Tail gated -> Lane split | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Tail gated -> Lane split

iFly55 said:
you should watch this

http://youtu.be/1ZKKpRwylD8
Click to expand...


That's actually a real cop. Notice the license plate that has the black piece on the top. It's used for entering in the stations to open the gate.


Anyways, the OPs story, I just don't believe. The "cop" comes out, puts a vest on, then GF see him holster a gun? Really?
I'm sure you would be threaten to call your insurance company, wait for an agent to pick up, then to tell them you were riding dangerously. LOL
You should also tell them what gear you were wearing while operating a motorcycle so you can probably get cheaper rates too. :rolleyes:
(check other thread)
 
Wow... Can't tap the brakes and bak somone down wow... HTA ###....

Swerving within the same lane is stunting... Lol.... - I can kinda see why but...

Still mind boggling.

Need to move out of GTA :(
 
It was probably a off duty cop coming from or going to the station in his personal car.... That's why he didn't give you a ticket because he's not getting paid for it.
 
deadbanana0717 said:
Wow... Can't tap the brakes and bak somone down wow... HTA ###....

Swerving within the same lane is stunting... Lol.... - I can kinda see why but...

Still mind boggling.

Need to move out of GTA :(
Click to expand...

Actually brake checking someone is grounds for a charge under HTA 172. Oddly enough tailgating is grounds for a charge under HTA 172 also.

The proper thing to do, in this situation, is part of the written test for your learner's permit; slow down and allow the other vehicle to pass.

The proper thing to do with respect to the 'officer' who got out of his car, is to request proper ID. At the very least, get his car's license number.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Actually brake checking someone is grounds for a charge under HTA 172. Oddly enough tailgating is grounds for a charge under HTA 172 also.

The proper thing to do, in this situation, is part of the written test for your learner's permit; slow down and allow the other vehicle to pass.

The proper thing to do with respect to the 'officer' who got out of his car, is to request proper ID. At the very least, get his car's license number.
Click to expand...

I was a lil afraid to do the above. If he WAS a cop, couldn't he call for backup or something and give my *** a ticket? I mean, talking to a cop may end up pissing them off. I view most officers as power tripping ******** who drive worse than the worst drivers in Ontario. Pissing them off just means I have to pay more fines -_-
 
油井緋色;1834045 said:
I was a lil afraid to do the above. If he WAS a cop, couldn't he call for backup or something and give my *** a ticket? I mean, talking to a cop may end up pissing them off. I view most officers as power tripping ******** who drive worse than the worst drivers in Ontario. Pissing them off just means I have to pay more fines -_-
Click to expand...

The reality is remarkably different..
 
i would have called 911 and said there was a 'man waving a gun' following closely; give a description of the vehicle and a partial plate, and tell them you're location

i'm sure they would have send ETF unit + all available officers, and maybe even a police helicopter your way
 
Brian P said:
Flash the brake lamp and motion with your hands for the driver to back off. If this happened in the city, a rearwards glare when stopped at the next traffic light. I've never had this NOT work.

Under the circumstances, If you got a license number and/or description of the car that the cop was driving, I'd file a complaint.
Click to expand...

I've had giving the glare returned with only a middle finger and no change in behavior. I still at least try it on everybody though.

Rob MacLennan said:
Actually brake checking someone is grounds for a charge under HTA 172. Oddly enough tailgating is grounds for a charge under HTA 172 also.

The proper thing to do, in this situation, is part of the written test for your learner's permit; slow down and allow the other vehicle to pass.

The proper thing to do with respect to the 'officer' who got out of his car, is to request proper ID. At the very least, get his car's license number.
Click to expand...

+1

Tailgating bikers in order to goad them to do something dumb is unfortunately a common tactic. If anyone is tailgating you, the best thing to do is change lanes to let them past, or pull off the road entirely if that's not possible.

HOWEVER, I have personally run into some psycho drivers (not police) where that tactic will not work, as they are not actually in a rush to get anywhere and for some reason are intentionally tailgating you, and will follow you from lane to lane. In that situation I prefer my chances in a courtroom to under the wheels of a car.
 
油井緋色;1834045 said:
I was a lil afraid to do the above. If he WAS a cop, couldn't he call for backup or something and give my *** a ticket? I mean, talking to a cop may end up pissing them off. I view most officers as power tripping ******** who drive worse than the worst drivers in Ontario. Pissing them off just means I have to pay more fines -_-
Click to expand...

You have a right to have an officer properly identify himself to you. If he fails to do so, when requested, he can get into some rather serious trouble. If it isn't really a police officer, then you need to know that too. Personation is a serious crime and can result in the person spending time behind bars.
 
It seems to me that people are taking the words of 172 where they were never meant to go.

If a charge is bogus it would have been bogus regardless. There is no universe where tapping your brakes to signal that someone is too close would be considered stunting.
 
OpenGambit said:
It seems to me that people are taking the words of 172 where they were never meant to go.

If a charge is bogus it would have been bogus regardless. There is no universe where tapping your brakes to signal that someone is too close would be considered stunting.
Click to expand...

The issue is that 172 can be used in ways that were unintended, based on the wording of the legislation, causing immediate issues for the accused. Tapping your brakes is not stunting. Brake checking someone is.

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver's sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

As always, with this law, far too much is left to interpretation.
 
The point i am making is that people shouldn't be prevented from doing something that is patently reasonable because it could be illegal under HTA 172 given a huge stretch of interpretation.

This is a recurring theme on the board, you can't deny that. Where people recommend awful courses of action based on ridiculous interpretations of the law, and then at the same time discourage reasonable behaviour with the same ridiculous interpretation. (easy example, see the threads that recommend crashing into someone else)

Ride smart, do what you gotta do, then worry about courts later.
 
I agree, but there is also no denying that the legal landscape has changed vastly.

As to the 'back off' warning I use my hazard lights, not brake lights.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
The issue is that 172 can be used in ways that were unintended, based on the wording of the legislation, causing immediate issues for the accused. Tapping your brakes is not stunting. Brake checking someone is.

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver's sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

As always, with this law, far too much is left to interpretation.
Click to expand...

"Sorry I thought my turn was coming up..."

"I saw a little dog in the road and just had to stop suddenly..."

Reasonable explanations/excuses for your actions.
 
apextech said:
"Sorry I thought my turn was coming up..."

"I saw a little dog in the road and just had to stop suddenly..."

Reasonable explanations/excuses for your actions.
Click to expand...

People try to say that they crashed their bikes while trying to avoid a raccoon, all the time. That doesn't fly either. It also doesn't matter when you're $1K poorer for storage, and whatever you had to pay in order to get to work for a week.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I agree, but there is also no denying that the legal landscape has changed vastly.

As to the 'back off' warning I use my hazard lights, not brake lights.
Click to expand...

On the bike, I use a hand motion. (Doesn't have hazard lights.) Works ~90% of the time.

In the car, I don't care.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
People try to say that they crashed their bikes while trying to avoid a raccoon, all the time. That doesn't fly either. It also doesn't matter when you're $1K poorer for storage, and whatever you had to pay in order to get to work for a week.
Click to expand...

Odds aren't in the tailgater's favor should the aforementioned scenerios present themselves. Solo crashes aren't part of this thread. Don't try and spin this Rob. For shame.
 
apextech said:
Odds aren't in the tailgater's favor should the aforementioned scenerios present themselves. Solo crashes aren't part of this thread. Don't try and spin this Rob. For shame.
Click to expand...

An example of a similar attempt to explain away improper actions isn't 'spin.'
 
As already stated by Brian any cop will tell you to the only real acceptable move is to flash your brake lights to get their attention in case they are day dreaming and slow down so they pass at the next available opportunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom