It's FILTERING, NOT lane splitting! | Page 13 | GTAMotorcycle.com

It's FILTERING, NOT lane splitting!

That reminds me you can unlock that now.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
As it should be, since you have to get past HTA 172 in order to pursue the lane splitting issue. That's why I asked OpenGambit to create that sticky post for me, so that it would explain the current legal landscape.
Click to expand...

Excuse me I am new here, but doesn't HTA 172 refer to stunts and racing? How could that be higher on your priority list?

Stunts and racing is dangerous and antisocial in every country in the world , moving between cars with your motorcycle is common sense and legal in all countries that have a motorcycle culture.

I am sorry , I am not getting this.
 
drosei said:
Excuse me I am new here, but doesn't HTA 172 refer to stunts and racing? How could that be higher on your priority list?

Stunts and racing is dangerous and antisocial in every country in the world , moving between cars with your motorcycle is common sense and legal in all countries that have a motorcycle culture.

I am sorry , I am not getting this.
Click to expand...
You know if you spin your tires in the snow you're stunting, right?

Or if a cop just claims you were stunting, and you go fight it in court and win, you're still out a ton of money?

Just because some politician throws some buzz words into something doesn't make it right.
 
drosei said:
Excuse me I am new here, but doesn't HTA 172 refer to stunts and racing? How could that be higher on your priority list?

Stunts and racing is dangerous and antisocial in every country in the world , moving between cars with your motorcycle is common sense and legal in all countries that have a motorcycle culture.

I am sorry , I am not getting this.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read "1984"? Do you know what the term "NewSpeak" means? "Racing" isn't racing and "stunting" isn't stunting, where HTA 172 is concerned. In fact the new legal definitions of those terms, as created by ONT REG 455/07 (the definitions for HTA 172) are so broad, as to make a wide variety of relatively simple and lesser traffic offences fall within them. Lane Splitting, for example, can fall under HTA 172 and as detailed in a sticky post, in this forum, has successfully been so applied in court.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Have you ever read "1984"? Do you know what the term "NewSpeak" means? "Racing" isn't racing and "stunting" isn't stunting, where HTA 172 is concerned. In fact the new legal definitions of those terms, as created by ONT REG 455/07 (the definitions for HTA 172) are so broad, as to make a wide variety of relatively simple and lesser traffic offences fall within them. Lane Splitting, for example, can fall under HTA 172 and as detailed in a sticky post, in this forum, has successfully been so applied in court.
Click to expand...

I actually read the legal definitions of ONT REG 455/07 and I agree with them. Even the part that says:

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"

Where can I find the court case that you are talking about?
 
drosei said:
I actually read the legal definitions of ONT REG 455/07 and I agree with them. Even the part that says:

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"

Where can I find the court case that you are talking about?
Click to expand...

This might be some info on it:

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...ate-of-the-law-in-Ontario-a-look-at-R-v-Bunda
 
drosei said:
I actually read the legal definitions of ONT REG 455/07 and I agree with them. Even the part that says:

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"

Where can I find the court case that you are talking about?
Click to expand...

Baggsy posted the link, to the sticky post that I mentioned.

If you agree with that section of ONT REG 455/07, then do you also agree with the part that defines "... at a rate of speed that is a marked departure..."? It has nothing to do with the speed limit. It's completely up to the officer's discretion.

“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).
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Have you ever read "1984"? Do you know what the term "NewSpeak" means? "Racing" isn't racing and "stunting" isn't stunting, where HTA 172 is concerned. In fact the new legal definitions of those terms, as created by ONT REG 455/07 (the definitions for HTA 172) are so broad, as to make a wide variety of relatively simple and lesser traffic offences fall within them. Lane Splitting, for example, can fall under HTA 172 and as detailed in a sticky post, in this forum, has successfully been so applied in court.
Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty also now means guilty and your insurance is screwed because of the suspension on your abstract. Someone can correct me, but that 7 day roadside suspension doesn't get stricken from your abstract even if you are not convicted of 172.

Try defining the word "stunt" with your insurance company now.
 
awyala said:
Just to clarify then...a 172 road side suspension is considered an Administrative Driver's Licence Suspension (ADSL) as is NOT associated with a conviction?
Click to expand...

Correct on the first. If convicted, then it can be applied.
 
awyala said:
You're comparing apples to monkey turds here! a 1 L SS is the performance equivalent of a Ferrari, 911, or Lambo. Compare fuel efficiency of that lot to a 1L SS. Or compare the fuel efficiency of a 500 commuter to the likes of a ford focus.
Click to expand...

If someone owns an apple and a monkey turd and is able to choose which one they can take to work, the comparison of apples to monkey turds is germane to this discussion.
 
caboose483 said:
If someone owns an apple and a monkey turd and is able to choose which one they can take to work, the comparison of apples to monkey turds is germane to this discussion.
Click to expand...

You may have intented opposite to the meaning of germane, or accidentally forget to add "not" before hand.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Baggsy posted the link, to the sticky post that I mentioned.

If you agree with that section of ONT REG 455/07, then do you also agree with the part that defines "... at a rate of speed that is a marked departure..."? It has nothing to do with the speed limit. It's completely up to the officer's discretion.

“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).
Click to expand...

Based in my experience, my definition of a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed is simple: over +20 Km/h from car flow speed. At that rate I am able to prudently adjust ...blah blah.

It seems that it is up to the officer to judge the "prudency" or the the court judge....both of which may have never ridden a motorcycle....and they are deciding what is "prudently adjusting" for me.... This ain't Kansas any more for zure!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom