I haven't checked but I was told they changed the handbook to remove the "Stand on the pegs" bit.
Standing Up On Pegs
- Thread starter theSHARK
- Start date
I haven't checked but I was told they changed the handbook to remove the "Stand on the pegs" bit.
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
If the vehicle is not in motion....js.
That's what I figured, but I thought it may be similar to the person that picks up their phone at a stoplight.
Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk
I've been practicing bunny hopping over railway tracks and I got it down awesome now. Think that's a HTA 172??
"Mrs. officer, if you knew the amount of swass i generate on a daily commute...as a matter of fact, just touch and see for yourself, see, if you were my wife, you wouldnt want to touch me if i came back home like this"
Ya, cops never do frivolous charges, never target motorcyclists, never pile on charges, never abuse 172
Sigh. The problem with this statement is that it is horribly one-sided by only what's been fed through the media and the 1-sided, self-preserving story (and/or forum post) of the person that got charged.
If you can muster the common sense to avoid pro-longed; seemingly needless (to the cop) standing on the pegs (especially while around cops) I'd say that's smart. Stand on the pegs and let go of the handle-bars.... now we're into a completely different ball-game. Stand up to do a quick stretch and sit back down sounds smart. Stand up on the pegs while doing 140kph on the 401 doesn't sound smart - or terribly comfortable. I'm sure that'll draw attention. etc.. etc..
....then she replies " yeah, I know what you mean....after a day of riding, I'm the same way."
?
Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk
conundrum
Well-known member
I stand on my pegs from time to time...either to go over bumps/railway tracks, or to stretch after I've been riding for a few hours. Granted, I wouldn't do it with a cop behind me or coming the other way, just in case, but if I was ever ticketed, I'm pretty sure that would be an easy one to fight in court. I also believe that most cops aren't actually ***holes, meaning unless you do something to piss them off, they aren't going to pull you over...especially if you sit back down 10 seconds later after passing the railway tracks....or fit back down after 5-10 seconds of stretching. Context is everything.
*** on the seat is pretty much the same as telling drivers to keep both hands on the wheel...then nailing one if they scratch their nose, or like my car, they take one hand off the wheel to shift.
*** on the seat is pretty much the same as telling drivers to keep both hands on the wheel...then nailing one if they scratch their nose, or like my car, they take one hand off the wheel to shift.
mikem
Well-known member
Nice to hear I'm not the only one who experiences that. I never have that problem when I ride off road or trials.
Agreed except that you could have lost a weeks wages if you drive for a living and then you still have to pay the tow and impound fees. You can't sue the police unless you can prove malice. Don't you love HTA 172.
I don't know who I hate more. The people that wrote that law or the A holes that created the friction that created it.
You need to look at all the subsections of s172 including this one:
6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat.
Roadghost
Well-known member
I can't find that subsection in the e-laws, it doesn't exist under 172. Where are you getting it from?
kwtoxman
Well-known member
You can be smart, and you can still get screwed. That's the point I think people should know. It's misleading imo to quote me and allude that it is only an isolated incident. It seems you're happily naive if you think that there has only been one case of 172 abuse. For example, it has been shown in court that some cops have literally been in competition to lay the most 172 charges.
Sure, the risk may be low for standing on the pegs, AS I said earlier, but there is a risk for 172 charges (as said many times by others as well) and being lit up for it has happened before more than once. So I think it is prudent to make sure the community knows this so they can make reasonable decisions on their own behaviours.
Great legal advice here from someone who doesn't even know the basics of consolidated law in ON.
Last edited:
Ah yeah it IS part of section 172...
Ok I will post the ENTIRE section, (found here http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/070455 ), for your reading enjoyment:
Highway Traffic Act
ONTARIO REGULATION 455/07
RACES, CONTESTS AND STUNTS
Consolidation Period: From July 26, 2011 to the e-Laws currency date.
Last amendment: O. Reg. 360/11.
This is the English version of a bilingual regulation.
1. Revoked: O. Reg. 406/08, s. 1.
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).
Definition, “stunt”
3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “stunt” includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.
4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.
5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat.
7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.
8. 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 in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,
ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or
iv. making a left turn where,
(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;
(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and
(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3.
Exceptions
4. (1) Despite section 2, “race” and “contest” do not include,
(a) a rally, navigational rally or similar event that is conducted,
(i) under the supervision of the Canadian Association of Rally Sport,
(ii) under the supervision of a club or association approved in writing by the Ministry, or
(iii) with the written approval of the road authority or road authorities having jurisdiction over the highway or highways used;
(b) motor vehicle owners engaged in a tour, scenic drive, treasure hunt or other similar motoring event in which the participants drive responsibly and in a manner that indicates an overall intention to comply with the provisions of the Act; or
(c) an event held on a closed course with the written approval of the road authority having jurisdiction over the highway, including any event lawfully using any of the trademarks “CART”, “Formula One”, “Indy”, “IndyCar”, “IRL” or “NASCAR”. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 4 (1).
(2) Despite sections 2 and 3, “race”, “contest” and “stunt” do not include any activity required for the lawful operation of motor vehicles described in subsections 62 (15.1) or 128 (13) of the Act, or the lawful operation of an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1) of the Act. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 4 (2).
5. Omitted (provides for coming into force of provisions of this Regulation). O. Reg. 455/07, s. 5.
conundrum
Well-known member
Still, I contend most officers wouldn't hassle you unless you get the wrong cop on the wrong day, or have a record. When I go over tracks, I'm lifting myself maybe 2-3 inches at most. When I'm stretching, I'm standing on the pegs for maybe 5-10 seconds at best, and to me it is pretty clear what I'm doing.
Hedo, if memory serves you either are an officer or were one. Would you pull over someone for stretching for 5-10 seconds, or just while going over tracks? Again not saying no one would ever charge you for doing this...I'm just saying most would not. Also, like I mentioned before...if you do see a cop coming the other way, or sitting behind you, just stretch at another time. To me, the real reason these are written in isn't for someone quickly stretching or going over tracks...it's for the idiots who want to stunt on public roadways.
Also, if we really want to get down to the letter of the law...then any group ride is very likely 172 chargeable, by the very 2 first lines. When riding as a group, isn't at least 1 other bike attempting to keep up/maintain distance from a fellow rider? Also if the two bikes are even going 1km/h over the limit, then that still is "2 or more vehicles beyond the lawful rate of speed". 172 in theory could also be used if you pass 2 cars in succession on the 401 that were doing 100km/h, due to " repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic"...and my Sena comms unit is illegal because it is mounted to a helmet (also against the law to 'mount anything on a helmet'). Point is, the laws are kept rather vague in places, and do need to be taken with at least a single grain of salt.
EDIT: My real point is...for a lot of things, you either need to be doing something else to attract attention, or have a record so police are looking for a reason to pull you over. Although there is always the 1 in 1 million...I doubt many officers are going to put down their radar gun, run to their cruiser, and chase because they saw a rider stand up for 5 seconds, while doing no more (or doing less) than the speed of the vehicles around them. Just like how many wouldn't pull over a bike just for having a fender eliminator...but if they catch you doing 20 over or you manage to really piss them off, be aware they might ticket you for that as well.
Hedo, if memory serves you either are an officer or were one. Would you pull over someone for stretching for 5-10 seconds, or just while going over tracks? Again not saying no one would ever charge you for doing this...I'm just saying most would not. Also, like I mentioned before...if you do see a cop coming the other way, or sitting behind you, just stretch at another time. To me, the real reason these are written in isn't for someone quickly stretching or going over tracks...it's for the idiots who want to stunt on public roadways.
Also, if we really want to get down to the letter of the law...then any group ride is very likely 172 chargeable, by the very 2 first lines. When riding as a group, isn't at least 1 other bike attempting to keep up/maintain distance from a fellow rider? Also if the two bikes are even going 1km/h over the limit, then that still is "2 or more vehicles beyond the lawful rate of speed". 172 in theory could also be used if you pass 2 cars in succession on the 401 that were doing 100km/h, due to " repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic"...and my Sena comms unit is illegal because it is mounted to a helmet (also against the law to 'mount anything on a helmet'). Point is, the laws are kept rather vague in places, and do need to be taken with at least a single grain of salt.
EDIT: My real point is...for a lot of things, you either need to be doing something else to attract attention, or have a record so police are looking for a reason to pull you over. Although there is always the 1 in 1 million...I doubt many officers are going to put down their radar gun, run to their cruiser, and chase because they saw a rider stand up for 5 seconds, while doing no more (or doing less) than the speed of the vehicles around them. Just like how many wouldn't pull over a bike just for having a fender eliminator...but if they catch you doing 20 over or you manage to really piss them off, be aware they might ticket you for that as well.
Last edited:
