Riding faster than adjacent traffic

[jeffjones]

Forum Sponsor

I would disagree with being in the blocking position in this case.

Sure you have better visibility in driver's eyes but so what?

The thing about not being in the blocking position is what if there is a car in front of you?
The cager will check his mirror and see's one car (as you will be completely hidden and the lane will look empty after the car) and prepare to go into your lane right after that car passes (Right into you).
Really there is no safe spot for you,
If you're in the middle of the lane is where the most fluids from leaking cars will be and wouldn't really want to try to stop hard where it could be wet from Oil, AC water..etc.

All you can do is slow down and be prepared for any car to pop out right in front of you.

 

[Wheelieboy]

+1 for speed differential being too high.

I would not be in blocking position in this situation. You're in the blind spot of the cars in the adjacent lane for a split second so if you do happen to be in their blind spot, you'd be out by the time they react to change lanes. Being on the left tire track will actual increase the chance that you'll be seen by cars further up instead of potentially having their view blocked by the car behind them. You also get a little bit more time to react.

 

[HorizonXP]

I think I have to agree with the speed differential issue. Likely 40-50 km/h would've been a better speed to keep. It sucks, because in a car, I could likely do 100 km/h without too much worry, as most cars should see you. If not, you have the cage to protect you.

Of course, this is a case of life over being right.

Thanks guys. This particular situation always bugged me whenever it came up. Glad to hear that I'm doing most things right, just need to slow down more. I'll make sure to brake next time instead of swerve.

 

[mxs]

Slow down considerably and move from blocking position, so you have a room to avoid any popping out of queue vehicles, and be ready to swerve and avoid them if they do so.

 

[kickstartt]

also remember to make sure its safe when you are giving them the finger once you are caught up to them.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

One thing, that I neglected to mention previously, is that some gung-ho officer could actually nail the passing vehicle under HTA 172, for passing stopped traffic at a significantly higher speed. It wouldn't likely happen, unless there was a collision, but it's a possibility.

2. (1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "race" and "contest" include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours: 1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.

3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

​

i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,

ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or

iii. 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. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (1).

​

(2) In this section,

"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).
​

 

[TwistedKestrel]

At first glance the section "ii" seems to be an awkwardly worded definition of racing. I don't get why they felt it necessary to include it, though: what situation would "ii" cover that "i" doesn't? The first situation requires only "a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" and the second requires both that and another vehicle to be running away from.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

At first glance the section "ii" seems to be an awkwardly worded definition of racing. I don't get why they felt it necessary to include it, though: what situation would "ii" cover that "i" doesn't? The first situation requires only "a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" and the second requires both that and another vehicle to be running away from.

Obviously this law was designed by the Ontario Department of Redundancy Department Ontario.

 

[psycho44]

not the best move to pass him on the shoulder but I've done the same and would have done the same as you. I'm hard headed and probably stupid but I'd blow past them rather than stopping and possibly get rear-ended by someone behind me. I'd also like to show them how close they came to killing me because they probably don't realize how close they came to hitting you unless you swerve past them.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

not the best move to pass him on the shoulder but I've done the same and would have done the same as you. I'm hard headed and probably stupid but I'd blow past them rather than stopping and possibly get rear-ended by someone behind me. I'd also like to show them how close they came to killing me because they probably don't realize how close they came to hitting you unless you swerve past them.

Generally speaking, they never realize what they've done. It's just, "That idiot biker just damned near hit me!" and then ignorantly on to the next adventure.

Forum Sponsor