“Correction For Posting, Is This Law 6 Years Old”

Proper1 wrote:I do strongly feel that there should be a meaningful campaign to publicize this law. Awareness and, more to the point, compliance, would spread a heck of a lot faster if there were something more than just the slow word-of-mouth dissemination that being caught, or having friend caught, has been causing to happen so far.

Someone was listening to you....from MTO website...just hope it makes it to the newspapers!

***********************************************

Move Over For Emergency Vehicles

McGuinty Government Reminds Drivers To Clear The Way For First Responders

TORONTO, June 27 /CNW/ -

NEWS

With another busy summer weekend approaching, Ontario drivers are

reminded to clear the way for emergency vehicles by slowing down and moving

over.

Every second counts when emergency vehicles, such as police cars, fire

trucks and ambulances are rushing to respond to calls for help - any delay can

be critical for emergency responders and those who urgently need them.

Ontario law requires motorists who see the flashing lights or hear the

sirens of an approaching emergency vehicle pull to the right and stop the

moment it is safe to do so.

Drivers must slow down and proceed with caution when approaching a parked

emergency vehicle with its lights flashing. If the highway has two or more

lanes, drivers must also move over into another lane, if it is safe to do so.

On page 4 of The sun today,hard copy!

hwybear wrote:

Someone was listening to you....

The chances that any government mandarin was moved by or even aware of my little peep are zero, but it's good to see some publicity is being given to this. I would have liked to see a clear reference to the heavy penalties that we drivers face if charged, but, hey, this is a start. And, agreed: let's hope a lot of news services pick it up and run it.

Hello just to let everyone know that the crown withdrawn the charge , But i do agree with this law just wish they would make more effort in let the public know about this. I have been tell everyone about this law and hope by word of mouth , people will get the message about this law . thank to everyone , most of all the H.E.L.P team in london ontario.

Congratulations on your good fortune, thehun1, but did the Crown say why they were withdrawing the charge? Your original post touched off such a good discussion here that I'm probably not the only one who would like to know the details.

It was because , there was a case before me that was for same offense and same officer was involved, some happen in this case , he was acquitted and the crown , decide to withdrawn the charges against me .

shmeli wrote:By the way the law is in fact 6 years old - whatever that means "2002, c. 21, s. 1; 2007, c. 13, s. 20.":

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.

Drivers licence suspension

(6) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (4), the court may make an order suspending the persons drivers licence for a period of not more than two years. 2002, c. 21, s. 1.

Appeal of suspension

(7) An appeal may be taken from an order under subsection (6) or a decision to not make the order in the same manner as from a conviction or an acquittal under subsection (4). 2002, c. 21, s. 1.

Stay of order on appeal

(8) Where an appeal is taken under subsection (7) from an order under subsection (6), the court being appealed to may direct that the order shall be stayed pending the final disposition of the appeal or until otherwise ordered by that court. 2002, c. 21, s. 1.

Definition

(9) In this section,

"emergency vehicle" means a vehicle described in subsection 62 (15.1), except that it does not include a school bus. 2002

Apparently an emergency vehicle operator is entitled to protection but a regular Jane or Joe driver stopped on the shoulder is not. Even a school bus filled with kids is not provided any protection under this section.

Section 159 violates s. 15 of the Charter. Section 15 does only apply to the listed class of groups.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The cops abuse this provision as a money maker. They use entrapment to nail drivers. They will park on the shoulder for no reason at all, other than to attempt to nail you for this offence. If a cop has time to chase you and pull you over to issue you a ticket then why was he stopped there in the first place?

Section 159(3) expressly states;

"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."

If a driver is already driving at less than the normal speed of traffic, s. 147 "requires" you by law to remain in the right hand lane. The lawful listed exceptions to this law do not include s. 159.

147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a driver of a,

(a) vehicle while overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

(b) vehicle while preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or

(c) road service vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (2).

Section 154(c) also "requires" you by law to obey the law. An exception is provided, s. 141. Section 159 is not an exception therefore you cannot be convicted under s 159.

Where highway divided into lanes

154. (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic,

…

(c) any lane may be designated for slowly moving traffic, traffic moving in a particular direction or classes or types of vehicles and, despite section 141, where a lane is so designated and official signs indicating the designation are erected, every driver shall obey the instructions on the official signs. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 154 (1).

Exception

(2) Where safety is not jeopardized, clauses (1) (b) and (c) do not apply to road service vehicles and clause (1) (c) does not apply to road-building machines or apparatus while engaged in the construction of a highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 154 (2).

Section 170 prohibits a driver from stopping on a roadway, thus s. 159(3) is of no force and effect because stopping is prohibited by law.

Parking on roadway

170. (1) No person shall park, stand or stop a vehicle on a roadway,

(a) when it is practicable to park, stand or stop the vehicle off the roadway; or

...

"Roadway," "highway" and "stop" are defined under s. 1(1) of the HTA.

"roadway" means the part of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but does not include the shoulder, and, where a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term "roadway" refers to any one roadway separately and not to all of the roadways collectively; ("chauss©e")

"highway" includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; ("voie publique")

"stop" or "stopping", when prohibited, means the halting of a vehicle, even momentarily, whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or of a traffic control sign or signal; ("arrªt")

Moreover, this is an absolute liability offence. It contains a term of imprisonment for a second offence. The term of imprisonment is unconstitutional as it violates s. 7 of the Charter and is of no force and effect as mandated by s. 52 of the Constitution Act 1982.

B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486

lawmen wrote:

Same15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The cops abuse this provision as a money maker. They use entrapment to nail drivers. They will park on the shoulder for no reason at all, other than to attempt to nail you for this offence. If a cop has time to chase you and pull you over to issue you a ticket then why was he stopped there in the first place?

oops forgot section 15(2)

Subsection (1) does not prevent any law, program or activity that has as its object the improvement of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability

So section 15(2) trumps # 1. It is a law that's objective is to improve working conditions of a group (being emergency vehicles)

Absolutely I park on the shoulder for a variety of reasons and it is no business of anyone else, so guess what.....eyes front, quit rubber necking and focus where you should be driving. If I have a violator stopped, my lights are on and stay on until the violator is safely back onto the live lane of traffic. If I am assisting a coworker my lights are on. If I am doing my notes I will turn off my lights and just use my hazards, thus not requiring people to move over.

I don't give a rats behind about money, tickets, whatever people might think. I have 2 concerns for every shift....1) that I go home at shift end 2) my coworkers go home at the end of the shift.

Before arm chair commenting, spend a few shifts in our boots. A majority of drivers that don't move over have a cellphone glued to their ear!!

- I average 3-4 times a year of jumping over the hood or to the front of my cruiser as someone comes so close to my cruiser and over the rumble strips.

- my hat has been sucked off my head by vehicles being so close

- tow truck driver had to pull himself up onto flatbed to prevent from being hit, when I was parked behind

- cruiser door getting sucked by wind and bending around to touch the front fender.

- every shift hearing vehicles hitting rumble strips approaching the location of the cruiser.

yes, I know the dangers of my job, but I also have the right to life and not to be deprived thereof, especially for someone's inattentiveness, gawking or lack of knowledge.

Section 15(2) of the Charter expressly states;

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Emergency vehicles are not provided protections or rights. Emergency workers are not disadvantaged individuals or groups.

I understand the dangerous you face. They show accidents on TV shows of cops being hit. In my view, it is the lights and freak people out, because rarely does a parked car without lights flashing get hit.

However, once again, the law is not written properly and conflicts with other provisions that demand drivers not stop and not move to the leftmost lane. Therefore, in my view, s. 159 is unenforcable.

I know for a fact that in my community cops were entraping drivers into this charge. Why? For the money. I'm not suggesting all cops do this, but it happens.

lawmen wrote:Section 15(2) of the Charter expressly states;

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Emergency vehicles are not provided protections or rights. Emergency workers are not disadvantaged individuals or groups.

Well, another item that is worded improperly as we both see it different ways....so scrap the charter and re write it too

I read it that subsection #1 does not preclude any

- law or

- activity

that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of

- disadvantages individuals

- groups

- groups that include race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability

Why oh why can the law writers make it easy? wait...that would make sense!

The Charter, of all of our laws, was written with the fewest amount of words possible to ensure it is clear as possible, yet the Charter is the most misunderstood law and repeatedly interpreted law out there.

The Charter provides fundamental guaranteed rights and freedoms, yet they can be sidestepped by the government incorporating the notwithstanding clause, and even if they dont, the so-called guaranteed rights and freedoms can still be abrogated by section 1.

Totally bizarre.

The court has watered down the Charter so badly in some cases its like it doesnt exist, and we might be better off if it didnt exist.

Number one . i have great respect for police offices . if i knew about this law i would have followed it to letter , i think the reason my case was with drawled was because the officer did not follow the same rules . he passed police cruiser that were on side of the road light flashing , he also has to follow the same rules as public. so if we were all convict of this charge that day than he also should be . he admitted doing this in court and was called on it by the defense . The crown would have no choice but to charge him . I could be wrong about this but why else would they drop my charge .i feel the MTO should post sign along the 400 highways so people would know about this even have a grace period and have police inform the public, Laws are for everyone including the police. Something is really wrong when i ask 200 people if they knew about this law and only 10 did and that because they were truck drivers . Why is this !! i ask everyone , when on any highway if you can move over to left if you can , it may save someone life .thanks and please spread the word about this law . the hun

I'm glad they dismissed your charge. BUT, you should've requested costs. You could've got $100. It's not much but it's better than nothing.

thehun1 wrote: Something is really wrong when i ask 200 people if they knew about this law and only 10 did and that because they were truck drivers . Why is this !! i ask everyone , when on any highway if you can move over to left if you can , it may save someone life .thanks and please spread the word about this law . the hun

Yea unfortunately that is true. I think a lot of our population is completely oblivious to this law. When I asked a few of my friends and family members about the awareness of this law, all I got was confused and shocked looks

thehun1 wrote: Something is really wrong when i ask 200 people if they knew about this law and only 10 did and that because they were truck drivers . Why is this !! i ask everyone , when on any highway if you can move over to left if you can , it may save someone life .thanks and please spread the word about this law . the hun

Ignorance doesn't free one form responsibility