Lane changes approaching/in an intersection

[Salos Dafee]

If you are on a two- or three-lane road in creepy-crawly traffic,
approaching a pedestrian crosswalk, you will naturally pass traffic
in adjacent lanes and be passed by vehicles in other lanes.

When I do this, and eventually reach the crosswalk, I make an unmistakable full stop with both feet down, then I swivel my head left and right to make sure no pedestrian is on or approaching my half of the road before going through the crosswalk.

Do I violate the wording of the HTA while crawling past adjacent vehicles in a slower lane? Perhaps I do, but the idea behind those words is to prevent striking a pedestrian, and the actions I have outlined above accomplish that objective, in a manner that is obvious to anybody watching me. If I see a LEO observing traffic, I make sure he or she notices me, stopped with both feet down, before proceeding. I have not had the least bit of hassle from the law, nor from a vehicle behind me, while performing these actions.

So I recommend them to y'all.

 

[awyala]

If you are on a two- or three-lane road in creepy-crawly traffic,
approaching a pedestrian crosswalk, you will naturally pass traffic
in adjacent lanes and be passed by vehicles in other lanes.

When I do this, and eventually reach the crosswalk, I make an unmistakable full stop with both feet down, then I swivel my head left and right to make sure no pedestrian is on or approaching my half of the road before going through the crosswalk.

Do I violate the wording of the HTA while crawling past adjacent vehicles in a slower lane? Perhaps I do, but the idea behind those words is to prevent striking a pedestrian, and the actions I have outlined above accomplish that objective, in a manner that is obvious to anybody watching me. If I see a LEO observing traffic, I make sure he or she notices me, stopped with both feet down, before proceeding. I have not had the least bit of hassle from the law, nor from a vehicle behind me, while performing these actions.

So I recommend them to y'all.

Funny though how the law is badly written and we must infer intent....even the intent is not clearly stated! The HTA in my opinion is often poorly written with a lot of overlapping grey areas...which then get debated with intent issues...which they themselves are not documented and are subjective.

I find it interesting that cops often cite the wrong written language for a violation also...like "failure to drive in a marked lane, 154" when 154 doesn't actually say or imply that at all!

 

[Salos Dafee]

... cops often cite the wrong written language ...

HA! I remember when a cop wrote down the wrong identification of a bylaw.
At least, I think that is what happened. Here is how it turned out.

There are many many ways to win a case, because the prosecution has to make many things happen at once. If one link of the case falls apart, the magistrate has to dismiss it.

I went to fight a ticket, and was asked, "Salos Dafee you are charged with violating bylaw 123-w section IV-b subsection J763 paragraph w-98 how do you plead?" (It came out all in a rush as if the bailiff was being charged money for every second he spent saying it.)

I replied, "I don't know".

The magistrate looked at me as if I had just crawled out from under a rock (How did he KNOW???) and patiently explained that I had to reply GUILTY or NOT GUILTY.

I replied that I knew that, but I had asked Toronto City Hall to find that bylaw for me and Toronto could not find it, so I did not understand what I was being charged with. I said, "If you can tell me what you think I did, I will tell you whether I did it."

The magistrate said, "Fair enough. Bailiff, tell Salos Dafee what that bylaw says."

The bailiff thumbed through many many pages of an enormous book.

"Well???" said the magistrate.

"Just a moment your worship", said the bailiff, beginning to sweat a tad.

More thumbing followed, then the magistrate said, "We will hear one more case and then deal with Mr. Dafee - go ahead and search for that bylaw." I sat down and another case was dealt with.

The bailiff never found the bylaw, so the magistrate said, "Mr. Dafee, we do not know what we are charging you with. Case dismissed." I think he wanted to say, "And don't do it again!" but that would not have been professional.

I won't tell you what I think the charge meant, so I might have been guilty, but not on that day.

Fight them ALL. You can win in very many ways, because a break in any link of the crown's case means victory.

 

[awyala]

An interesting update on the passing law and how cops don't know the law:

So I stated before that cops hardly ever enforce the passing within 30m of a pedestrian intersection law....well guess what, a half ingorant cop decided to "do me a favour" and let me know what he could have charged me with today.

So I pull up to a streetcar (to the right and behind) at Bay and Queen. Streetcar was stopped, doors open with the stop sign displayed. I was in the right lane. 5m ahead of the street car in the right lane was road works and your standard cop on pylon (paid) duty. So the TTC riders get on the SC, the doors close, the stop sign folds away, and I proceed to pass the (stopped) street car and lane change in front, with at least 8m to spare between the streetcar and the thick white line. So the pylon walks over, light turns green, but I can't go and I'm now holding up traffic, and the cop says..."just so you know I could charge you with an infraction there, passing a streetcar within 30 meters of an intersection".

So I responded, "you're wrong, it has to be moving to be an infraction"

he says, "no"

I said "yes, I have looked into it....it says when a streetcar or vehicle is APPROACHING.....", then I looked at the green light and said "I have to go" and jetted off.

So like I said.....cops don't always know the HTA....more often than not, they know a "cop rephrasing" of it and just let the courts sort it out.