Squeezing by on the right - is it legal?

[imnothng]

(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or



I didn't ding the M2X rider today for it...

Isn't the key phrase being "in each direction". To me that implies its still illegal for tow vehicles going the SAME direction.

[RetroGrouch]

Legal shmegal, if there's enough room and the car in front isn't turning right then just do it. That's how I would roll.

[iegod]

Cars do this already, who cares if bikes are doing it. I highly doubt you'll get any tickets.

[OpenGambit]

Cars do this already, who cares if bikes are doing it. I highly doubt you'll get any tickets.

Stunting tickets have been given ( went to court, and convicted ) for this exact move.

While my personal view is that a ticket is unlikely, people should not know hold an illusion that you couldn't get a ticket for it ( stunting no less).

[RedDogDarren]

Next thing you know you'll be worried about wearing white after labour day.

[OpenGambit]

Why yes, you are wrong:

Passing to right of vehicle
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 law is a lot more than just the HTA.

Filtering and splitting has always been ambigous in the legislation, however, the fact that people have gotten tickets and been convicted of such behaviour shows that it is illegal, and removes that doubt.

If you read the question, he isn't really talking about a situation where there is a parking lane on the right that he can ride in, he said "using either part of their lane or the shoulder". Your answer is misleading because people on bikes are likely to assume that because their vehicle is small, passing the stopped vehicle in the same lane would be "of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles". However, people have been convicted of HTA 172 for filtering at a stop light up to the front. This situation is really not that different.

[Acadian1974]

The law is a lot more than just the HTA.

Filtering and splitting has always been ambigous in the legislation, however, the fact that people have gotten tickets and been convicted of such behaviour shows that it is illegal, and removes that doubt.

If you read the question, he isn't really talking about a situation where there is a parking lane on the right that he can ride in, he said "using either part of their lane or the shoulder". Your answer is misleading because people on bikes are likely to assume that because their vehicle is small, passing the stopped vehicle in the same lane would be "of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles". However, people have been convicted of HTA 172 for filtering at a stop light up to the front. This situation is really not that different.

Can't comment on any 172 convictions as I was not present to observe the facts of the incident. Was the manoeuvre made safely in a lane of sufficient width? Did the rider stop prior to completing the turn? Did the rider negotiate an obstructed lane (filter between parked cars)? My response simply clarifies the legality of the manoeuvre under the conditions specified in the act. Not the sensibility of the manoeuvre itself, or its possible interpretation by the police. As with most things, it's a judgment call by both parties.

Note the differences below, one would qualify as an example where the manoeuvre could be made safely and legally, the other not:

[OpenGambit]

The OP was asking about the scenario on the left. That would be likely illegal according to jurisprudence. The scenario would be clearly legal, but not what the OP is talking about at all.

and it wasn't the turn that was considered to be a 172, it was the process of squeezing by the cars stopped at a light on the right.

There is a decision on this, I just can't pull it up right now.

your response doesn't clarify anything, thats the problem, its especially problematic when the section being charged is NOT the section you quoted. People are not exclusively charged under the section you quoted, therefore your HTA section quote is an inadequate and misleading picture of the state of the law re: the Op's question. It is also incorrect.

[Kri$han]

WOW lots of over-analysis here.

If you pass one car on the right (he's going stright or left, and you're turning right); you'll be fine. Everyone does this, ALL the time. A cop couldn't ticket you because it's so common.

If you pass two cars, you're probably risking a ticket.

If you pass more than two, I bet it'll be a lane filtering ticket.

This isn't rocket science, guys...

[Acadian1974]

The OP was asking about the scenario on the left. That would be likely illegal according to jurisprudence. The scenario would be clearly legal, but not what the OP is talking about at all.

and it wasn't the turn that was considered to be a 172, it was the process of squeezing by the cars stopped at a light on the right.

wow, exactly opposite to the conditions set out in the act...

your response doesn't clarify anything, thats the problem, its especially problematic when the section being charged is NOT the section you quoted. People are not exclusively charged under the section you quoted, therefore your HTA section quote is an inadequate and misleading picture of the state of the law re: the Op's question. It is also incorrect.

That's right, they're not... so how does an unrelated charge like 172, or the state of the law obviate the legality of making a right turn as described in the act? Please elucidate this for me, since you obviously have advanced training and experience in administering and interpreting the HTA... I'm on the edge of my seat here...

[Katapult]

why is your post count higher than mine? I call shenanigans!

I was thinking the same thing!
Didn't you put your motorcycle through a car-wash?

[iegod]

Stunting tickets have been given ( went to court, and convicted ) for this exact move.

I can't honestly believe they were convicted for stunting for simply turning right when there wasn't a clear demarcation for multiple lanes. If stunting was issued, there was something else at play. Do you have a reference for this? Surely there's a public court record.

[OpenGambit]

wow, exactly opposite to the conditions set out in the act...



That's right, they're not... so how does an unrelated charge like 172, or the state of the law obviate the legality of making a right turn as described in the act? Please elucidate this for me, since you obviously have advanced training and experience in administering and interpreting the HTA... I'm on the edge of my seat here...

but exactly the question asked by the OP, which is the situation being discussed. If you are trying to say a completely different situation than what the OP described is legal, then thats irrelevant.

The point really is that jurisprudence has effectively determined that passing a vehicle in the same lane on the right is NOT "unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles " by convicting someone for doing so.

I didn't say you quoted the HTA wrong, but I AM saying is that your quote is of little help to the OP and misleading because people may come to the assumption that because their motorcycle fits, its legal. That could not be further from the truth.

Secondly. He wasn't asking about a right turn, he was asking about the pass before the right. The right turn afterwards is not important.

your last comment is effectively pointless, unless you want to actually get into a resume battle, in which case I would say yes, I have more training and experience in both administration and interpretation of laws, not just the HTA, than you.

[OpenGambit]

I can't honestly believe they were convicted for stunting for simply turning right when there wasn't a clear demarcation for multiple lanes. If stunting was issued, there was something else at play. Do you have a reference for this? Surely there's a public court record.

A search of the lane splitting threads on the HTA forum should fish it out, otherwise Rob or Turbo might link it. I have it saved on a different computer.

you are right, the facts wasn't just the filtering. but he got convicted on the filtering under 172. Interestingly enough, a collection of other behaviours was NOT considered 172 in that case, while the filtering was.

Its not a good case, but its still a conviction.

[urameatball]

I was thinking the same thing!
Didn't you put your motorcycle through a car-wash?

It was an accident, I swear ... ... ... ... ...

[awyala]

I eat my words ;P

You don't have to eat your words....it says "lines", not lanes. If 2 vehicles can sufficiently line up next to each other then it is legal. There is no mention of requiring 2 LANES.

[awyala]

Stunting tickets have been given ( went to court, and convicted ) for this exact move.

While my personal view is that a ticket is unlikely, people should not know hold an illusion that you couldn't get a ticket for it ( stunting no less).

No not that exact move. Don't try and misrepresent that one case where the guy squeezed by a row of cars turning left and he screwed himself by buckling under the cross and admitting to having to weave his mirrors past other cars and not having been able to determine what some cars in the line had been signalling, either to turn right or turn left.

I believe the defendant was named Bunda or something.

Essentially the guy admitted to not having safe sufficient room and not knowing what the other cars he was passing were intent on doing. You are deliberately scare mongering and misrepresenting to suggest passing to make a right turn with ample room will result in stunting or even has resulted in that charge.

[awyala]

WOW lots of over-analysis here.

If you pass one car on the right (he's going stright or left, and you're turning right); you'll be fine. Everyone does this, ALL the time. A cop couldn't ticket you because it's so common.

If you pass two cars, you're probably risking a ticket.



If you pass more than two, I bet it'll be a lane filtering ticket.

This isn't rocket science, guys...

No such thing as a lane filtering ticket. They often opt to charge you with 154, which now has precedent that the police must prove you left your marked lane without safety. Leaving or sharing in and of itself is not enough to convict on 154.

[Lickety-Split]

OP - I do this almost every day along King St in the west end. If there is 1-3 cars stopped and there is tons of room (which there is) I will pass them on the right while they are stopped and make a right onto Jameson. Been dong it for 3-4 years and I know I`ve done it past cops before and they never even stopped talking on their cell phones long enough to notice. Maybe I`m just lucky but I think they really don`t care. No idea of the legality of my maneuver though.

[OpenGambit]

No not that exact move. Don't try and misrepresent that one case where the guy squeezed by a row of cars turning left and he screwed himself by buckling under the cross and admitting to having to weave his mirrors past other cars and not having been able to determine what some cars in the line had been signalling, either to turn right or turn left.

I believe the defendant was named Bunda or something.

Essentially the guy admitted to not having safe sufficient room and not knowing what the other cars he was passing were intent on doing. You are deliberately scare mongering and misrepresenting to suggest passing to make a right turn with ample room will result in stunting or even has resulted in that charge.

I don't need to misrepresent anything. I don't care what you do, or what tickets you get. However, any suggestion that "squeezing by on the right" as stated by the OP is legal is patently false.


The fact of the matter is, if you are in a position where you are arguing about the nuances of the decision at roadside, you are already ****ed.

No one can predict whether one would actually get charged or convicted, but all that needs to be known is that people have gotten sucessfully prosecuted under 172 for it, and in the case of 172, you lost by the time you got to court anyway.

I am not going to bother arguing about what I think is the limits of the decision, I have my own views on the matter but I won't be broadcasting my legal opinion for the simple fact that it won't be helpful. If you are in a situation roadside with a cop who knows the decision and decided he is gonna enforce it one day, arguing about the details of the decision isn't gonna matter, your bike is still on a flatbed. And telling him what a lawyer posted on a internet forum is really just gonna piss him off.

At least when i filter, I know i can get in **** for it, others can make that decison for themselves knowing all the information.