Were you aware of this law?

[stealth]

I have to admit, I wasnt, or at least didnt think the penalties/enforcement were so severe....although it makes sense when you think about it.
Excuse the format, it was in an email I received.

FYI
>>
>> there is a new traffic law about 'parked cars with emergency lights
flushing'
>> you should know about.
>> Read on
>>
>>
>> Ontario drivers - attention
>>
>> I just had an experience which I hope you will not share.
>>
>> I was driving on the 417 West at Panmure at broad daylight at 2
p.m., when I came upon two police cruisers who had pulled over a third
vehicle. I slowed down to be cautious, and was surprised when the second
cruiser pulled out and pulled me over.
>>
>> Approaching on the passenger side, the officer asked if I knew why I
had been pulled over. I honestly expressed that I had no idea.
>>
>> He informed me that Ontario law now states that when approaching any
emergency vehicle, on the roadside, with lights flashing, you must
enter the left lane. He then proceeded to ticket me, taking three demerits
and issuing a fine of , wait for it, . . . $490! (Yes, I'm choking as
I type that.)
>>
>> I realize I did not change lanes, but I do believe I was cautious.
My message is, be careful. He said that they are cracking down hard on
this because of three injured officers in the last ten days.
>>
>> I did not realize this was the law. Neither did any of my
recently-licensed children. Or, evidently, not the 47 drivers (I counted) who
broke the same law as I sat waiting to receive my ticket!
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> For my part, I saw this happen today (Feb 24th) on Highway 69 South
of Sudbury, on the passing lane on the Magnetewan flats.
>> A cruiser was parked on the shoulder of the southbound lane with his
lights flashing. He had no vehicle stopped, he was just parked there.
>> I was northbound and reduced my speed, the extra lane was on the
southbound side so, there were two lanes between me and the cruiser.
>> A southbound motorist passed the cruiser without moving to the outer
lane and the Officer immediately pulled out and gave chase to that
driver.
>> I saw him stopping him in my mirror before going over the next hill.
The car did not appear to be speeding, in fact he seemed to slow, but
failed to change lanes and was (presumably) stopped for that reason!
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>> Read the actual Law below:
>>
>> Below is the the excerpt from the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.
relating to this offence. It is under section 159.1 (1), (2), (3),(4),(5).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Approaching stopped emergency vehicle:
>>
>> 159.1 (1) Upon approaching an emergency vehicle with its lamp
producing intermittent flashes of red light or red and blue light that is
stopped on a highway, the driver of a vehicle travelling on the same
side of the highway shall slow down and proceed with caution, having due
regard for traffic on and the conditions of the highway and the
weather, to ensure that the driver does not collide with the emergency
vehicle or endanger any person outside of the emergency vehicle. 2002, c. 21,
s. 1; 2007, c. 13, s. 20.
>>
>> Same
>> (2) Upon approaching an emergency vehicle with its lamp producing
intermittent flashes of red light that is stopped on a highway with
two or more lanes of traffic on the same side of the highway as the side
on which the emergency vehicle is stopped, the driver of a vehicle
travelling in the same lane that the emergency vehicle is stopped in or in
a lane that is adjacent to the emergency vehicle, in addition to
slowing down and proceeding with caution as required by subsection (1), shall
move into another lane if the movement can be made in safety. 2002, c.
21, s. 1.
>>
>> Same
>> (3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) prevents a driver from
stopping his or her vehicle and not passing the stopped emergency vehicle if
stopping can be done in safety and is not otherwise prohibited by law.
2002, c. 21, s. 1.
>>
>> Offence
>> (4) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty
of an offence and on conviction is liable,
>> (a) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $400 and not
more than $2,000; and
>> (b) for each subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than $1,000
and not more than $4,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than
six months, or to both. 2002, c. 21, s. 1.
>>
>> Time limit for subsequent offence
>> (5) An offence referred to in subsection (4) committed more than
five years after a previous conviction for an offence referred to in
subsection (4) is not a subsequent offence for the purpose of clause (4)
(b). 2002, c. 21, s. 1

So be careful everybody.

[GoiNGPoSTaL]

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=555566

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=560396

[GunnerX]

Should also be aware of:

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/search.php

[corrupt123]

I was aware of it, but only because it's been posted on here half a dozen times. Fortunately, before I knew I had never been pulled over. I know there are a few places where thats the law (I heard from shows like "Craziest Police Videos!) in the states, so I do it because I knew that anyway.

I'm beginning to think it's a cash-grab though. The fine for running a red light is lower then the fine for driving past a police cruiser on the side of the road.... Weird.

[DSTU]

I have no sympathy for idots that are not aware of this law.

The Province has had radio ads, highway billboards advertising this law.

Plus it common sense!!!!

[DSTU]

I'm beginning to think it's a cash-grab though. The fine for running a red light is lower then the fine for driving past a police cruiser on the side of the road.... Weird.

The lives of emergency workers are on the line - I think they should increase the fine to $1000.

[MP3_SKY]

490$ is crazy....

I got a speeding ticket for driving 25km over...and it was 2 pts and 125$.

490$ just for that is insane. :twisted:

[corrupt123]

The lives of emergency workers are on the line - I think they should increase the fine to $1000.

The lives of hundreds of people are on the line if I decide to drive 99km/h down yonge street, but the fine is still less (in terms of cash) then this.

[gei]

I had no idea this was the law, but I'm quite sure I always do it anyway.

Common sense FTW

[Ebola]

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/2241/facepalm2ic7copyrl2.jpg

[BartBandy]

Common sense FTW

Always give a lane when someone is likely to open a car door in the next lane. Especially on the highway. It's not possible on some city streets, but it's just common sense on the highway, and unfathomable not to do so for most of us.

[Shaner]

Always give a lane when someone is likely to open a car door in the next lane. Especially on the highway. It's not possible on some city streets, but it's just common sense on the highway, and unfathomable not to do so for most of us.

Exactly. I've been doing this since I was 17 and got my G2, long before this law came into effect.

I just can't fathom that there are people out there who don't see this as being common sense. If someone is stopped on the side of the road (whether it be a cop or not) and you are able to move into the left lane, then there's no reason for you not to. Slowing down is good, but hitting someone at 80 km/hr is the same as hitting them at 120, they're dead either way. Move over to the left lane, it's not a hard concept to grasp!

It's unfortunate that it had to become law because people are too dumb to figure it out for themselves. I wonder if Europeans are as dumb as North Americans seem to be.

[budric]

Exactly. I've been doing this since I was 17 and got my G2, long before this law came into effect.

I just can't fathom that there are people out there who don't see this as being common sense. If someone is stopped on the side of the road (whether it be a cop or not) and you are able to move into the left lane, then there's no reason for you not to. Slowing down is good, but hitting someone at 80 km/hr is the same as hitting them at 120, they're dead either way. Move over to the left lane, it's not a hard concept to grasp!

It's unfortunate that it had to become law because people are too dumb to figure it out for themselves. I wonder if Europeans are as dumb as North Americans seem to be.

You say it as if it is normal/common practice to drive straight into the person that pulled over. Why is it not common sense to use caution when opening your door when there's traffic going 80+ around you?

[Shaner]

You say it as if it is normal/common practice to drive straight into the person that pulled over. Why is it not common sense to use caution when opening your door when there's traffic going 80+ around you?

There's been studies that prove that motorists are subconsciously drawn towards emergency vehicles that have their flashing lights on.

I'm sure you've seen hundreds of clips on TV where a sober motorist drives straight into the back of a stopped cruiser. It has nothing to do with the cop not using caution, it has to do with motorists driving straight into the cruiser. If they were in the left lane, it would be much less likely to occur, if at all.

[skanji]

i'm confused by this.

if an emergency vehicle has it's light on, we have to pull over and get out of its way. i always pull over to the right.

what's wrong with that?

[pkguy]

I wonder why they didn't post a speed limit for passing cautiously. IIRC in Alberta it was 30 kph if there wasn't a 2nd lane to move over to.

[Siefer999]

i'm confused by this.

if an emergency vehicle has it's light on, we have to pull over and get out of its way. i always pull over to the right.

what's wrong with that?

you pull right to get out of the way of a moving vehicle. when someone gets pulled over, they get pulled over to the right side of the road so you have to go left in order to avoid them. they dont pull over into the middle of the road

[MP3_SKY]

i'm confused by this.

if an emergency vehicle has it's light on, we have to pull over and get out of its way. i always pull over to the right.

what's wrong with that?

I believe that when you see an ambulance or a police cars stopped or pulled over someone on the right side of the road, you have to switch to middle or left lane and stay out of the right lane.

[IoannI]

Apparently you can get a ticket if you don't reverse park your vehicle. Even if your backing out of your own private driveway.

[Ebola]

It's pretty simple.

You see an emergency vehicle with lights activated on the shoulder.

You slow down and move over.

If you don't, you get tagged.

the end.

[Shaner]

Apparently you can get a ticket if you don't reverse park your vehicle. Even if your backing out of your own private driveway.

No you can't. Whoever told you that is wrong.

[15-20_God]

No you can't. Whoever told you that is wrong.

go easy on him. Its misinformation like that that makes him believe the ministry conspired to fail him 5 times on his drivers test.

[professionaldude]

Apparently you can get a ticket if you don't reverse park your vehicle. Even if your backing out of your own private driveway.

what? where did u get this message.

[budric]

My point was that it's not common sense to immediately switch to another lane. If you stop on the highway, then don't run into traffic, THAT's common sense. It is also not common sense to expect a 500$ fine for it. Especially when running a red (potentially plowing into a van full of kids with much worse consequences) carries a lighter fine. How does that make sense?

I don't know of any actual studies done on this. I've seen clips..."world's scariest police chases", but those aren't studies.

[Ebola]

My point was that it's not common sense to immediately switch to another lane.

That's not what the law says. First and foremost you have to slow down. Then when you are able to you move over a lane. It's not expected that you just swerve wildly out of the way as soon as you see the lightbars.


If you stop on the highway, then don't run into traffic, THAT's common sense. It is also not common sense to expect a 500$ fine for it.

The penalty has nothing to do with your concept of common sense. The penalty is a result of you not obeying a law designed to protect emergency workers.

This applies to all emergency vehicles, not just police.


Especially when running a red (potentially plowing into a van full of kids with much worse consequences) carries a lighter fine. How does that make sense?

It does carry a higher fine. Why? Because it is a newer law.

If you run a red and kill someone, you are getting charged, not just a traffic ticket.

If you don't move over to the left and kill a police officer on a traffic stop, you are getting charged.



I don't know of any actual studies done on this. I've seen clips..."world's scariest police chases", but those aren't studies.


How about 3 O.P.P officers and 2 civilians struck at once by a transport, that plowed into and destroyed three staggered cruisers and then the vehicle that had been pulled over, resulting in a police fatality, and serious injuries for the other 4?

There are plenty of these incidents in Canada , US, Australia, Europe.

It's a perfectly logical law.

[jeeva86]

I wasn't aware of this law until someone on here posted about getting ticketted for it. Thanks!:cheesygri

[Nikita]

Holy deja vu batman! I didn't think it was possible that anybody here didn't know about this, it's only been done to death already! I can't imagine there's anything left to say.

[ES_Revenge]

Isn't this the third or fourth thread on this in a month?

[Jin-n-Juice]

Its the 3rd or 4th thread this month cuz theres an email going around about this...

[gerbil]

well .. if it comes to Laws and regulations, I don't mind seeing it but any other thread thats some what not important .. well, that's another story ...

[alanbrenton]

----------
Upon approaching an emergency vehicle with its lamp producing
intermittent flashes of red light that is stopped on a highway with
two or more lanes of traffic on the same side of the highway as the side
on which the emergency vehicle is stopped, the driver of a vehicle
travelling in the same lane that the emergency vehicle is stopped in or in
a lane that is adjacent to the emergency vehicle, in addition to
slowing down and proceeding with caution as required by subsection (1), shall
move into another lane if the movement can be made in safety. 2002, c.
----------
So why was the lady ticketed again? How is the police officer able to prove that it was safe for her to change lanes?

By requiring motorist to change lanes, I guess the best thing to do would be not to slow down as this will most likely result in a disaster when trying to move to the left lane as per traffic law regulations.

BTW, what is the rule when firetrucks, ambulances, police cars have their sirens on, do we pull over to the right and stop? I noticed most people continue to drive and not even make an attempt to move to the rightmost lane.

[Nikita]

----------
Upon approaching an emergency vehicle with its lamp producing
intermittent flashes of red light that is stopped on a highway with
two or more lanes of traffic on the same side of the highway as the side
on which the emergency vehicle is stopped, the driver of a vehicle
travelling in the same lane that the emergency vehicle is stopped in or in
a lane that is adjacent to the emergency vehicle, in addition to
slowing down and proceeding with caution as required by subsection (1), shall
move into another lane if the movement can be made in safety. 2002, c.
----------
So why was the lady ticketed again? How is the police officer able to prove that it was safe for her to change lanes?

By requiring motorist to change lanes, I guess the best thing to do would be not to slow down as this will most likely result in a disaster when trying to move to the left lane as per traffic law regulations.

BTW, what is the rule when firetrucks, ambulances, police cars have their sirens on, do we pull over to the right and stop? I noticed most people continue to drive and not even make an attempt to move to the rightmost lane.

The cop doesn't have to prove it was safe for her to change lanes, that is a defense, she'll have to prove in court that it was not safe for her to change lanes. All the cop has to do is prove she didn't change lanes while approaching an emergency vehicle stopped on or at the side of the road.

[Ebola]

----------

So why was the lady ticketed again? How is the police officer able to prove that it was safe for her to change lanes?

By requiring motorist to change lanes, I guess the best thing to do would be not to slow down as this will most likely result in a disaster when trying to move to the left lane as per traffic law regulations.

BTW, what is the rule when firetrucks, ambulances, police cars have their sirens on, do we pull over to the right and stop? I noticed most people continue to drive and not even make an attempt to move to the rightmost lane.

- No, the best thing to do is slow down and move over to a safe lane away from the emergency vehicle like the law tells you to do.

You'll still get a nice little coupon from the police officer if you don't slow down , but move over.

As for your second question, it is law in Ontario that anyone who sees or hears an emergency vehicle approaching has to get out of the way and stop.

So in most cases this involves pulling over to the right and stopping. On one way streets you could always pull to the left and stop. What has to happen is a lane has to be cleared for the emergency vehicle.

[Jon Lai]

The lives of hundreds of people are on the line if I decide to drive 99km/h down yonge street, but the fine is still less (in terms of cash) then this.

Because doing 99 on Yonge street does not provide immediate danger. In this case, passing right next to the car WILL provide immediate danger.

[Jon Lai]

----------
Upon approaching an emergency vehicle with its lamp producing
intermittent flashes of red light that is stopped on a highway with
two or more lanes of traffic on the same side of the highway as the side
on which the emergency vehicle is stopped, the driver of a vehicle
travelling in the same lane that the emergency vehicle is stopped in or in
a lane that is adjacent to the emergency vehicle, in addition to
slowing down and proceeding with caution as required by subsection (1), shall
move into another lane if the movement can be made in safety. 2002, c.
----------
So why was the lady ticketed again? How is the police officer able to prove that it was safe for her to change lanes?

By requiring motorist to change lanes, I guess the best thing to do would be not to slow down as this will most likely result in a disaster when trying to move to the left lane as per traffic law regulations.

BTW, what is the rule when firetrucks, ambulances, police cars have their sirens on, do we pull over to the right and stop? I noticed most people continue to drive and not even make an attempt to move to the rightmost lane.

According to my understanding, even if it is unsafe to change lanes, you should signal to indicate that you know the law and want to change lanes but cannot due to traffic conditions. Of course, you should also slow down. If you do signal, in your defense you can indicate that you did attempt to switch lanes. If you don't signal, the cop doesn't know you're trying to switch lanes and will assume you don't know the law, therefore giving you a ticket.

[Ebola]

According to my understanding, even if it is unsafe to change lanes, you should signal to indicate that you know the law and want to change lanes but cannot due to traffic conditions. Of course, you should also slow down. If you do signal, in your defense you can indicate that you did attempt to switch lanes. If you don't signal, the cop doesn't know you're trying to switch lanes and will assume you don't know the law, therefore giving you a ticket.


Pretty much.

If you just put on your signal and continue on at your same rate of speed in the same lane right past the emergency vehicle (most cases a police car), that's an offence under this legislation. Even if it isn't safe to move lanes. You still didn't slow down at all.

First and foremost the law means this :

1)Slow the hell down. Oh my gosh, you went 50km/h for 500 m instead of 140km/h. Life is over.

2) Get away from the emergency vehicles. I know I know.. those pretty LED's .. draw you in like a moth right? You just have to rubberneck. Focus on the road.

Since most of us want to be as far away from negative police interactions as possible this should be a natural reaction to a police car. You do this as soon as safely possible .

There isn't really anything not to understand here. You see an emergency vehicle on the road stopped with lights activated.

You slow down. You put on your signal. You move over when you can.

If you can't move over because there are two semi trucks cruising next to you, you keep that signal on and creep on by that emergency vehicle nice and slow.

[alanbrenton]

According to my understanding, even if it is unsafe to change lanes, you should signal to indicate that you know the law and want to change lanes but cannot due to traffic conditions. Of course, you should also slow down. If you do signal, in your defense you can indicate that you did attempt to switch lanes. If you don't signal, the cop doesn't know you're trying to switch lanes and will assume you don't know the law, therefore giving you a ticket.

If it's common knowledge that faster vehicles on highways/freeways travel on the left lanes, what I don't understand is the need to slow down. Wouldn't you be placing yourself at more risk by slowing down and then trying to attempt to shift to the left lanes? Unless the cars on the left lanes slow down, it doesn't make sense to me to slow down, as a major rear-ender would be in the making.

[IoannI]

No you can't. Whoever told you that is wrong.

I'm not trying to start any ***** or anything. But who told you that you can't?

[Jon Lai]

If it's common knowledge that faster vehicles on highways/freeways travel on the left lanes, what I don't understand is the need to slow down. Wouldn't you be placing yourself at more risk by slowing down and then trying to attempt to shift to the left lanes? Unless the cars on the left lanes slow down, it doesn't make sense to me to slow down, as a major rear-ender would be in the making.

I think you've got it backwards. If you can get the hell away from the emergency vehicle a good distance away from it and change lanes, no slowing down is needed. If you see that it's impossible to change lanes, THEN you slow down and put your signal lights on. The slowing down is only for if you need to pass by the emergency vehicle, and not when you are passing lanes.

[DamonS]

How much time do you people need to change lanes? Holy heck, there is a lot of talk on here about 'not enough time', but last time I checked you can see the lights flashing for more than a few hundred feet from the incident.

I drive a pickup all summer with a big 8 foot wide x 30 foot trailer, its second nature to just pull over to the next lane and give space. I've never in more than 100,000 kms got 'stuck' in the right lane.

Its common sense.. no, common courtesy to just move over, why would you even consider that passing a stopped car at 100+ kph is acceptable?

[Ebola]

If it's common knowledge that faster vehicles on highways/freeways travel on the left lanes, what I don't understand is the need to slow down. Wouldn't you be placing yourself at more risk by slowing down and then trying to attempt to shift to the left lanes? Unless the cars on the left lanes slow down, it doesn't make sense to me to slow down, as a major rear-ender would be in the making.

???

What you are suggesting is basically that you are the only one who notices the emergency vehicle. Noone should be rear-ending anyone, because they are all slowing down.

[Ten Count]

"safety of emergency workers" LOL Watching the same 15 "Amazing Videos" compiled over 25 years get replayed on TV a million times you'd think this happens every week. Probably more like a once or twice per decade freak occurence in southern Ontario.

Next thing you know we'll have to take detours around highrise buildings to clear the way for emergency vehicles whenever an airplane is in the viscinity.

[Ebola]

"safety of emergency workers" LOL Watching the same 15 "Amazing Videos" compiled over 25 years get replayed on TV a million times you'd think this happens every week. Probably more like a once or twice per decade freak occurence in southern Ontario.

Next thing you know we'll have to take detours around highrise buildings to clear the way for emergency vehicles whenever an airplane is in the viscinity.

Contact your local OPP Highway Safety Division detachment.

It happens way more than one or twice per decade. Vehicles get clipped, buzzed, wrecked into regularily. Thankfully fatalities are [i]somewhat]/i] rare.

Try once or twice every month.

[Phreeze]

It would probably be more helpful if there was a law that prevents police from pulling people over on highways, or roads >60km/h for that matter.
Instead, make it the law for a driver to proceed to the next exit/side street.

As a side effect, this would help to eliminate a lot of speed traps on roads where they are not required!

Don't get me wrong, the law still makes sense for emergency vehicles helping out people on the side of the road due to accidents, breakdowns, etc. .... I just think that the police shouldn't be purposely pulling people over on highways as it is a recipe for disaster.

[magnodrome]

Essentially what you need to do is to make an effort to get out of the way on approaching emergency vechicle.

Therefore, if the emergency vechicle is parked on the right shoulder/lane, so signal and make an attempt to go to the left lane. If he/she parks on the left shoulder or lane, make an attempt to go to the right lane.

The key is to make an attempt to not cross their paths.

[gerbil]

Update: I passed a vehicle who got pulled over by a cop in front of Humber Hospital on Hwy 400 and Finch. They were in front of the Hospital going Westbound just before you hit the ramp going Northbound 400.

The funny part of this is that the cop was so close to the middle lane that every body basically used a rule of thumb to avoid the cop vehicle and the cop.

there was @ least 10+ vehicles whom did this including myself .. now I knew this law by reading this forums but I was somewhat lost on what to do cuz of the number of vehicles passing them that they're calling a slow down on the traffic.

This happened 3 days ago.

[jason9945]

go easy on him. Its misinformation like that that makes him believe the ministry conspired to fail him 5 times on his drivers test.

You are still my RFD Hero.

[jason9945]

The funny thing about the first case in the email is that 417 in Ottawa has a big sign that says pull over for emergency vehicles - its the law.

[Ebola]

The funny thing about the first case in the email is that 417 in Ottawa has a big sign that says pull over for emergency vehicles - its the law.

True. But that's not the applicable law for these cases.

That's talking about pulling over and stopping for moving emergency vehicles to get through.

[B0000rt]

It would probably be more helpful if there was a law that prevents police from pulling people over on highways, or roads >60km/h for that matter.
Instead, make it the law for a driver to proceed to the next exit/side street.

As a side effect, this would help to eliminate a lot of speed traps on roads where they are not required!

Don't get me wrong, the law still makes sense for emergency vehicles helping out people on the side of the road due to accidents, breakdowns, etc. .... I just think that the police shouldn't be purposely pulling people over on highways as it is a recipe for disaster.
So you mean to say on the 401 if a cop catches someone in the Express lane that they have to get into the Collectors, then pull off onto a side road? What about sections of the 401 when there's only 2 lanes per direction and exits can be 5-10kms apart? What then?

[Arkaine]

Never knew this was a law.

Thankfully I use common sense anyways and usually always move over.

[B0000rt]

Never knew this was a law.

Thankfully I use common sense anyways and usually always move over.
Yes, it is common sense.

I mean if you were on the side of the road, changing a spare tire, would you want someone else wizzing past you only 3-4ft away at 100km/h +?

[jason9945]

True. But that's not the applicable law for these cases.

That's talking about pulling over and stopping for moving emergency vehicles to get through.

Is it?
Its been a while since I've seen it.

And only in Ottawa do they need a reminder for people to let emergency vehicles through....

[DaVibe]

To be cautionary and slow down, that's one thing, but if a cop has pulled someone over and their lights are flashing, to move right over to the left lane and leave the complete right lane empty?

No, I wouldn't say that's "Common Sense" especially if they're already in the right-most shoulder lane ... I'd say you'd have to have prior knowledge to that, otherwise no one will do that, especially on the 401.

[Ebola]

To be cautionary and slow down, that's one thing, but if a cop has pulled someone over and their lights are flashing, to move right over to the left lane and leave the complete right lane empty?

No, I wouldn't say that's "Common Sense" especially if they're already in the right-most shoulder lane ... I'd say you'd have to have prior knowledge to that, otherwise no one will do that, especially on the 401.

Yes it is common sense. How can you say slowing down and exercising caution is common sense, while moving away from possible problems is not?

IF you are changing your left front on the right shoulder, you are not going to want people two feet from your car going 120km/h.

Especially since people always ****ing rubberneck, and since you generally steer the car where you are looking, accidents and collisions happen all the damn time.

[Nikita]

Funny how so many people are posting that this is just common sense, yet at the same time are pissed at the (not very) new law. What am I missing here? :confused:

[ES_Revenge]

Funny how so many people are posting that this is just common sense, yet at the same time are pissed at the (not very) new law. What am I missing here? :confused:

Maybe that common sense ain't so common maybe? :P

Or did you mean the same people that are saying it's common sense are mad about it? I didn't really get that from the posts, but to be honest I stopped reading this thread a while ago, lol.

[DaVibe]

I still don't really think this makes sense ...
A vehicle is stopped to the side and everyone is going 100-140 on the 401 ...

Not only should you slow down, but vacate the entire right lane?

I understand the "proceed with caution" especially when they're outside the vehicle ... that's the job they have and the risk they take.

We don't move over to the side for tow-truck drivers or broken down vehicles, do we?

I don't really see this working out.
Edit: During rush hour, ALL the lanes are busy. That's all there is to it.

[ES_Revenge]

I still don't really think this makes sense ...
A vehicle is stopped to the side and everyone is going 100-140 on the 401 ...

Not only should you slow down, but vacate the entire right lane?

I understand the "proceed with caution" especially when they're outside the vehicle ... that's the job they have and the risk they take.

We don't move over to the side for tow-truck drivers or broken down vehicles, do we?

I don't really see this working out.
Edit: During rush hour, ALL the lanes are busy. That's all there is to it.

Oh c'mon get a clue. No you aren't legally required for to vacate the lane for a tow-truck, but again common sense dictates you should if it's reasonably practiceable. Don't just stay in that lane while you see a tow truck (or ANY vehicle pulled over at the side) just because you're too f$*@!ing lazy to change lanes :rolleyes:

Rush hour is completely different, no one is going anywhere even close to 100km/h. At rush hour, in traffic, ppl are going like 40km/h.

At the same time though, realise a couple thousand pounds or more travelling at even 40km/h will easily kill a person or at the very least seriously injure them.

Again, it's common sense--use your head. You're in a car, a person standing on the road is an entirely different story than a person in a car that's moving. The attitude/thinking that you present is the entire reason for this law. People just couldn't care less about anyone else. They are in their cars, doing whatever the heck they please, without a care in the world for anyone else out there :rolleyes: