It's FILTERING, NOT lane splitting! | Page 8 | GTAMotorcycle.com

It's FILTERING, NOT lane splitting!

meester_jamie said:
Ok,, after taking numerous "coaching the truck driver", and defensive driving courses mandatory for my job,, yearly visits to do something with my drivers lic... I have always listened closely to filtering, lanesplitting. so,, my question is.. at a 4 way intersection,, allway stop.. clearly painted as 1 lane each way.. you clearly see people squeeze by the person at the stop waiting to make a left turn. so.. in my mind, this is ONE lane, the vehicle at the line making the left "owns" the lane,,, so if a vehicle passes by between the curb and the car,, it seems that NO ONE gets bent out of shape when this is done... altho.. a lot of folks in line behind will horn a driver and insist they squeeze past that left turner... isn't this filtering,, or splitting? I want to sign the petition to allow filtering, splitting,, something like California
Click to expand...

I ran this exact logic by a cop that pulled me over for filtering in stopped traffic.

Initially he said, "you can't ride on the line". To which I responded "a) I wasn't on the line, but yes you can, because it is necessary to ride on the line to change lanes and make a pass. I was passing these 30 odd cars here, but b) I wasn't on the line I was in the lane with these cars here"

To which he followed "You can't share a lane with another car", when I retorted "yes I can, as long as there is room and it is done safely. Imagine a situation where a car in the right lane is stopped, but the car behind it squeezes by to make a right turn...do you ticket this wheneever you see it?"

He then said "No, because there is room!", and immediately I said "ah ha!....so as you can see, there was clearly room for me to safely filter to the front of stopped traffic".

He ended by saying he was going to write me the ticket anyways but "I am going to go do my homework over this issue and I recommend you do also, and we see what the Justice says"

He never showed in court.
 
awyala said:
To which he followed "You can't share a lane with another car", when I retorted "yes I can, as long as there is room and it is done safely. Imagine a situation where a car in the right lane is stopped, but the car behind it squeezes by to make a right turn...do you ticket this wheneever you see it?"

He then said "No, because there is room!", and immediately I said "ah ha!....so as you can see, there was clearly room for me to safely filter to the front of stopped traffic".
Click to expand...

http://goo.gl/maps/StM9

^ An example of what you described


awyala said:
He ended by saying he was going to write me the ticket anyways but "I am going to go do my homework over this issue and I recommend you do also, and we see what the Justice says"

He never showed in court.
Click to expand...
What section did he charge you under the HTA?
 
Last edited:
iFly55 said:
What section did he charge you under the HTA?
Click to expand...

154 1(a)

Interestingly I got another 154 1(a) trial coming up that may be a big one.

Long story, but for unrelated reasons to the actual charge itself, it will be going to Appeals' Court. I am quite excited about this one and eager to see if I can win it.

I am not so clear on the outcome of a win though, would it set precedent, or would they likely dismiss the charges if they felt I may win it?

Just as a background....why I have the appeal in the first place...
The court never sent me a trial date, then they sent a conviction. I re-opened the case with a Justice signed affadivit. I applied for discloser and followed it up 3 times and never received it. Unfortunately I had to be out of the country for the re-trial and had a representative stand in to request adjournment based on failure to provide disclosure. The Justice...let's just say excericed questionable judgment and refused to let my representative even finish the sentence asking for adjournment on the grounds of failure to disclose. Instead the Justice insisted that I be contacted and summoned to court within 1.5 hours, despite being already informed I was out of the country on business. I managed to get the transcripts and it is ridiculous how the Justice handled it.

Anyways.....I am eager to deal with this as an appeal. It is probably going to be a few months from now but it would be a good win to have.

I plan on citing a recent precedent case which puts the onus on the prosecutor to prove my act of leaving my lane was done in an unsafe manner, not merely that I engaged in the act of not driving entirely in my lane alone.

The key here is that the prosecutor must mount evidence of an unsafe act. Funny thing was, the 2 bicycle cops that chased me down to book me....filtered through traffic to do so!!!!!

Advocates of (safe) filtering, wish me luck. If some sort of precedent could be wringed out of this, the better it will be for us advocates.
 
Last edited:
awyala said:
I plan on citing a recent precedent case which puts the onus on the prosecutor to prove my act of leaving my lane was done in an unsafe manner, not merely that I engaged in the act of not driving entirely in my lane alone.

The key here is that the prosecutor must mount evidence of an unsafe act. Funny thing was, the 2 bicycle cops that chased me down to book me....filtered through traffic to do so!!!!!

Advocates of (safe) filtering, wish me luck. If some sort of precedent could be wringed out of this, the better it will be for us advocates.
Click to expand...
god speed my friend

can you give us a link to the recent precedent case?
 
"Interestingly I got another 154 1(a) trial coming up that may be a big one."

Yes, good luck with this. I'd like to sit in on it when it comes up.
 
awyala said:
154 1(a)

Interestingly I got another 154 1(a) trial coming up that may be a big one.

Long story, but for unrelated reasons to the actual charge itself, it will be going to Appeals' Court. I am quite excited about this one and eager to see if I can win it.

I am not so clear on the outcome of a win though, would it set precedent, or would they likely dismiss the charges if they felt I may win it?

Just as a background....why I have the appeal in the first place...
The court never sent me a trial date, then they sent a conviction. I re-opened the case with a Justice signed affadivit. I applied for discloser and followed it up 3 times and never received it. Unfortunately I had to be out of the country for the re-trial and had a representative stand in to request adjournment based on failure to provide disclosure. The Justice...let's just say excericed questionable judgment and refused to let my representative even finish the sentence asking for adjournment on the grounds of failure to disclose. Instead the Justice insisted that I be contacted and summoned to court within 1.5 hours, despite being already informed I was out of the country on business. I managed to get the transcripts and it is ridiculous how the Justice handled it.

Anyways.....I am eager to deal with this as an appeal. It is probably going to be a few months from now but it would be a good win to have.

I plan on citing a recent precedent case which puts the onus on the prosecutor to prove my act of leaving my lane was done in an unsafe manner, not merely that I engaged in the act of not driving entirely in my lane alone.

The key here is that the prosecutor must mount evidence of an unsafe act. Funny thing was, the 2 bicycle cops that chased me down to book me....filtered through traffic to do so!!!!!

Advocates of (safe) filtering, wish me luck. If some sort of precedent could be wringed out of this, the better it will be for us advocates.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind seeing this. what does your ticket say?
 
iFly55 said:
looking for S.154 1 (a) decisions on CanLII led me to this one
comedy gold @ R. v. Fong: http://canlii.ca/t/1hzls :lmao:
Click to expand...

Funny as hell and a reminder that a judge or JP is not bound to the terms of a guilty plea, arrived at by a Crown and defence counsel/defendant.

Reminds me of a case in which I was a Crown witness. I had received subpoena to appear on 4 separate occasions and the accused had gone through 6 lawyers, in that same time. In the end he finally plead guilty and requested that the verdict be set aside as having a criminal record would stop him from making his usual purchasing trips to the US, creating a hardship for himself and his family. The judge wasn't very sympathetic. His summation was basically that the accused did the crime and if there was any hardship, then it was his own damned fault.
 
Last edited:
awyala said:
I may just invite a few of you for the sport of it, pending how confident I feel going in. I need to keep steely nerves so an audience may be too much on the day.
Click to expand...

I should have been more clear, but what I am asking about when I say I want to see your ticket is. an indicator of what he thinks 154 applies to. whether its the fact that you are in the same lane as someone else? or whether you were riding on the line.

I won't be making it to your trial regardless without some huge stretch of coincidence.
 
OpenGambit said:
I should have been more clear, but what I am asking about when I say I want to see your ticket is. an indicator of what he thinks 154 applies to. whether its the fact that you are in the same lane as someone else? or whether you were riding on the line.

I won't be making it to your trial regardless without some huge stretch of coincidence.
Click to expand...

Ticket says, the often misrepresented 154 1A: Failure to remain in lane. Disclosure was never given, so the details of the cops decision are not apparent. But from their vantage point, determining what lane I was in, or whether I was on the line was impossible. Likewise the first question the cops asked was, "what lane were you in?". Their vantage point was from to the right of the right lane, completely blocked by bumper to bumper traffic. They had no ability to judge lane position or available space.
 
Last edited:
yeah i don't really care if he can prove it.

He is saying you were riding on the line and charged you under 154. that is not a misrepresentation of 154.
 
adv_round said:
And again - I make no distinction; car or bike. Also, you are only thinking in terms of filtering, and forgetting passing on the shoulder part.


If few bikes do it, why shouldn't some cars do it too... If I rip my car's a/c out and disconnect radiator fan, does that give me the right to pass all the dumb folks stuck in traffic, and cruise down emergency lane, all the way home?


If you're in your car, and there's an accident up ahead, just happened... You're stuck in center lane. Meanwhile, there's a steady stream of cars slowly driving down the emergency lane... do you not see how they are making it worse for everyone? And for no other reason but because they feel they are more important/smart/tough (whatever) than everyone else, including you. How can you not see anti-social aspect of this behaviour?


In our current highway act, there's no difference between bikes and cars in regards to this behaviour/infraction. In our current society, there's no difference. You are no better doing that on your bike or in your cage. Japan and Korea? Really...
They also drive on the left in Japan, and that, just like filtering, has nothing to do with their civility.
Click to expand...




Not sure why I'm even investing the effort here, but you do understand that a bike is considerably smaller than a car right?. Not only that, it can be pushed out of the way by its rider if need be. Cars pose an access risk for emergency vehicles because often they can't get out of the way if they wanted to. Bikes can sneak outta the way all the time, and you know this. As for the antisocial-aspect, if filtering is going to be allowed in future (under the rigid restrictive parameters I have always mentioned as being instrumental in its ability to have a relatively safe track record, especially at the beginning) there would have to be an effort to educate the public. Rolling electronic overhead signage works well in this regard. Furthermore, a short 3 to 5 sec blip at the end of media TV broadcasts would also help a lot. I'd rather have them do that than the times they have time killing efforts at the end when they are short on news, by laughing and carrying on telling the word about little Suzy is starting to get potty-training or telling people the obvious to seek out the shade of a tree cuz it's going to be a hot one tomorrow.

The ignorant, self-centered public needs enough education that they understand that if done properly, filtering does help alleviate congestion, and in most cases has ZERO negative ramification on those a rider has filtered past. The closer that rider gets to his/her final destination, the greater the chances their impact of filtering on any other vehicle can't have anything BUT a positive affect.


The ONE thing that concerns me about using a paved shoulder for filtering, is the greater chance of picking up something sharp in your tire. The deeper you are into the shoulder, the more crap. The closer you are to the right or left of other cars, the cleaner the pavement, but the greater chance of contact. It is a judgment call, just like drivers make judgement calls every single day. Some require an entire extra lane to go around a garbage truck stopped on his route, others give a safe 5 or 6' and be done with it. Some make an issue outta things, others don't.
 
OpenGambit said:
yeah i don't really care if he can prove it.

He is saying you were riding on the line and charged you under 154. that is not a misrepresentation of 154.
Click to expand...

154 does not say "failure to remain in a lane". Firstly. Secondly, 154 doesn't say I CAN'T leave my lane and ride the line anyways!!!

154 says whenever practicable, remain entirely within a lane, unless determined safe to do otherwise! SAFE is the operative word as has already been established as precedent.

154.<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s154s1. --> (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic,
(a) a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety;

Man what kind of blinkered lawyer are you?!?!?! Buddy you suck, seriously.

You would literally be the last person I would call on to defend me in any case. You're worse than an out of touch cop with a quota and hard on for bikers.

More and more you strike me as a cop troll. It's getting creepy dude, how poor you are at just plain reading blatant clear text.

Remember that bicycle cop seen in the movie "Men at Work"?

golf-clap-charlie-sheen-emilio-estevez-in-men-at-work.jpg
 
Last edited:
awyala said:
154 does not say "failure to remain in a lane". Firstly. Secondly, 154 doesn't say I CAN'T leave my lane and ride the line anyways!!!

154 says whenever practicable, remain entirely within a lane, unless determined safe to do otherwise! SAFE is the operative word as has already been established as precedent.

154.<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s154s1. --> (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic,
(a) a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety;

Man what kind of blinkered lawyer are you?!?!?! Buddy you suck, seriously.

You would literally be the last person I would call on to defend me in any case. You're worse than an out of touch cop with a quota and hard on for bikers.

More and more you strike me as a cop troll. It's getting creepy dude, how poor you are at just plain reading blatant clear text.

Remember that bicycle cop seen in the movie "Men at Work"?

golf-clap-charlie-sheen-emilio-estevez-in-men-at-work.jpg
Click to expand...


Aww, the tears again because someone didn't agree with me. wahhh!!

I am not your ****ing advocate, I give information. just because you can combine an agenda with bad english comprehension doesn't mean I have to support anything you say.

I guess I missed the memo on having an obligation to defend anyone. Maybe you should call legal aid.
 
Last edited:
awyala said:
154 does not say "failure to remain in a lane". Firstly. Secondly, 154 doesn't say I CAN'T leave my lane and ride the line anyways!!!

154 says whenever practicable, remain entirely within a lane, unless determined safe to do otherwise! SAFE is the operative word as has already been established as precedent.

154.<!-- TRANSIT - HYPERLINK --><!-- .http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/french/elaws_statutes_90h08_f.htm#s154s1. --> (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic,
(a) a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety;

Man what kind of blinkered lawyer are you?!?!?! Buddy you suck, seriously.

You would literally be the last person I would call on to defend me in any case. You're worse than an out of touch cop with a quota and hard on for bikers.

More and more you strike me as a cop troll. It's getting creepy dude, how poor you are at just plain reading blatant clear text.

Remember that bicycle cop seen in the movie "Men at Work"?

golf-clap-charlie-sheen-emilio-estevez-in-men-at-work.jpg
Click to expand...

He seems to have more credibility in Romper Room than Laws/ Regulations/ HTA.

Considering his apparent profession, that can't be good..

Not sure what his point was with the rolleye at me for this:
"you should lead with this more, its very convincing...:rolleyes:"

Why chop the balance of a paragraph that has significant context and content, pertinent to assisting those who may be on the fence with this thread.

I've tried to help him with a couple posts that would enhance his practice indicating a greater stance of professionalism, but he wasn't interested. Instead, two days later, thanking me by rolling eyes at me.

Doesn't seem to grasp that a person of his profession should have a greater command of proper English, or at least be open minded to learning it better if it is not his native tongue. Instead of: "an agenda with bad english comprehension" it should be: "an agenda with poor English comprehension".

You would think that in at least some, if not most circumstances, the key way a declamation is worded during a trial, could make or break the case.

Anyway..pretty much rhetorical..not looking for a reply from him or expecting a rational response...certainly not one without a fair amount of derisiveness and potential irony attached.
 
Last edited:
There are far too many people here, on both sides of the debate, who have no idea what the expression 'ad hominem' means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom