I thought lane splitting wasn't legal in Ontario?

[stormcat]

As the title says... although, I see them doing it all the time. Only cruiser riders so far. But that may be because the majority of bikes I've seen here in the past month have been cruisers, and not necessarily because riding attitudes/styles in certain situations differ across the types of bikes ridden.

So yeah, lots of lane splitting going on here.

[nobbie48]

I didn't think it was legal and as far as seeing a lot of it I tend to see more weaving. I'm not sure where one draws the line between weaving and splitting. My definition of splitting is a moving car on both sides of the bike at the same time. Not that extreme weaving is much different but one of our legal beagles will clarify shortly. I'm not sure what charge covers weaving.

[bear22099]

As the title says... although, I see them doing it all the time. Only cruiser riders so far. But that may be because the majority of bikes I've seen here in the past month have been cruisers, and not necessarily because riding attitudes/styles in certain situations differ across the types of bikes ridden.

So yeah, lots of lane splitting going on here.

Just because people do it, does not mean it is legal. Lots of purses get snatched....

[stormcat]

Just because people do it, does not mean it is legal. Lots of purses get snatched....

I know. I was being facetious.

[turbodish]

I'm not sure what charge covers weaving.

HTA172, see bold:

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).

[Rob MacLennan]

Except that lane splitting doesn't necessarily involve "repeatedly changing lanes", which has been the finding in court. It qualifies as improper passing.

[turbodish]

Except that lane splitting doesn't necessarily involve "repeatedly changing lanes", which has been the finding in court. It qualifies as improper passing.

Which has been a finding in a lower court, and which is not a binding precedent on other lower courts.

If the lane splitting occurs in the context of moving through other traffic at significantly higher speed than the other traffic, then the following parts of the regulation base on "marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" can apply:

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,

[Rob MacLennan]

Which has been a finding in a lower court, and which is not a binding precedent on other lower courts.

If the lane splitting occurs in the context of moving through other traffic at significantly higher speed than the other traffic, then the following parts of the regulation base on "marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" can apply:

Courts tend to try and be somewhat consistent.

Based on the wording of "lawful rate of speed" you could get the pull for a mere 1Kmh differential, but it would take a significant difference to pass the sniff test in court.

[markopas]

What happens if you do not pass the lawfully marked speed and everyone else around you is driving under the speed limit?

[turbodish]

What happens if you do not pass the lawfully marked speed and everyone else around you is driving under the speed limit?

Doing at or even less than the posted limit can still have you fall under the "marked departure from lawful rate of speed" criteria, as per the definition included in the regs.

(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).

If traffic on the 401 is congested and moving at stop and go, do you really think splitting and weaving through at 90 is prudent? That's the kind of speed differential situation that the reg is attempting to define.

[alaywa]

I filter cause I feel I can, and have, argued my way out of tickets several times so far. But it involves the odd 15 minute chat on the road side. There is no way I feel I could argue my way out of lane splitting however. For me I have found the sometimes subjective "safety" factor in much of the laws that can be sited against a lane splitter, is near impossible to argue if cars are moving at speed while you drive between them. When traffic is at a complete stand still at a red light "filtering" (in my cases) can be successfully argued is safe......but as myself and Rob have debated about in the past....it's a grey area at best.

Though lane splitting isn't mentioned explicitly in the HTA there are a cocktail of HTA clauses that can easily stick to you if you get caught.

[Rob MacLennan]

Doing at or even less than the posted limit can still have you fall under the "marked departure from lawful rate of speed" criteria, as per the definition included in the regs.


If traffic on the 401 is congested and moving at stop and go, do you really think splitting and weaving through at 90 is prudent? That's the kind of speed differential situation that the reg is attempting to define.

Except, as with the vast majority of code within HTA172, it is needlessly vague in a way that is ripe for abuse.

[mxs]

Except, as with the vast majority of code within HTA172, it is needlessly vague in a way that is ripe for abuse.

No kidding. Like "repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity ...." So it's more than once within what .... last minute, 100m or ???? And I have to be how close .... 1m or less???

[Rob MacLennan]

No kidding. Like "repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity ...." So it's more than once within what .... last minute, 100m or ???? And I have to be how close .... 1m or less???

One of the worst parts of it is exactly the portion that turbodish has been quoting; the section defining "marked departure from the lawful rate of speed." It's a pure judgment call, on the part of the officer, meaning that your vehicle can essentially be impounded on a whim. That language applies to the section covering simply the statement "marked departure", two vehicles that appear to be in competition, chasing a vehicle, outdistancing another vehicle, and repeated lane changes.

[turbodish]

One of the worst parts of it is exactly the portion that turbodish has been quoting; the section defining "marked departure from the lawful rate of speed." It's a pure judgment call, on the part of the officer, meaning that your vehicle can essentially be impounded on a whim. That language applies to the section covering simply the statement "marked departure", two vehicles that appear to be in competition, chasing a vehicle, outdistancing another vehicle, and repeated lane changes.

It has to be a judgment call because there is no way to codify each and every specific situation where driving behaviour is unacceptable. You can't quantify all imprudent driving behaviours against a known measure in the same way that you can quantify speeding vs not speeding.

To try and do so would leave the thing open for abuse by technicality-seeking lawyers - "your worship, the accused was not racing that other vehicle, he was merely riding three times the speed limit on the same road near him". This way the courts can focus on the overall nature of the driving or riding in question, and not on the technicalities.

[turbodish]

No kidding. Like "repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity ...." So it's more than once within what .... last minute, 100m or ???? And I have to be how close .... 1m or less???

Here's the problem with what you're saying - you're saying that the law should say "no more than x amount of ane changes in y distance with weaver being no closer than z inches from vehicles being treated as moving pylons.". Really?

Let's say they write such a law. What would the x and y and z numbers be? How would they pick them to fit all possible street and highway situations? And how do you enforce that?

[Rob MacLennan]

It has to be a judgment call because there is no way to codify each and every specific situation where driving behaviour is unacceptable. You can't quantify all imprudent driving behaviours against a known measure in the same way that you can quantify speeding vs not speeding.

To try and do so would leave the thing open for abuse by technicality-seeking lawyers - "your worship, the accused was not racing that other vehicle, he was merely riding three times the speed limit on the same road near him". This way the courts can focus on the overall nature of the driving or riding in question, and not on the technicalities.

Sure, it has to be a judgment call at some point, but there's no harm in clearly defining the behaviour rather than leaving it so broad, that a differential of one Kmh could apply. A numeric value isn't even required.

[turbodish]

Sure, it has to be a judgment call at some point, but there's no harm in clearly defining the behaviour rather than leaving it so broad, that a differential of one Kmh could apply. A numeric value isn't even required.

And just how would you do so?

[stormcat]

I'm not talking about riders weaving. I'm talking about riders that actually lane split. As an example of what I mean by dangerous situations: I've seen riders split between buses and cars, and streetcars and cars. Actual splitting.

Although, personally, I think lane splitting SHOULD be legal here and follow the California model. I.e., permitted when traffic is going within a certain speed. I can't imagine getting stuck on the QEW in rush hour traffic on a bike, and definitely see the attraction in splitting lanes in that sort of situation. Far too many cars get rearended, I'd hate to be on a bike and be rearended. Splitting would actually be safer for us.

Now go ahead and argue my point, Turbodish. It works for riders in Cali, but I'm sure you'll have some poorly researched paper to argue why it somehow wouldn't work for riders in Toronto. LOL!

[Griffin]

And just how would you do so?

If you can't specifically define the behaviour that you're trying to address, then you shouldn't just be passing a law that has no parameters that can be understood. HTA 172 does not provide insight into what is acceptable driving. It allows the authorities to categorize virtually any behaviour as illegal with significant penalties. That's just plain wrong.

They could have chosen to more clearly define what it is they are trying to regulate, but they didn't because it's easier for police to enforce without any clear parameters. They could have chosen to add qualfiers such as "in such a manner that control of the vehicle is jeopardized" or other similar language. Instead, it's "taking your *** off the seat" (that's a loose quote) even though there is nothing wrong with taking your *** out of the seat for any number of reasons.

Its a poorly worded piece of legislation. And that's said by a person who has crafted a fair number of regulations, by-laws and legislation.