I thought lane splitting wasn't legal in Ontario?

[Rob MacLennan]

And just how would you do so?

Not my job, but I'd likely use wording like "substantial speed differential."

[turbodish]

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.

So in other words, if you can't specifically define it, you shouldn't pass a law? And the extension to that is, if it isn't specifically defined in law, then it would not be illegal?

Or should you specifically define each and every possible situation that should be illegal? Can you imagine the complexity and size of the HTA should that occur? After all, with that guiding philosophy, if it's not defined it's not illegal. The lawyers would have a field day.

In the end, a lot of law is "generally defined" simply because it has to be in order for the law to be workable and enforceable. It's the case law that follows that defines how far the courts feel that a given law is intended to go or not.

[turbodish]

Not my job, but I'd likely use wording like "substantial speed differential."

Another judgment call, I see. No firm number at all. Now how does that differ in philosophy and precision from the phrasing

(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]

Another judgment call, I see. No firm number at all. Now how does that differ in philosophy and precision from the phrasing

What part of, "Sure, it has to be a judgment call..." did you fail to comprehend? I prefer as much precision as the situation can permit, which is far more than is provided for by the overly lax wording of 455/07. There must be some leeway in the wording of the law but making the entire section wide open to interpretation, forcing people to have it done in court when improperly charged, strikes me as stupid and irresponsible. Especially so, when the penalties are essentially the same as for a lesser Criminal Code offence.

[turbodish]

What part of, "Sure, it has to be a judgment call..." did you fail to comprehend? I prefer as much precision as the situation can permit, which is far more than is provided for by the overly lax wording of 455/07. There must be some leeway in the wording of the law but making the entire section wide open to interpretation, forcing people to have it done in court when improperly charged, strikes me as stupid and irresponsible. Especially so, when the penalties are essentially the same as for a lesser Criminal Code offence.

You still haven't answered the question:
No firm number at all. Now how does that differ in philosophy and precision from the phrasing

(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).

Your choice of "substantial speed differential" defines nothing. What is "substantial" in differing circumstances, and why is "substantial" important? In legal terms that term is about as firm as jelly and ripe for abuse by either side.

On the other hand, the phrasing I quoted lays out a specific performance-based criteria, that is, "a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances". It still comes down to a judgment call, but you're not getting away from that in any case.

[Griffin]

So in other words, if you can't specifically define it, you shouldn't pass a law? And the extension to that is, if it isn't specifically defined in law, then it would not be illegal?

Or should you specifically define each and every possible situation that should be illegal? Can you imagine the complexity and size of the HTA should that occur? After all, with that guiding philosophy, if it's not defined it's not illegal. The lawyers would have a field day.

In the end, a lot of law is "generally defined" simply because it has to be in order for the law to be workable and enforceable. It's the case law that follows that defines how far the courts feel that a given law is intended to go or not.

To your first part - yes. That's exactly what I mean. If you can't clearly articulate the rules, don't make them. Most parents know this. Anyone that is responsible for the behaviour of others and fulfills their responsiblities effectively knows this. What time did you tell your kids to go to bed? "When the time is right you need to be in bed"? I told mine 10:00 p.m. At one minute after they were late and they knew it.

Last part - courts do not define the intention of laws. The law makers should. Courts only have to rule on it and usually only when the lawmakers did a crappy job and didn't define clearly the expectations. Case law helps to address any ambiguity in the law's application but it should not be relied upon in the absence of clear expectations being spealt out by the law makers. That's just a cop out and an excuse for the crappy job done in the first place.

[turbodish]

To your first part - yes. That's exactly what I mean. If you can't clearly articulate the rules, don't make them. Most parents know this. Anyone that is responsible for the behaviour of others and fulfills their responsiblities effectively knows this. What time did you tell your kids to go to bed? "When the time is right you need to be in bed"? I told mine 10:00 p.m. At one minute after they were late and they knew it.

Time to go to bed is something you can specify with precision. Now, tell me how you codify the rules for how your kids should play with other kids in all possible situations that they may encounter.

The answer is, you can't. You can't codify with precision each and every situation of activity within a given sphere. At some point you have to fall back onto general principles of expected behaviour, and general definitions of prohibited behaviour.

Same goes for the highways. Specifying a speed limit beyond which one must not travel is easy. After all, it's a simple number and there exists simple tools that can easily measure your compliance with that simple number.

Things get a lot different when you get into anything more complex. That's why we had wide open, extremely-vaguely defined offences like careless driving and dangerous driving. Their very vagueness made it easy to lay such charges, but that same vagueness and the requirement to show willful intent or disregard also made it more difficult to obtain convictions.

The wording of HTA172's regulations take away much of the vagueness. They help paint a clearer picture for drivers as to what is not acceptable.

Last part - courts do not define the intention of laws. The law makers should. Courts only have to rule on it and usually only when the lawmakers did a crappy job and didn't define clearly the expectations. Case law helps to address any ambiguity in the law's application but it should not be relied upon in the absence of clear expectations being spealt out by the law makers. That's just a cop out and an excuse for the crappy job done in the first place.

I didn't say that courts define the intention of laws. I said they create case law to define just "how far" a given law is intended to go, or how broadly it should be applied. In the case of HTA172, the lawmakers quite clearly defined the expectations of this law in the First Reading - "Our government's proposed legislation would set a new standard for road safety, with tougher sanctions to target drinking and driving, aggressive and dangerous driving behaviours."

Again, it's impossible to codify the specifics of each and every possible dangerous driving behaviour. The alternative would also mean that if something is not specifically codified, then it would be legal. I doubt there is any jurisdiction that has codified driving regs in the way that you seem to imply they should be done.

The regs associated with HTA172 speak in reasonably-defined unacceptable driving acts that can be used in a wide range of potential poor driving scenarios. The alternative would be an offences manual 1000s of pages long that would need a complicated decision tree system in order to be able to use it.

[Griffin]

Time to go to bed is something you can specify with precision. Now, tell me how you codify the rules for how your kids should play with other kids in all possible situations that they may encounter.

The answer is, you can't. You can't codify with precision each and every situation of activity within a given sphere. At some point you have to fall back onto general principles of expected behaviour, and general definitions of prohibited behaviour.

Same goes for the highways. Specifying a speed limit beyond which one must not travel is easy. After all, it's a simple number and there exists simple tools that can easily measure your compliance with that simple number.

Things get a lot different when you get into anything more complex. That's why we had wide open, extremely-vaguely defined offences like careless driving and dangerous driving. Their very vagueness made it easy to lay such charges, but that same vagueness and the requirement to show willful intent or disregard also made it more difficult to obtain convictions.

The wording of HTA172's regulations take away much of the vagueness. They help paint a clearer picture for drivers as to what is not acceptable.

To your point about how children should behave - no, I didn't define in detail the expectations for ALL situations that they could encounter. As a result, I would never punish a child for failing to meet my standards for ALL situations, only those that I defined. To do otherwise would be unfair.

Citing the dangerous and careless provisions is interesting. They also suck and are very prone to misuse. Cops now routinely lay careless charges instead of the more appropriate charge of following too closely or whatever, simply to coerce the driver to plead to the lesser charge and not exercise their right to go to court. You and I have had this discussion before, however. Having a discussion with you is frustrating. You aren't willing to consider any information provided to you if it doesn't agree with your already formed opinions.

[turbodish]

You and I have had this discussion before, however. Having a discussion with you is frustrating. You aren't willing to consider any information provided to you if it doesn't agree with your already formed opinions.

I consider it. That doesn't mean I have to totally accept it or that I can't put forth a counterpoint to it. Should I say the same about those who do not agree with me?

[viper84737]

"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). "

And what is the definition of "prudently" in this case. Loose subjective terms like this are ripe for debate. If it was done, it can be argued that it was done prudently by virtue of no imprudence being involved (since imprudence apparently is definable, otherwise?)

[Brian P]

I wouldn't have as much objection to the vagueness of HTA172 ... IF AND ONLY IF, in a situation where the courts agreed that the charge had been improperly laid, that ALL costs to the driver in question were reimbursed.

And I mean *ALL* costs. Towing, lawyer, time off work, alternate transportation. EVERYTHING.

A charge having severe consequences should have a precisely defined and public set of conditions that defines the offence. No vagueness. Every common man has to be able to know for themselves whether what they are doing is legal or not.

On the topic of lane splitting ... I believe that in other jurisdictions where this is regulated, there is a maximum speed at which it is allowed to occur, and a maximum speed differential between the bike splitting lanes and the traffic in either adjacent lane, and the numbers are written into the legislation so that everyone knows, not left to "case law" or "discretion".

The whole "significant departure from lawful speed" should have been "a number". If that means some people that have been charged thus far would not have been charged ... well, maybe they ought not to have been charged in the first place, because maybe what they were doing wasn't all that dangerous. It's practically guaranteed that someone who is being a complete idiot by doing whatever it is that's being regulated, is going to be beyond whatever that number is, if it's reasonable.

Another way it could have been dealt with was to have the language as it is, but put other clarifying criteria in there: "It shall not be considered an offence if this happens at a speed differing from adjacent traffic of less than X", or "it shall not be considered an offence if four proper lane changes or less for the purpose of overtaking are made in any one minute period, and any lane change for the purpose of entering or exiting a highway at any legal entrance or exit, or preparing to make such entrance or exit, shall not be included when making this determination as long as such lane changes are done in safety and in legally permissible zones", etc. And this should have been WRITTEN INTO LAW.

[Brian P]

By the way, my job involves compliance with various standards, and I'm very familiar with clauses in those standards that are possible to audit against and thus either flag something as non-compliant or document that it is in compliance, versus other clauses that are too vague to make a determination. The stuff that has numbers to it is easy to understand. The stuff that's vague requires discussions, sometimes arguments, and often disclaimers identifying the issue and that we have no way of knowing whether the situation is in compliance or not, and that other persons with other interests may have other opinions differing from our own ...

If you're writing a standard, and you want to hold people (or companies) to that standard, you had better put numbers and black-and-white language to every important requirement, otherwise it's going to get creatively interpreted ... sometimes too stringently, sometimes too loosely, and there's no way around that because the people that are actually using the standard have no way of knowing what's good enough and what isn't ...

[arekzjawin]

The number should be set in relation to the traffic speed.
example:
401 traffic at 5km/h - difference of 20km/h or so (response time taken into account and the density of traffic)
120km/h dens traffic - 50km/h difference
120km/h low density ( 3am by Kindston ) 100km/h

Numbers do not make sense but you get the point. Fantino (might have misspelled that) had enough resources to set it up clearly. Instead he set a law that creates a lot of controversy and discussion.

I agree with the fact that when it comes to law everything should be AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. Now depending on how much money you have (and the lawyer you can afford) you can get away with different things.

There is nothing wrong with setting clear boundaries.

[Rob MacLennan]

Brian, where lane splitting in California is involved it isn't that it's legal, but rather that it isn't explicitly illegal. As such, there isn't law stating what speeds are legal. It's handled via case law.

I agree that there should be some numeric value applied, as leaving such things completely open to interpretation creates a situation that is ripe for abuse. When the penalties are so onerous, and are of a sort that cannot be argued in court, the definitions MUST be clear.

arekzjawin, Fantino didn't make this law. He may have consulted on it and may CLAIM that it's his law but it was passed, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, unanimously by members of all elected political parties.

[mindactivated]

Are there currently any initiatives to try to legalize lane filtering and/or splitting?

It seems to work fine for places like Paris, it would encourage more motorcycle / moped / scooter usage, reduce congestion by providing more attractive and nimble transportation methods, and make riding safer for 2-wheels with a more accepted attitude from the general public. Even just legalizing lane filtering would help.

[Brian P]

Honestly, I think legalizing lane splitting is among the least of our concerns. I'd be happy if the bureaucrats just stopped making things worse.

[knowledge]

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.

I would disagree with this. To be honest, being rear-ended can be minimized to almost a non-issue when you flash your brake lights & stop a bit early. The only time when you're really in high risk of getting rear-ended is when you don't look far ahead enough & you brake suddenly. If you start braking two times earlier, so do the cars behind you.

It's a lot more dangerous trying to lane-split between moving traffic (even if it's heavy traffic). Some people get mad that bikes are "budding" & try to box you in. Then you have the cars that try to avoid every little bump in the road. Then you have the fast lane-changers.

I'm actually all for lane-splitting. But safety is (imo) the weakest point to argue for it. The only strong argument it really has going for it is that it can reduce congestion.

I ALWAYS thank people when I'm splitting (especially when the gap closes & you need to actually take up a lane/someone's space in the traffic line).

[Metastable]

Turbo - you can't argue with what Brian said. Seriously why do you have to constantly argue against common sense? The wording is poor and you can have serious penalties handed out in a case where the police officer doesn't understand the purpose of the law. Don't tell me that hasn't happened. Don't tell me that cops haven't ABUSED this law for personal gain. BTW what happened to the one guy that got charged for that?

Like I have said before, the law can state what it does if we went to court first. That's the point of the court or if wrongly charged, every penny should be given back along with MORE money for the inconvenience of the entire situation and that money should come ENTIRELY from the officers POCKET. THEN.... maybe then they'd think twice about handing out a bogus ticket. ORRRRR just let it go to the courts first. ORRRR better yet, toss the whole stupidity out the window and work with laws that were perfectly good in the first place.

EDIT - and one more thing. Filtering is SAFER for motorcycles and honestly I don't see how ANY law applies to doing this when traffic is fully stopped.... especially considering other two wheeled road vehicles are expected to do it. I'm not talking about filtering at speed.... I don't think I've seen that happen too many times around here. Again, please tell me you don't think sitting like a duck at the end of a line of stopped vehicles is safer than being at the front of a line of stopped vehicles.

[knowledge]

EDIT - and one more thing. Filtering is SAFER for motorcycles and honestly I don't see how ANY law applies to doing this when traffic is fully stopped.... especially considering other two wheeled road vehicles are expected to do it. I'm not talking about filtering at speed.... I don't think I've seen that happen too many times around here. Again, please tell me you don't think sitting like a duck at the end of a line of stopped vehicles is safer than being at the front of a line of stopped vehicles.

You say that as if your options are only split all the way, or risk being rear-ended at the end of the line (and that you will ALWAYS get rear-ended when at the end of the line). Like I said earlier, the line doesn't just magically appear. It's very rare for you to be the very last vehicle in line for 2 minutes until the next car. Splitting can be avoided by slowing down earlier & flashing your brake lights so that the car behind you can start slowing down ahead of time & isn't surprised by a sudden stop.

And even in the worst case scenario...watch your back & get ready to split if need be.

[viper84737]

So out of curiosity, has it been determined whether or not lane splitting (or filtering at a stop light, etc) is legal within the HTA? Do I have to call the cops and ask em myself?