is it legal to filter to traffic

[saichaitanya88]

oops... The thread should read: Is it legal to filter through traffic?

hey everyone, one thing that I'm trying to figure out is whether if it's safe/legal to filter through traffic. (in between cars). I know it's illegal when you're doing this in moving traffic, but is it still legal when you're at an intersection and you want to get ahead?

I hope i'm asking this question correctly :\

Thanks!

[alaywa]

I'll cut and paste what I answered once in the "I Saw You Section".

But I can't take responsibility if you get pulled over. All I know is I have evaded being ticketed thrice when I challenged the cops to prove to me how it's an offence.

It started with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazon
oh how I wish lane slitting were legal, than I'd do it all the time

Today I got busted by some undercover filtering past her at a red light. I accelerated away as a bike would and left her in my dust when the light turned green. Didn't speed, but man she worked real hard to catch up to me 4 lights down the road, irate and waving her badge at me so I would pull over.

She scolded me, called me a maniac, accused me of splitting at speed (which I didn't do), demanded my papers, criticized my M2, asked me how long I had been riding, was shocked when I told her 10 years. Asked me repeatedly if I always drive like that, which I said yes calmly.

She scolded me some more and said she could nail me with driving without out due care and attention, or even stunting, and I rebutted that she couldn't as I was well aware of her aggressive driving trying to catch me (she didn't have flashing lights so I didn't know she was a cop). I told her I had signalled all times, not been speeding and it was in fact legal to pass parked cars and share the lane. Also I didn't chirp my tires, I didn't raise a wheel and I didn't swerve erratically and that she has no grounds to accuse me of stunting.

She repeated several times that the centre line is not a lane, to which I agreed, but that it was indeed allowed to pass and drive on the line to do so, as is the case with any pass and I referred to section 154 of the traffic act which allows one to leave a single lane to make a pass if it is safe to do so, which I did. I left my entire single lane to pass many stationary cars at a red light at 15kph, which is safe, and which I have done for the past 8 years in the UK, which again is accepted as safe in most of the world and something which I have great experience with.

She was still irate and now flustered...went on to tell me she didn't have her papers with her to write me a ticket but that she would be paying me a visit, and she stormed off.

As she got into her undercover cruiser I yelled my last question to her...."how are you going to reach me, will you call or something? Do you want my number?" To which she yelled back "I will find you".


Long story short, if you read the HTA carefully it doesn't mention lane splitting is illegal, it doesn't even mention lane splitting, nor does it mention "filtering".

In fact it allows for lane sharing and passing on the right of another car that is not signalling for a left turn as long as the road has more than 1 lane. In the event of only 1 lane one can only pass (and share a lane in doing so) if the car in front is signalling left.

The HTA also allows for cars to make the decision to share a lane when passing a more vulnerable bicycle!!! (so the more dangerous and protected car gets to decide when and where it can share a lane with a more vulnerable slower vehicle).

So with all that precedence, why is it illegal for a more vulnerable motorcycle to make the decision that it is safe to pass stopped cars at a red light and share the lane with them?

In fact it is not illegal at all!!! It isn't even mentioned!

Cops have 3 times now pulled me over and tried to tell me that driving on the line is illegal, which is not mentioned aaaaaaaaat all in the HTA, in fact if it were illegal then no one could ever change lanes!!!!

And the faster one travels the longer one must drive on the line to change into the next lane. So the length of travel on the line is not a legal point of contention either!

So the way I look at it, I am changing lanes and passing 10 cars at a traffic light, after I determined it is safe to do so, which is my prerogative, and I have not broken any laws in the HTA. In 2 lane traffic I am allowed to pass on the right of cars also (which some other cop tried to argue makes it illegal, but he wasn't too well versed in that clause of multiple lanes).

I look forward to my lovely undercover lady cop visitor coming by to invite me to our court date so we can resolve this without name calling, frantic badge waving and cheap threats. Maybe she can compose herself for our next encounter.

3 times now pulled over, and 3 times now the cops have backed down and issued a "warning" or empty scolding.

But lane splitting at speed.....they may have an easier time nailing you with stunting....they love that "catch all" law. I also had one cop admit to me over the phone when I called traffic enforcement for clarification on the laws regarding lane splitting, that the "driving without out due care and attention law" is what he called an "attitude ticket"!!! As in they dish it out to people they think have a bad attitude when they get pulled over and the cop really doesn't have much on them.

Stay safe out there y'all

PS if you mods wanna bump me to the legal section feel free, but other wise consider this a "I saw you, unusually angry animated lady undercover cop in a black Chevy lumina with no police markings or lights speeding down Dundas West at 9:55 am today trying to catch a bike (me) who was doing nothing wrong, except having apparently passed you while you were stuck at a light in a big gas guzzling slow moving cage"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kri$han
Wow. Sounds like you BS'ed your way out of three tickets so far, cuz in reading section 154 of the HTA, it doesn't say anything about "leaving a single lane to make a pass". HTA s.154 makes reference to the "middle" lane of a 3-lane divided highway, and it's accepted uses. It doesn't talk about when/where to change lanes. I agree that it doesn't mention anything about lane filtering, though.



Do you think you'd be able to draw a small image (in paint, for example) to show exactly what you did? From what I'm reading in the HTA under section 154, all it's saying is that the centre lane can be used for passing, if it's clear. It doesn't say anything about passing on the right of other vehicles within the same lane The remainder of section 154 talks about lane designations for high occupancy vehicles (buses).

Soooo whachutalkin' bout, willis?

Just because it's legal and accepted in the UK and many other places int he world, doesn't make it legal here. And for what it's worth; jurisdiction written in the HTA cannot be referred to as "precedence"

Krishan:

Originally Posted by HTA Where highway divided into lanes
154. (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;
(b) in the case of a highway that is divided into three lanes, a vehicle shall not be driven in the centre lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle where the roadway is clearly visible and the centre lane is clear of traffic within a reasonable safe distance, or in preparation for a left turn, or where the centre lane is at the time designated for the use of traffic moving in the direction in which the vehicle is proceeding and official signs are erected to indicate the designation;
(c) any lane may be designated for slowly moving traffic, traffic moving in a particular direction or classes or types of vehicles and, despite section 141, where a lane is so designated and official signs indicating the designation are erected, every driver shall obey the instructions on the official signs. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 154 (1).
Exception
(2) Where safety is not jeopardized, clauses (1) (b) and (c) do not apply to road service vehicles and clause (1) (c) does not apply to road-building machines or apparatus while engaged in the construction of a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 154 (2).


Section 154 in general refers to any highway (any road) divided into lanes, i.e. not a single lane. Section b) then further clarifies an instance of 3 lanes. But prior to section b) this clarification is not made, and the section thus far deals with "lanes" plural (i.e. 2 or more)

So in this case sub section a) is a general application to 2 or more lanes with regard to passing.

It states "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;"

Meaning that normally, prior to a pass a vehicle shall be as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane. Which means one cannot normally drive in 2 lanes at the same time if it is practicably possible to drive in 1 lane (entirely). But when making a pass this is of course not possible, so in this instance, only when the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety. Then a driver can leave being entirely in a single lane, to take up 2 lanes, then to move over to another single lane. This is basically stating how to pass and how to ordinarily drive when not in a passing state (i.e. entirely in a single lane where practicable). This clause allows for non practicable situations, as of course there are circumstances where vehicle may take up 2 lanes or share lanes, which go on to be further addressed through out the HTA.

The issue of passing to the right of a vehicle is addressed here (not in section 154):

150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and, (a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or
(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (1).



The reason why I now refer to this section is because when I called the traffic enforcement office to ask them to point out the law in which lane splitting was illegal, they first refused and told me if I had managed to find out where the HTA is on the net, then I could find the law myself. I later explained the a cop only gave me a warning and said it was illegal to drive on the line, but that I could not find such a law. The traffic enforcement officer then explained to me that it isnt only that, it was that it was also illegal to pass to the right of a vehicle that wasn't signalling left. So then I figured for sure it was illegal to pass in the slow lane or if I was filtering. Now in the UK passing in the slow lane is called "undertaking" and is in fact illegal, so I figured what this officer had now told me in Ontario was plausible and that there was clear rules here which meant I could not pass between cars, cause obviously 1 set of cars would be to my left!

But then I looked closely at this section he quoted and it is in fact NOT ILLEGAL to "undertake" in Ontario! That one can pass in the slow lane to the right of a vehicle, even if that vehicle is not signalling for a left turn, as long as it is (b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction;

Not even lanes!!! just "sufficient width for 2 or more lines of vehicles"!!!!

As long as I judge that there is room for me and 2 cars (1 on either side), then it is in fact legal to pass to the right of (and in this case between) cars!!!!

In any event, each person may read the HTA slightly differently with respect to lane splitting or filtering because it is not in any way clear or explicit about the act of lane splitting or filtering! In this case it is not illegal and all 3 cops that have stopped me have been unable to argue my contention.

I keep a copy of the relevant clauses in my phone, so if they misquote to me as they have in the past, I am able to rebut them correctly and argue the finer points of the clauses. So far no tickets! I never yell, I never act annoyed, I simply speak to them calmly and state my points with respect and seek their clarification because "I can't seem to find such a law, can you help me find it and understand officer?" As I put it. So far non have been able to explain why and how lane splitting is illegal other than reverting to the issue of safety.

And if you revise the 2 clauses I have referred to you will see "safety" is a judgment call on the part of the driver and is subject to the circumstances of each particular instance. If a judge or officer can be convinced you are mature, respectful, informed, and safe rider, then most of their pre-conceived notions of a SS rider can be put to rest.

When I refer to laws in the UK for example I only do so to point out that the idea of safety is not universal when it comes to filtering, and that most of the world sees it differently. Thus in the absence of a clear ban on lane splitting by name and description in the HTA, and when reverting to judgement calls on safety, one (i.e. a cop) has to take into consideration my notion of safety as well, for I had made a judgment call of some sort to engage in filtering. If I have 8 years of safe experience with lane splitting, and a teenage M2 Canadian SS rider has no experience with it, also gets pulled over, the cop must consider that these 2 separate suspects have different circumstances....for one it was a "safe" action, while for the other with no experience with it, it was "unsafe".

My other issue with an unmarked car chasing down a motorbike is that said unmarked cop car is more dangerous than the biker she was chasing down (me); for I was not speeding while she was to catch me, and even if I was, I am less of a risk to pedestrians (due to my mass and size) at speed, than a speeding 2 ton Chevy Lumina with poorer stopping power and much much more mass and inertia. Cops will argue that it is safe for them to initiate a chase due to their training and general awareness of the laws, blah blah....but then we encounter the matter of relative safety and judgment calls on taking certain actions with one's motorized vehicle. This is where my experience with UK driving situations is relevant and cannot be dismissed out of hand because "this is Ontario" or "this isn't the UK". That arguement would only hold true if there was an explicit law forbidding the act of lane splitting or filtering regardless of safety judgment calls.

Sorry for being so long winded.

Krishan:

By the way you were correct about the use of "precedence". I meant "precedent" which would be correct to apply to the HTA as it is defined below: 


precedent
 /n. ˈprɛsɪdənt; adj. prɪˈsidnt, ˈprɛsɪdənt/ Show Sp[n. pres-i-duhnt; adj. pri-seed-nt, pres-i-duhnt] Show IPA

–noun
1.
Law . a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.
2.
any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations.
–adjective pre·ce·dent
3.
preceding; anterior.

What I mean to say is that instances of passing or sharing lanes mentioned in other sections of the HTA are in fact precedent here, as there is no direct applicable law to "lane splitting", so one can only refer to precedent and the "intention of the law" when deciding on the matter of "lane splitting". The intention of the law here is always safety, and when cars in the more protected situation are given the power to decide when and where they can share a lane with a far more vulnerable bicycle, then it only stands to reason a motorcycle should also have the ability to judge his/her own safety when sharing a lane with another vehicle. Why a motorcycle rider is immediately assumed to not be able to judge the safety of passing stopped cars and sharing a lane with them is beyond me, when the HTA allows car drivers to do just that! That is what I meant by precedent.

As for what I did that started all this....it's called "filtering" in the rest of the world as it is distinct from "lane splitting" in the rest of the world also.

"Lane splitting" is defined as driving between 2 lanes occupied by cars at speed (basically all vehicles involved are travelling at normal speeds).

"Filtering" is defined and understood as when a bicycle, motorcycle, scooter, etc, drives between cars stopped at a traffic light, thus "filtering" to the front of the traffic queue.

Police often confuse the terms here and apply "lane splitting" without distinction of speed and relative safety! Additionally the term "lane splitting" isn't even mentioned once in the HTA!!! This is a case of poor knowledge and casual colloquialism on the part of the cops.

In my case, there was a red light with about 6 to 8 cars in the left lane and 2 or 3 cars in the right lane. This was at Dundas St. West near Keele, so it's 2 lanes in either direction. I approached the stopped traffic from behind and dropped my speed to 15kph and proceeded between the cars on the dashed line until I got up to the front of the queue directly between the (unmarked cop) to my left and another car to my right where I stopped to wait for the light change. The cop revved her engine, rocking it back and forth as if to provoke a race or get my attention. Either way I glanced over at her hood noticed I was safe and clear, and the light turned green, so I accelerated (normally for a bike), but of course much more quickly than she could. I quickly got up to the posted speed limit and kept going down the road, and upon approaching the next batch of cars I took to the right lane (sharing and passing parked cars). I got ahead of them and kept going. Mean while the unmarked cop car was driving aggressively and speeding to catch me, and by the time she managed to pass the second batch of cars she was about 200m or more behind me, and gaining fast. I was at the posted limit and she was speeding and had been weaving around the cars we passed.

By the time she reached me at the next set of red lights it was only us at the lights and she frantically and aggressively waved her badge at me and demanded I pull over. When she got out of her car she proceeded to yell at me and accuse me of driving like a maniac, and repeatedly asked if I drove like that all the time....the rest I went through in my previous post.




I pasted together the posts...it wasn't 1 single post.

[silent_vik]

no.

[alaywa]

no.

Vik, where is it mentioned it is not legal?

I would argue that it is in fact NOT illegal, and not even addressed at all in the HTA! So how could it be illegal?

[Kokla]

Wow Vik, lol

[bobjohnson]

The problem i see here is your interpretation of what a "Highway divided into 3 lanes" is. It does not mean 3 lanes in the same direction. Its 2 lanes in one direction, one in the opposite direction. There are some areas (mostly rural) where the highway divides from 1 lane into each direction to 2 lanes on one direction, one in the opposite. This is mostly where there are big hills, and transports have a hard time going up them. What that section of the HTA is telling you is that you are NOT to treat this as a multilane highway, and to drive in the rightmost lane only, and use the left lane (in your direction) to pass only when its clear and when needed.

You are right about passing a left turning vehicle in its own lane though, however, ONLY if you can do it without using the shoulder. It is 100% illegal at all times to use the shoulder to pass someone. If the lane is wide enough that you can split the lane with another car and pass on the right, you are ok.

However, i believe there is another section of the HTA that talks about not sharing a lane with another vehicle. This may be under the "stunt driving" section.

[skip]

You will get charged under bill 203. Probably wouldn't hold up in court, but by then its too late.

[alaywa]

The problem i see here is your interpretation of what a "Highway divided into 3 lanes" is. It does not mean 3 lanes in the same direction. Its 2 lanes in one direction, one in the opposite direction. There are some areas (mostly rural) where the highway divides from 1 lane into each direction to 2 lanes on one direction, one in the opposite. This is mostly where there are big hills, and transports have a hard time going up them. What that section of the HTA is telling you is that you are NOT to treat this as a multilane highway, and to drive in the rightmost lane only, and use the left lane (in your direction) to pass only when its clear and when needed.

You are right about passing a left turning vehicle in its own lane though, however, ONLY if you can do it without using the shoulder. It is 100% illegal at all times to use the shoulder to pass someone. If the lane is wide enough that you can split the lane with another car and pass on the right, you are ok.

However, i believe there is another section of the HTA that talks about not sharing a lane with another vehicle. This may be under the "stunt driving" section.

Bob,

You are correct about the rules regarding a highway divided into 3 lanes (total in both directions), however my reading of the law is in reference to point a) (of sections 154) firstly, where as the 3 lane division of a highway in both directions you are referring to is specifically addressed in point b).

I addressed this issue in my post, stating that section a) is a more general broader application, while section b) tackles a specific instance of highways in rural areas where a centre lane is provided but only for the use of passing, not normal driving.

Below is a repost of my point made earlier regarding subsection a) vs subsection b)

154. (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;
(b) in the case of a highway that is divided into three lanes, a vehicle shall not be driven in the centre lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle where the roadway is clearly visible and the centre lane is clear of traffic within a reasonable safe distance, or in preparation for a left turn, or where the centre lane is at the time designated for the use of traffic moving in the direction in which the vehicle is proceeding and official signs are erected to indicate the designation;
(c) any lane may be designated for slowly moving traffic, traffic moving in a particular direction or classes or types of vehicles and, despite section 141, where a lane is so designated and official signs indicating the designation are erected, every driver shall obey the instructions on the official signs. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 154 (1).
Exception
(2) Where safety is not jeopardized, clauses (1) (b) and (c) do not apply to road service vehicles and clause (1) (c) does not apply to road-building machines or apparatus while engaged in the construction of a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 154 (2).


Section 154 in general refers to any highway (any road) divided into lanes, i.e. not a single lane. Section b) then further clarifies an instance of 3 lanes. But prior to section b) this clarification is not made, and the section thus far deals with "lanes" plural (i.e. 2 or more)

So in this case sub section a) is a general application to 2 or more lanes with regard to passing.

It states "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;"

Meaning that normally, prior to a pass a vehicle shall be as nearly as may be practicable entirely within a single lane. Which means one cannot normally drive in 2 lanes at the same time if it is practicably possible to drive in 1 lane (entirely). But when making a pass this is of course not possible, so in this instance, only when the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety. Then a driver can leave being entirely in a single lane, to take up 2 lanes, then to move over to another single lane. This is basically stating how to pass and how to ordinarily drive when not in a passing state (i.e. entirely in a single lane where practicable). This clause allows for non practicable situations, as of course there are circumstances where vehicle may take up 2 lanes or share lanes, which go on to be further addressed through out the HTA.

Now returning to the issue of sharing a lane in the stunting clause:
Passing is not mentioned and it is basically a rant that defines how authorities will f*%k you up once they stick this vague offence to you! This doesn't even apply in the slightest to 15kph filtering through stopped traffic! And if they tried to stick this to you you must have been an ***** to the cop or "made a wager" on how many cars you could pass at a red light at a set low speed! This is just a scare tactic thrown at bikers all the time, and when tried on me, was quickly dismissed (just don't laugh in the cop's face - hold it in and respectfully disagree and show you are a mature safe driver and this crap won't even have you in court)

172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21. Offence
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence may be suspended,
(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not more than two years; or
(b) on a subsequent conviction under this section, for not more than 10 years. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Determining subsequent conviction
(3) In determining whether a conviction is a subsequent conviction for the purposes of subsection (2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
10-year limitation
(4) A conviction that is more than 10 years after the previous conviction is deemed to be a first conviction for the purpose of subsection (2). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,
(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver’s licence; and
(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Administrative seven-day licence suspension
(6) Upon a request being made under clause (5) (a), the person to whom the request is made shall forthwith surrender his or her driver’s licence to the police officer and, whether or not the person is unable or fails to surrender the licence to the police officer, his or her driver’s licence is suspended for a period of seven days from the time the request is made. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment
(7) Upon a motor vehicle being detained under clause (5) (b), the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,
(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and
(b) be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause (5) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Release of vehicle
( Subject to subsection (15), the motor vehicle shall be released to its owner from the impound facility upon the expiry of the period of impoundment. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Early release of vehicle
(9) Despite the detention or impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section, a police officer may release the motor vehicle to its owner before it is impounded under subsection (7) or, subject to subsection (15), may direct the operator of the impound facility where the motor vehicle is impounded to release the motor vehicle to its owner before the expiry of the seven days if the officer is satisfied that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time that it was driven on a highway in contravention of subsection (1). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Duty of officer re licence suspension
(10) Every officer who asks for the surrender of a person’s driver’s licence under this section shall keep a record of the licence received with the name and address of the person and the date and time of the suspension and shall, as soon as practicable after receiving the licence, provide the person with a notice of suspension showing the time from which the suspension takes effect and the period of time for which the licence is suspended. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Duty of officer re impoundment
(11) Every officer who detains a motor vehicle under this section shall prepare a notice identifying the motor vehicle that is to be impounded under subsection (7), the name and address of the driver and the date and time of the impoundment and shall, as soon as practicable after the impoundment of the motor vehicle, provide the driver with a copy of the notice showing the time from which the impoundment takes effect, the period of time for which the motor vehicle is impounded and the place where the vehicle may be recovered. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Same
(12) A police officer shall provide a copy of the notice prepared under subsection (11) to the owner of the motor vehicle by delivering it personally or by mail to the address of the owner shown on the permit for the motor vehicle or to the latest address for the owner appearing on the records of the Ministry. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
No appeal or hearing
(13) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, a vehicle detention, driver’s licence suspension or vehicle impoundment under subsection (5), (6) or (7), but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Lien for storage costs
(14) The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Costs to be paid before release of vehicle
(15) The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (7) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Owner may recover losses from driver
(16) The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was detained under clause (5) (b) to recover any costs or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Offence
(17) Every person who obstructs or interferes with a police officer in the performance of his or her duties under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Intent of suspension and impoundment
(1 The suspension of a driver’s licence and the impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section are intended to promote compliance with this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising from the same circumstances or around the same time. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Impoundment concurrent with other administrative impoundments
(18.1) The impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section runs concurrently with an impoundment, if any, of the same motor vehicle under section 41.4, 48.4, 55.1, 55.2 or 82.1. 2009, c. 5, s. 51 (1).
(19) Repealed: 2008, c. 17, s. 43.
Regulations
(20) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,
(a) requiring police officers to keep records with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments under this section for a specified period of time and to report specified information with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments to the Registrar and governing such records and reports;
(b) exempting any class of persons or class or type of vehicles from any provision or requirement of this section or of any regulation made under this section, prescribing conditions for any such exemptions and prescribing different requirements for different classes of persons or different classes or types of vehicles;
(c) defining the terms “race”, “contest” and “stunt” for the purposes of this section. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Definition
(21) In this section,
“driver’s licence” includes a driver’s licence issued by another jurisdiction. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Same
(22) In this section and in section 172.1,
“motor vehicle” includes a street car, a motorized snow vehicle, a farm tractor, a self-propelled implement of husbandry and a road-building machine. 2009, c. 5, s. 51 (2).
Nitrous oxide fuel systems prohibited
172.1 (1) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,
(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide can be clearly seenby looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle;
(b) there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel connected to that part; and
(c) if the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is located inside the passenger compartment, there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide in the passenger compartment. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.
Same
(2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,
(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is completely disconnected from the part of the system that connects to the engine;
(b) the disconnection can be clearly seen by looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle; and
(c) the disconnected parts cannot be reconnected from inside the passenger compartment. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.
Offence
(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.

With regard to sharing lanes, there is a whole section dedicated to it that (147 and 14 which doesn't mention the word motorcycle even once! (however it is understood the term "vehicle" covers motorcycles) or "lane splitting", or "filtering", and as I addressed goes on to some length establishing when it is ok for a CAR to decide to share a lane with a moped or a bicycle. Again it doesn't exclude of make illegal or even reference a motorcycle's decision to safely share lanes!

147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1). Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a driver of a,
(a) vehicle while overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(b) vehicle while preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or
(c) road service vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (2).
Overtaking and passing rules
Passing meeting vehicles
148. (1) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting another vehicle shall turn out to the right from the centre of the roadway, allowing the other vehicle one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (1).
Vehicles or equestrians overtaken
(2) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the overtaking vehicle or equestrian to pass. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (2).
Exception
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person in charge of a road service vehicle or a road-building machine or apparatus while the machine or apparatus is engaged in the construction of a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (3).
Vehicles meeting bicycles
(4) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting a person travelling on a bicycle shall allow the cyclist sufficient room on the roadway to pass. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (4).
Vehicles or equestrians overtaking others
(5) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaking another vehicle or equestrian shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision with the vehicle or equestrian overtaken, and the person overtaken is not required to leave more than one-half of the roadway free. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (5).
Bicycles overtaken
(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).
Driver unable to turn out is to stop
(7) Where one vehicle is met or overtaken by another, if by reason of the weight of the load on either of the vehicles so meeting or on the vehicle so overtaken the driver finds it impracticable to turn out, he or she shall immediately stop, and, if necessary for the safety of the other vehicle and if required so to do, he or she shall assist the person in charge thereof to pass without damage. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (7).
Passing vehicle going in same direction
( No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway,
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (.


Now this is the interesting part:
Passing vehicle going in same direction
( No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway,
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (.


The left of you (as an overtaker yourself) must be safely free of overtaking traffic.!!!!!


At a stopped light with all traffic at a stand still, the traffic to the left of a filtering motorcycle is indeed free of overtaking traffic, because they are stood still and not actually overtaking!!! And it is indeed safe. But when the left lane begins to move again or is moving in the case of lane splitting then now you have breached this clause and are committing a traffic offence.


Once again I stress there is a fundamental difference between "filtering" (in stopped traffic) and "lane splitting" (passing cars in between them at speed).


My advice if and when filtering, the second you see the left side begin to move, signal and duck into the left or right lanes completely and move along with traffic. If you don't make it to the head of the queue, don't push it, just rejoin the flow of traffic completely.

[alaywa]

You will get charged under bill 203. Probably wouldn't hold up in court, but by then its too late.

Skip, could you shed some light on bill 203 for us by referencing the bill? Or pasting it in your response?

Edit:

Nevermind, I found it here, and once I get the chance I'll go through it. But on the face of it, it looks like the bill that amended the HTA and added the stunting clause anyways, which I addressed above. But I'll have a closer look to see if I missed anything with respect to "filtering".

Bill 203
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bil...ParlSessionID=

[skip]

Yeah it was the stunt driving/racing bill

Possible they would charge you under O. Reg. 175/09

8. 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:

iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway

It vague and fuzzy and completely up to the officer. The "without justification" part probably wouldn't stand up in court, but like I said, by then you have your suspension impound and legal fees.

[silent_vik]

Vik, where is it mentioned it is not legal?

I would argue that it is in fact NOT illegal, and not even addressed at all in the HTA! So how could it be illegal?

then try your luck in front of a cop and argue that point with him/her. even if u dont end up being charged of anything in court, the cop would still give you a ticket. most likely stunting, or careless driving. in the end, is it really worth the hassle of waiting an extra minute for the traffic to move? if your answer is yes, more power to you.

if u were in california, that would be a different story.

[skip]

or england. I personally think filtering is fine, but here in the peoples republic of ontario....

[ygrowup]

Forget what is legal or not. Just don't do it!!!!!!

Anyone who has taken a safety course know that letting another car or bike enter your space cushion is not safe. You have eliminated an escape route or routes.

Your life is worth more than saving a few seconds on your ride. Just enjoy and ride and get home safe.

[bassguitar]

Forget what is legal or not. Just don't do it!!!!!!

Anyone who has taken a safety course know that letting another car or bike enter your space cushion is not safe. You have eliminated an escape route or routes.

Your life is worth more than saving a few seconds on your ride. Just enjoy and ride and get home safe.

You're totally right. I think it's even less safe in Ontario, because cage drivers aren't expecting you to do that like they would be in other areas of the world where it's either legal, or at least accepted practice.

Not worth the time savings.

[nakkers]

It appears that all the time saved from filtering is being used up for road side discussions with police and or reading sections and subsections of the HTA.

Not worth it in my opinion.


If filtering/spliting has enough of a movement, put the time and effort to have it addressed properly into law and avoid any confusion.


JMO.

[jotapeh]

or england. I personally think filtering is fine, but here in the peoples republic of ontario....

Hahaha. It does feel like that sometimes

edit: on a more serious note, lane filtering saves much more than 'a few seconds'. Often I will filter (although I only ever do it with parked cars, so it is technically 'legal',) and find that it was just a streetcar/truck/old man holding everyone up. It can cut travel time easily by half to a third.

[Zaneris]

I don't do it, and I'll tell you why.

It's not because of any safety concern (it's not anymore dangerous than most situations on the road you're already dealing with), but rather, keeping a bit of respect of the cagers around you. If you let a car merge, or wait in line with the rest of them, they're less likely to go out of their way to TRY to run over you. And believe me, if they've just finished 10 hours at work, had a bad day, and now are stuck in traffic, you really don't want to get on their nerves.

Just the way I look at things, but to each their own.

[RetroGrouch]

I do it all the time downtown. Never been pulled over.

[alaywa]

Yeah it was the stunt driving/racing bill

Possible they would charge you under O. Reg. 175/09

8. 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:

iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway

It vague and fuzzy and completely up to the officer. The "without justification" part probably wouldn't stand up in court, but like I said, by then you have your suspension impound and legal fees.

130. Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. 2009, c. 5, s. 41.

Driving without due care is not punishable by impoundign, and legal fees, if you win the court case are not charged against you.

Every ticket (aside from clear flagrant violations of the law, and even in some of these cases) can go your way in court. A ticket is simply an officers interpretation of the law and ultimately, you can accept or challenge. That's what a court date is for. I find it hard to believe a court will uphold 130 on a filtering in stopped traffic situation, especially if you are able to demostrate your knowledge of the law and circumstances and mature, safe rationale behind your choice to filter. Furthmore a cop has to be out his mind to try and apply 172 (stunting) to impound your vehicle. Under minor offences it is extreeeeemely unlikely your vehicle will be impounded or you will incur much legal fees even if you lose the case.

As I mentioned before, amoung cops 130 is in many cases an "attitude ticket". If you mouth of like Shooter McGee there, expect 130 even if all you did is fart in traffic.

[alaywa]

then try your luck in front of a cop and argue that point with him/her. even if u dont end up being charged of anything in court, the cop would still give you a ticket. most likely stunting, or careless driving. in the end, is it really worth the hassle of waiting an extra minute for the traffic to move? if your answer is yes, more power to you.

if u were in california, that would be a different story.

I have tried my luck and argued it successfully on 3 occassion in the past 2 months. In each case I was given a warning or the officer backed down, gave me a hollow threat, or cooled off and walked away.

Like I said many times, a lot depends on your attitude when you deal with the cop. If you lead him to believe through your character or attitude you are indeed careless, oblivios, better than him, cocky, etc, he will nail you for 130 (due care) at the least.