ticket/stunting charge.

 

[drosei]

Hello Everyone!

I am currently moving to toronto from Greece. I was fantasizing that I would get I motorcycle in Toronto but after going through this thread I am disappointed.
Everything discussed here to me seems illogical and to see that actual bikers don't support "lane splitting...whatever" is something I did not expect.

I would like to offer my perspective:

My understanding thus far is that to be legal, o Motorcyclist must occupy the same space as a car when moving or when parking. This IMHO is :
1. Inconsiderate.(especially for canada).. A motorcyclist needs to wear a helmet and (ideally) protective wear which means that the heat can be unbearable when stopped. To be asking that he remains stuck behind a traffic jam is inconsiderate and discourages people from using motorcycles which IMHO is un eco friendly.
2. Inefficient. To be stack in a car jam behind cars is a waste of time, space and fuel.
3. Imposed my the vast majority who are car drivers. That of course is inconsiderate because the car drivers don't want to be bothered by looking out for motorcycles although the only thing they would have to do is check the space around them before changing direction just like they do for other cars.
4. ECO hostile. State behavior against motorcycles that consume 1/4h to 1/10th the fuel of the multitude of humongous trucks I see around is shocking to me. It's a Canadian privilege that you have such low gas prices that allow you such a luxury, but there will come a time in the near future that the motorcycle will (like in Greece) be considered a necessity rather than a luxury.


In Greece it is considered the privilege of the motorcyclist to go between lanes as a reward for wasting less space, suffering extreme heat (while cars just turn AC on), and increasing their risk of injury.
It is also commonly accepted that for a motorcyclist, going faster than the average traffic is actually safer (for the motorcyclist who risks more) because he only has to be aware of the 180 degrees in front of him rather than the 360 around him.

Motorcyclists know that they assume increased risk when going between lanes but they are trained to anticipate car drivers and car drivers know that they need to check for motorcycles before changing lanes just like they do for cars.

The motorcycle lane is by common consensus in-between the left lane and the center lane in high ways, otherwise to the left of the left most lane.

Greece is by no chance a road model and there are ***holes driving motorcycles and cars but I think that is true everywhere.

I would like to ask people who actually commute and drive in the city. Do the above sound unreasonable to you?

If not , shouldn't we be making an effort to change the law in a way that motorcycles can SAFELY exploit their advantages?

 

[unL33T]

The eco friendly argument is invalid beyond what you waste idling. There are many cars that get the same, or better, economy than many bikes and if they have passengers, it's an even worse comparison. On top of that, most bikes pollute way more than cars, even if they're using less fuel.

 

[drosei]

The eco friendly argument is invalid beyond what you waste idling. There are many cars that get the same, or better, economy than many bikes and if they have passengers, it's an even worse comparison. On top of that, most bikes pollute way more than cars, even if they're using less fuel.

Well I am Driving a Citroen C2 1600cc and a Yamaha TDM 900cc in Greece and the consumption of the TDM900 is exactly half.

Where do you get your data? Not form the datasheets I hope, because the datasheets say that yes, the Citroen and the TDM have equal mileage. The gas pump though says different.
It is a matter of driving style of course but I can't imagine that a Yamaha R1 will worse Mpg than a ford F150.

 

[VFR.CBR]

I can't imagine that a Yamaha R1 will worse Mpg than a ford F150.

You just don't have a good imagination. I have seen firsthand an R1 get worse mileage than an F150, not a lot worse, but worse.
I've seen Harleys get terrible mileage.

In any case, fuel economy doesn't not always coincide with pollution. It's fairly commonly accepted that motorcycles pollute about 10 time what a modern car does. (Google is your friend)

Does this help the Filtering argument? Not one bit.
To compound the issue, what most riders do around here is not filtering (through stopped traffic), it's lane splitting with moving traffic.

 

[Bandit Bill]

Hello Everyone!

I am currently moving to toronto from Greece. I was fantasizing that I would get I motorcycle in Toronto but after going through this thread I am disappointed.
Everything discussed here to me seems illogical and to see that actual bikers don't support "lane splitting...whatever" is something I did not expect.

I would like to offer my perspective:

...

In Greece..

...

Greece is by no chance a road model and there are ***holes driving motorcycles and cars but I think that is true everywhere.

Simple, condensed answer, you ain't in Greece no more..

 

[drosei]

You just don't have a good imagination. I have seen firsthand an R1 get worse mileage than an F150, not a lot worse, but worse.
I've seen Harleys get terrible mileage.

In any case, fuel economy doesn't not always coincide with pollution. It's fairly commonly accepted that motorcycles pollute about 10 time what a modern car does. (Google is your friend)

Does this help the Filtering argument? Not one bit.
To compound the issue, what most riders do around here is not filtering (through stopped traffic), it's lane splitting with moving traffic.

Seems google is not my friend. All I can find is the mythbusters thing and the LA times both of which are testing non catalytic converter bikes and if so , the conclusion is correct.

About gas mileage. The question is which can do the best Mpg with appropriate driving and IMHO an R1 can do much better than the F150 if both are driven as conservatively as possible.

I won't comment on Harleys because I am sure someone will be offended.

In the end I would like to see both lane sharing (in between cars while moving if there is space) and filtering while stopped.

Am I unreasonable?