Avery Burdett wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I was out on Saturday with a group of eight (4x2) (not OBC). Between > > Highways 16 and 416 on Bankfield Road going west the group was > > stopped by an OPP officer. > > I'm not sure on jurisdiction, but isn't that in the City of Ottawa? >
The officers who accompany RLCT advise that jurisdiction is not an issue. They carry different ticket books for different ?court districts?, and they have to appear personally if a charge goes to court - so issuing a ticket a long way from home might be less likely.... > > 2. I understand 148 (2) and (6) are intended for those situations where a > vehicle has passed another vehicle but, for whatever reason, isn't able to > pull back to the right e.g. a heavy truck passes on a two lane highway but > loses momentum uphill as it is about to pull back to the right. The driver > being passed is required to facilitate the completion of the manoeuvre by > pulling over to the right. Obviously if the cyclist is as far right as > he/she can be while riding abreast of another cyclist, then they have met > the requirement of sub-section (6), but regardless I don't think this > circumstance applies in Peter's case anyway. > > Clearly the law does not intend that every time a vehicle is passed its > driver has to "turn out to the right", otherwise there are a lot of drivers > owed tickets on the Queensway and other multi-lane roads. It seems the > policeman however believes that to be the case when the driver is a cyclist. > I think that the wording is more a record of historical circumstances rather than a well-thought out effort to convey a particular meaning. Typically the HTA has been added to over the years as circumstances have changed, but rarely have any clauses been withdrawn. "Turning out to the right" is, I think, descriptive of the action required many years ago when roads were narrow and a considerable degree of co-operation was required for a passing, or indeed a meeting, manoeuvre. It's unfortunate that this antiquated wording is still in place. I think Graydon posted a while ago that this clause is typically be used when a rear-end collision had occurred, and typically of course against the passing driver. Whilst on the topic of the HTA - If there is no other traffic, and there is good visibility, and you are not turning, nowhere does the HTA require that you drive on the right side of the road. Check it out.... Vehicles only have to keep to the right when the circumstances in 148 apply, and in circumstances of limited visibility (149). "Slow" vehicles are further restricted by 147 - but again there have to be other vehicles present. So we can't throw 148 out without replacing it with a "drive on the right" rule. -- Peter James Ottawa, Ontario ------------------------------------------------- For list help, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (613) 230-1064 Web/mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb/Newsletter ------------------------------------------------- ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiDo.a2i8p1 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
