|
|
ibfr
x
I'm still trying to fathom this attitude of entitlement.
Because someone feels that they can safely filter or split they do it, even though it is against the law?
Why not run red lights, stop signs, drive on the wrong side of the road etc. etc?
Where should the line be drawn then?
If that is truly the precedent that you want to set, then won't those with bigger, tougher vehicles start feeling safe pushing you out of the way?
As motorcyclists, we ignore the laws at our own peril.
Ignorance is curable, Apathy not so much, but I don't care, I'll try anyway.
Do you mind pullin up the law against filtering? Just curious as you are so certain it is explicitly illegal. It can be done within the confines of the law,it all depends on how you do it.Originally Posted by Baggsy
If it is legal to pass, then this is legal entitlement. No one is arguing for illegal entitlement.
Yes. I did it for years. I had a couple of incidents that were too close for comfort and I adjusted my riding style as a result. (I also stopped splitting here in Canada because drivers don't expect it and I felt that the risk is too great.)
Do you not speed? Don't you generally ride at least 10 over (on dry, warm days) and feel you can do it safely?
In Korea, I never ran reds but I did stop, check both ways, then ride through if no one was coming. I only don't do it here because the penalties are much greater (insurance premiums, ticket, points, etc.). In Korea, if you're caught doing that the officer might tell you to simply be careful and not do it again.
Because filtering doesn't bully anyone out of the way nor does it inconvenience anyone (presuming you accelerate and ride faster than the cars you passed).
In some cases I'd agree. Filtering, no. I'd rather be at the front of a pack and risk nicking someone's mirror at low speed than having a car with no brakes or a driver not paying attention slam into the back of me while waiting.
So, would it be correct to withdrawn from your statement that you believe in the law 100% ?
Lane splitting and filtering is illegal at all times. Just because you can or you think you are experienced enough to do it doesn't make it legal. Good for you for not getting ticketed yet....I am going to hope you get a huge ticket for it soon though. May be you'll learn from that and stop splitting and it may save your life.
As for the drivers honking at riders filtering through traffic, I WAS NOT A PART OF THAT CLASS.
I was not a part of that class.
QUARTER LITRE WITH CHEESE
Here is someone who's been stopped 6 times for it. Check and see what they're being charged with: http://http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/...=1#post1699300
I imagine that on a bad day a street racing charge could be laid.
In the city, I tend to hold to the limit - There's too much chance of clipping a pedestrian or bicyclist. On the highway I tend to stick to the right lane and keep up with the traffic there, unless I'm passing. Have I gone 10 over? Yes. Have I ever been pulled over for going 10 over? Once.
I've been bullied a number of times on the bike. The choice becomes being dead right or swerving to survive. If motorcyclists start a precedent, they'd be fools to think that motorists won't start taking advantage too. I believe Toronto is getting closer and closer to the tipping point. Every year, new issues are appearing more rapidly than the previous one.
If you nick a mirror do you stop and exchange insurance information, or do you take off hoping that the other party is too busy to catch your plate or report the collision?
I don't believe that you can withdrawn anything from my statement. I believe that the laws are there to guide us when we don't know what to do. But not everything should need a law. If you take if with the rest of the context, what I'm getting at is where do draw the line, for right from wrong, and are any people wise enough to be able to set their own limits? I don't believe that there is, not even myself; even though I'm only the second worst driver on the planet (you're all tied for first).
I tend to stop a ways back and creep forward at lights, at the same time pedestrians and bicyclists tend to float through the traffic.
For those of you who filter, how do you avoid these issues? Do you rely on luck? A 5 million+ liability policy or something else? In the case where do hit someone or something, will your insurance cover you?
Last edited by Baggsy; 12-07-2011 at 03:42 AM.
Ignorance is curable, Apathy not so much, but I don't care, I'll try anyway.
OP, thank cagers when you filter to the front and you'd be surprised how big of a difference it makes. I also time it so that I move up when the light for cars going left & right turns yellow, or if there's an advance green, I use that time to sneak up to the front.
Doing it this way catches them off guard so they don't really have time to react and when they start honking, the light's green and you're already long gone. But I always thank cagers 'cause I understand that it's not the norm and I appreciate that they don't block me in (as some have done in the past). And also, if you're gonna filter and see a cop, try to play it off like you're turning right. lol Just be smarter about how you split - there's no point of filtering immediately to the front and having some cager grill or swear at you for a minute when you can just time it properly.
I would re-consider splitting at normal speeds, though. The only time I ever do that is when someone's hogging the left lane and the guy behind me won't back off. I'd rather risk a ticket than have some cager too close to rear-end me.
Wow all that and not reference to a law against filtering? Just find me 1 law against filtering in stopped traffic (multilane roadway), when all cars are stopped. aaaaand lets say a filtering speed of 12 to 14kph. You would be hard pressed to find stunting apply at a jogging pace. Moving cars is a different story however, I know of one law that applies. Splitting at speed, definate 154 as the "safety" issue comes into play,and likely 172 also. But stick to the example I gave you above and cite a law that makes that illegal. 140, 148, 150, 154 all don't apply. 172 doesn't apply either, and in this regard a cop can give that to anyone for anything and still hurt them with the impound charges, so that scare mongering can be left out unless you can point to it applying specifically. That close issue is negated by bumper to bumper close proximity of the cars anyways!
Moderator
It has been stated before.
Highway Traffic Act - R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.8
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;
ONTARIO REGULATION 455/07 - RACES, CONTESTS AND STUNTS
Definition, "race" and "contest"
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).
Last edited by Rob MacLennan; 12-07-2011 at 07:32 AM.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Moderator
To those we can also add:
Highway Traffic Act - R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.8
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).
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Moderator
And in support of the HTA 172 charge, I give you Regina v. Bunda; a case involving lane splitting, from Waterloo.
http://canlii.ca/en/on/oncj/doc/2009...09oncj620.html
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Sorry mate, neither of those 2 apply in a circumstance of filtering in stopped traffic at a jogger's pace. That speed does not limit the ability to prudently adjust. And 154 doesn't apply unless lack of safety can be proven. You are entitled to change lanes and pass and share lanes as long as it is safe to do so.
This doesn't apply either and has been discussed ad nauseam, if the semi colon is taken as "and" between subclause a) and b) then then it implies NO ONE in the right lane can EVER pass anyone in a left lane unless that vehicle in the left lane is indicating a left turn. The semi colon here is refering to an "or" clause as the original basis of 150 is that it is a single lane in either direction road. a) is then presented as an exception, and b) is presented as a further exception, they in fact are not to be read as joint exceptions...this would then creat havoc in the streets and would inply no "under taking" is permitted. This is in fact NOT the intent of sub clause b) and does not apply to filtering. As I presented in the scenario above, I asked for a specific law making filtering in a multi lane road illegal. I should also highlight, multi lane is different from multi LINE which is actually a greater allowance and allows for vehicles to share the same lane to make passes to the right (for example at stop lights when other cars sneak past in the same lane to make a right turn....if there is room for "multi-lines" within the same lane!).
This doesn't apply either.
Last edited by awyala; 12-07-2011 at 08:25 AM.
Your reasoning is flawed here too.
The semi-colon is taken as an "or". An "and" condition would be explicitly stated, as in the following:
Driving a privilege
31. The purpose of this Part is to protect the public by ensuring that,(a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely; and
(b) full driving privileges are granted to novice and probationary drivers only after they acquire experience and develop or improve safe driving skills in controlled conditions. 1993, c. 40, s. 1.
I am referring to filtering not lane splitting. There is a distinction. I further distinguished through a specific example of filtering (not among moving vehicles, in a multi lane situation at a very low rate of speed).
This case you highlighted here was 4 bikes passing cars on a single lane motorway (an off ramp with a traffic light) who then later admitted they could not 100% verify that all the cars they passed had left turn indicators on. If they had managed to assert that they may not have been charged even though this was a single lane application. Because 150 a) allows for this if there is sufficient room. Also the cop testifies to having seen the motorcyclist weave the bike to get his mirrors past one of the cars...which appears to the cop to be justification of 172. This is debateable especially if in a filtering instance you walk your bike in a situation where you move your mirrors and doesn't invoke 172 as the speed (walking) does allow for adjusting to the situation (especially if the light is red and cars cannot move).
172 is over kill here and ever more so in the instance I provided as an example.
Last edited by awyala; 12-07-2011 at 08:32 AM.
The court's comments in Bunda did refer to passing a line of stopped traffic to the right.
Moderator
As turbodish stated, the Bunda decision dealt with filtering. You should read it.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Moderator
So you're choosing to ignore the statement "(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction"?
Yes, it has been discussed ad nauseum, and yet you still fail to admit to the obvious, as upheld by case law.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
exactly my point champ...the semi colon in 150 between a) and b) is an "or" which means in a multiLINE situation you are entitled to pass to the right of another vehicle without requiring the vehicle to the left to be indicating a left turn. Again I stress it is a multi-LINE situation not LANE. Meaning a wide enough lane sufficient for 2 vehicles is a situation where by one can legally pass to the right irrespective of signal inidication of the leftmost vehicle. This allows for filtering to the right of a vehicle, space permitting for a smaller motorcycle vehicle (which is classed as a vehicle).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks