Highway traffic act amendments

[Blue]

Re: Highway traffic act amendments

Moving over or slowing down is common sense and I've always done one or the other. But is just slowing down good enough under this law, or must you mover over?

My understanding is that if you have a free lane you have to move over. If you don't, you have to slow down. How much slower is at the discretion of the officer I guess.

[guitarman]

Re: Highway traffic act amendments

My understanding is that if you have a free lane you have to move over. If you don't, you have to slow down. How much slower is at the discretion of the officer I guess.

Seems odd that they would design a law that is left to the officers to interperet however they want.

[Blue]

Re: Highway traffic act amendments

Seems odd that they would design a law that is left to the officers to interperet however they want.

A lot of Ontario Highway Traffic Act offences are left to the "discretion of the officer" Think about window tint, plate covers, exhaust noise, etc.

[Haps]

Re: Highway traffic act amendments

Uh, I guess this type of news doesn't get very far down 69. I knew last summer they were giving out warnings about this (not moving over and/or slowing down for emergency vehicles).

Plus there were the television commercials:

The carfull of young kids, music up, having a good time. Suddenly they've got berries in the rearview. They pull over, the cop walks up to the driver side window, and as the kid rolls it down you hear screeching tires and see the cop get wiped out by a car.


No? Maybe it's just me and the poor selection of channels on northern Ontario cable television.

Yeah maybe a northern ontario thing. Because I am really really surprised so many of you have never heard of this. It's been all over the papers, tv, and radio(tons of radio commercials) when it first came out(awhile ago).

Basic rule of thumb is change lanes. If you can't change lanes slow down to half the posted speed limit.

[setter02]

Re: Highway traffic act amendments

Seems odd that they would design a law that is left to the officers to interperet however they want.

Almost every law that they have is how they want to interperet, they just put "suspicion of" in front of it.

[dlnljl]

Re: Highway traffic act amendments

Almost every law that they have is how they want to interperet, they just put "suspicion of" in front of it.

I know you are just be sarcastic but it is not how the police interpret the law its how the courts interpret the law that the police follow.

There has been plenty of coverage about this law in the news over the years, and it was also announced through several news conferences by the Attorney General.

[laps]

Re: Highway traffic act amendments

I see the logic of this law. "Emergency" vehicles and their occupants need to be able to perform their jobs safely. However, should police cars that are giving out speeding tickets and working at speed traps be considered "emergency" vehicles?

As far as interpreting the law and use their discretion, the police always do it. I would be interested to see if there is any gender or racial discrimination when it comes to issuing speeding tickets. Are certain groups more or less likely to receive tickets when they are pulled over or asked differently, are some people more likely to get warnings. The impact of this discretion is felt directly by the individual through a fine and for the members of their group through higher insurance rates.