Sorry, can you elaborate? I think I've missed a change
|
|
|
Private members bill to ban passing across double line
- Thread starter GreyGhost
- Start date
Speed limits are now down to 30 km/h in some places. The revision of 172 a few years ago said 40+ over was racing on any road with a speed limit of less than 80 km/h. Therefore, you could get a 172 for speeding at 70 km/h in a 30. Depending on how politically motivated that 30 was (coming soon to the hamilton countryside, cough), you may be travelling at an entirely reasonable and safe speed and legally stunting.
Right! I was aware of both of those things individually but did not mentally concatenate them. Thanks
So is there a recent issue with unsafe passing? ... that couldn't be dealt with using the current laws on the books? Unsafe pass, careless, fail to yield, dangerous or crim neg doesn't work?
WHY is our government wasting time and money on this crap? So some back bencher can their name in the paper... while they waste OUR money?
WHY is our government wasting time and money on this crap? So some back bencher can their name in the paper... while they waste OUR money?
This particular wanker is worried about northern hwy 11. Full of steering wheel holder truckers watching videos while driving. As with almost every other law a politician tries to add, there are existing laws that are more than capable of dealing with this if they were enforced. Because it is a private members bill (and a minority party member at that), we won't waste too much government money on it as it will just die.
IMO this is nothing more than 'see see we're doing something but the others won't let me....they're not worried about your childrens' safety'.
The laws are there, and no amount of making it illegal will actually stop it.
We've all been there (bikes and cars) where some idiot drives under the speed limit because they're not confident / sure about the road. So we pass them.
Although now I guess I can't get angry about someone passing me on Mississauga Rd / Lakeshore Rd as that's a single yellow...so it's legal.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
This would be hell in Northern Ontario. I drive 144 frequently, there are miles of solid line and lots of rvs, timber and mine trucks that must be passed.
Fortunately I’ve never seen a cop on that road, so it’s 130-140kmh on a bike all the time.
How about a bicycle?
If it has no motor, it is not a motor vehicle and you can't get a 172 charge. 172 specifically refers to motor vehicles.
Some are written for motor vehicles, some are for vehicles.
A cop friend once said "we are swamped with domestics, no time for back road enforcement".
I made sure my kids understood.
white = legal markings
Yellow = cautionary (suggested) if it is safe to do it, do it. Drive within your limits
Orange = construction, please for the love of everything good don't kill someone trying to do their job. Be aware or workers on the roadway.
white = legal markings
Yellow = cautionary (suggested) if it is safe to do it, do it. Drive within your limits
Orange = construction, please for the love of everything good don't kill someone trying to do their job. Be aware or workers on the roadway.
I agree about not hurting people doing their jobs.
Colour of lines parallel to travel direction is information (same direction white, division to oncoming yellow) but they are all just suggestions unless there is a sign in which case the sign is the determiner of law (see HOV sign below which makes the solid line law instead of suggestion). For something to be illegal wrt to traffic, it needs to be in HTA. If you can cite a section of HTA that shows white lines have legal force, I'll believe you. I can't find one. Drivers handbook says solid means "should not pass" and doesn't reference colour. For a stop line perpendicular to direction of travel, it says you "must stop".
Pavement markings | Traffic signs and lights
The online version of the Ontario truck handbook. Use this book to study for your A and D licence, test your knowledge and prepare for your A and D road tests.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|