“O.p.p Criuser Impounded Under 172”

Is she "Habitual Heidi" or is she only human making mistakes?

"The OPP intelligence officer, driving an unmarked OPP car, was stopped by a fellow officer on Highway 403 near Brantford Ontario for travelling 65 km/h above the posted of 100 km/h limit, acccording to the OPP. The subsequent investigation found the officer was not within the lawful execution of her duties at the time. In accordance with so-called street racing rules under the Highway Traffic Act - defined as driving 50 km/h over the limit - Detective Constable Heidi Fischer had her driver's license suspended and the police car was impounded, both for seven days."

This would simply have been another news eye-catcher except for one important fact - I had just recently reconstructed a collision involving a Constable Heidi Fischer where it was determined that her unmarked OPP police cruiser was travelling 168 km/h as she crested a hill and collided with a left-turning Caravan operated by an elderly female driver. Her speed was derived from the vehicle's event data recorder ("black box") whose data was not downloaded by police investigators until forced to by the defense. Despite the elderly woman's injuries the investigating officer, who happened to be Constable Fischer's supervising sergeant, claimed he received erred information and this was the reason why he did not transfer the investigation over to Ontario's Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

Still further, statements taken from officers involved were not taken until months after the event yet those statements contained remarkably, and exactly, the same erred information as the error contained in a witness statement which seemed to support the officer's story. Meanwhile, a second witness, who was within point-blank contact with officers at the site and who saw the complete incident, and who had the best view of the events, was not interviewed nor was he identified in any police documents. The only reason why he was eventually identified was that he lived at the site and approached me with curiousity as I conducted my examinations.

My eventual analysis would have demonstrated that, at such a high approach speed, the short viewing distance over the hillcrest, the fact that the elderly driver had to search for the unmarked cruiser from behind her in her mirrors (including a darkly tinted rear window) would have made it extremely unlikely that a normal, law-abiding, elderly citizen could be expected to react to the situation any better. Despite informing the OPP reconstructionist and the prosecutor of these facts the prosecutor pursued a charge of "fail to yield the right of way" against the female driver. In a remarkable set of circumstances, even her own defense paralegal would not put questions to me on the witness stand that would allow my evidence to be heard and the Justice of the Peace also refused to listen to my objection citing the fact that I was "speaking out of turn" when I stated that not allowing this evidence to be heard was improper.

Despite all scientific reason, the elderly driver was convicted on the fail-to-yield charge. While my advice to her was that she should appeal and file a complaint with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS), she was so traumatized by what she termed the "corruption" of the police that she did not want to have any further part of it. My own filing of complaints to the Ontario Attorney General's office was met with resistence in that I was not the primary party involved in the matter and therefore the Attorney General's office did not have to reply to my complaint. Similarly, a complaint to the OCCPS was met with similar bureaucry as they stated the collision date of October 22, 2005 was well beyond the limitation of 6 months to which they will respond to complaints. This despite that the trial events were concluded only a couple of months prior to the filing of my complaint.

In all, it shows how improperly the justice system can function. Contable Heidi Fischer made an honest and understandable mistake to travel at extreme speed to an emergency without taking proper care that she not create a further emergency by causing an accident . The accident that occurred was narrowly short of being fatal as Constable Fischer was able to brake and steer sufficiently to direct the impact away from the the elderly driver's door. But a fraction of a second would have resulted in a fatality. Despite this, her supervising sergeant failed to conduct a proper investigation, and either failed to understand the dangerous actions of Fischer, or simply knew the facts but determined he was going to change them. By failing to report the incident to the SIU and by conducting the investigation on his own, despite the conflict of interest as he was responsible for the actions of the officers under his shift, he created the perception that the OPP attempt to hide their misbehaviors and look after themselves. The elderly driver involved was a respectable person who will undoubtably spend the remainder of her few years talking to others in her community and to her family and the result will be a damaging of the police reputation in the local area. I have spent a number of years interacting with good police officers who have conducted themselves fairly and properly and they do not deserve the fallen reputation as a result of the OPP's failure to review and respond properly.

Apparently there are honest OPP officers in the vicinity as evidenced by the charge laid against Constable Fischer in the noted newspaper article. And this is not to place blame solely on Constable Fischer. By not addressing her problem driving the OPP are creating dangerous situations where constables are unaware of the danagers they are creating. Citizens cannot move out of the way of any vehicle travelling 168 km/h over a hillcrest from behind them. Add the difficulties that an elderly driver has in making such perceptions and the apparent lack of analysis and understanding by the OPP this is a disaster just waiting to re-occur.

I really would like to get inside their heads and figure out what they're thinking

Is she "Habitual Heidi" or is she only human making mistakes?

Must have been a BOGO sale somewhere

hwybear wrote:

Squishy wrote: Or were there trucks in the right lane and the officer passed them on the shoulder? In the latter case, it would be "passing off roadway" (s. 150 (2)) but I'm pretty sure an officer can do so if on a call, lights or not.

For anyone, Sect 150 does not apply either on a "paved" shoulder! Fail to drive in a marked lane does...FYI

Really? But the roadway does not include the shoulder...

Bookm wrote:I know Drivers Ed still teaches kids not to pass on the right, but it's actually quite legal and necessary due to left-lane slugs. I think passing on the right is illegal on the German Autobahn though (could be wrong).

It's illegal in several states as well, but I'm not sure about other provinces.

I was surprised and disappointed to find it specifically stated as legal in the OHTA.

Radar Identified wrote:I really wonder why the left lane hogs make the effort to cross so many lanes of traffic, particularly in Toronto, to get into that lane. I really would like to get inside their heads and figure out what they're thinking, because there is absolutely no logical reason to be there unless you're overtaking other vehicles, or traffic is stop-and-go.

Especially on a divided highway, some of them view it as the safest lane. They only have to worry about traffic to the right of them, and they don't have to dodge merging traffic.

If a car is stopped and waiting to turn left (or appears to be preparing to turn left), you CAN go around him on the right if you can stay on the paved portion of the road, whether there are lines painted there or not. Drive on gravel and your busted.

The HTA instructs drivers to stay tight to the left portion of his lane (obvious intent is so cars can go around on right) but so few people do this. They make their cars so wide that lengthy lines of cars form behind them. I'd love to see the guy turning left get a ticket for improper lane position rather than the guy who dropped a tire off the asphalt as he went around.

Which is why I'm confused that passing on the shoulder wouldn't be a charge under s. 150. Subsection 150(3) gives a few exemptions including driving on a paved shoulder, but the vehicle being passed has to be turning left (which is impossible from the right lane on a divided highway).

I await Bear's reply with bated breath...I always enjoy his posts.

Sheesh, now I had to start looking this stuff up

Definition of "roadway" means the part of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but DOES NOT include the shoulder

150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,

(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;

(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction

EXCEMPTIONS: ambulance, fire department vehicle, police department, Ministry emergency vehicle; a tow truck where the driver is responding to a police request for assistance, or a road service vehicle

151 .. coles notes...prohibited from passing on paved shoulder unless designated with markings and signs.

again same exceptions as listed above.

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

Squishy...seems we were both 1/2 correct we both used the wrong section, put us together for the complete answer.

400 series pass on shoulder is offence under 151.

Other highways need sufficient width of pavement for 2 lanes of traffic in each direction (not just one direction)

Bookm...where does it state a driver has to be in the left hand side of the lane when making a turn?

I completely missed 151. But now that you brought my attention to it, check out subsection 7:

"A paved shoulder on any part of a highway that is designated under this section shall be deemed not to be part of the roadway within the meaning of the definition of "roadway" in subsection 1 (1) or part of the pavement for the purposes of clause 150 (1) (b). 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 24."

*victory dance*

EDIT: Okay, I see that 150(1)(b) only requires sufficient width for two or more lines of traffic, which a 400-series highway still meets without counting the shoulder. But doesn't 150(2) trump 150(1)(b) in that you still can't drive off the roadway?

I think Bookm is referring to s. 141(6), "Where a driver or operator of a vehicle intends to turn to the left into an intersecting highway, he or she shall, where the highway on which he or she is driving has marked lanes for traffic, approach the intersection within the left-hand lane provided for the use of traffic moving in the direction in which his or her vehicle is proceeding or, where it has no such marked lanes, by keeping immediately to the right of the centre line of the highway and he or she shall make the left turn by entering the intersection to the right of the centre line or its extension and by leaving the intersection in the left-hand lane provided for the use of traffic moving in the direction in which his or her vehicle is proceeding where the lane is marked or, where no such lane is marked, by passing immediately to the right of the centre line of the intersecting highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 141 (6)."

That refers to an intersecting highway, so I don't know if that could be applied to someone turning into a driveway.

Squishy wrote:

EDIT: Okay, I see that 150(1)(b) only requires sufficient width for two or more lines of traffic, which a 400-series highway still meets without counting the shoulder. But doesn't 150(2) trump 150(1)(b) in that you still can't drive off the roadway?

Way I read it 150(1)(b) also has to have met 150(1)(a) as well.

The 141(6), seems to apply that you must be in the left hand lane to turn and that your turn must be in the left most lane of the road you are turning onto?

Squishy wrote:Especially on a divided highway, some of them view it as the safest lane. They only have to worry about traffic to the right of them, and they don't have to dodge merging traffic.

Yep, only thinking about themselves. However... on any road, including divided highways, your greatest risk of being involved in a collision is travelling in the left-most lane. Your risk of being killed while driving in the passing lane is more than 70% higher than in the right lane. I'm sure they don't know that. You are more likely to be cut off, tailgated, encounter faster-moving traffic, etc., in the left lane. On undivided roads, you are much closer to oncoming traffic and have far less time to detect and react if someone crosses the centre line. The other thing is that being passed on the right is much less safe, as if you get passed on the right, it is harder to "keep an eye" on that driver, even if you use the mirrors/blind spot check properly.

hwybear wrote:Way I read it 150(1)(b) also has to have met 150(1)(a) as well.

...

The way I read it, the 'or' at the end of (b) means that any of the conditions in either (a), (b), or (c) are valid for passing on the right, along with the condition in (1) that the movement can be made in safety (where the 'and' article applies).

hwybear wrote:...

The 141(6), seems to apply that you must be in the left hand lane to turn and that your turn must be in the left most lane of the road you are turning onto?

141(6) covers a lot of stuff; it could use some breaking up for readability.

- Where there is a left hand lane, the turn must be made from that lane (subsection 7 gives an exception)

- Where no lanes are marked, the vehicle must hug the centre dividing line (what Bookm was referring to)

- Make the turn by crossing the centre line of the intersecting road

- Leave the intersection (what I read to mean 'enter the new road') using the left lane of that road

- Where no lanes are marked on the new road, leave the intersection hugging the centre dividing line of the new road

I've read 141(6) several times over before posting and I'm 99% sure that's what that huge sentence means. My English teacher would have kicked my butt for run-on sentence if I had written 141(6).

Radar Identified wrote:...

However... on any road, including divided highways, your greatest risk of being involved in a collision is travelling in the left-most lane. Your risk of being killed while driving in the passing lane is more than 70% higher than in the right lane. I'm sure they don't know that.

...

People with that me-me-me mentality likely don't even realise that other people on the road might hit them (what other people?) or they consider it "not their problem" that someone has to avoid hitting them. By the way, is that 70% figure from a study? Not doubting you, it just sounds like an interesting study to read.

Your risk of being killed while driving in the passing lane is more than 70% higher than in the right lane

Seeing as we have covered the passing lane and right lane, the "hammer" lane should be wide open for me:D, and according to the stats noone get killed in the hammer lane.

Thanks Squishy. I was afraid someone might ask me to find that (dang BEAR!), and I had no idea where I read it, LOL.

You ever notice that some people have no problem completely blocking the isle with their cart at the local supermarket, while they wander around looking for that special brand of bathroom spray they like so much? Well I'm the type who always pulls the cart to the side if I'm not moving. I'm conscious and considerate of those around me

Just about my entire style of driving revolves around consideration for other motorists, particularly those behind me. If I have to stop in my lane, I always tuck tight to the edge to allow those behind me to keep moving. Just because I'm stuck there for minutes at a time, why should the rest of the world come to a screeching halt?

I hate those cart blockers. I hug the right side of the aisle even when not stopping, so I can stop whenever I want without pulling the cart to the side. I have considered before that supermarket cart etiquette could very well be a reflection of a person's driving etiquette. The number of morons in a supermarket seem to match the number of morons on the road. (Excluding Wal-Mart, for some reason )

I also hate those who come right at me on the left side (theirs) of the aisle. Turn to the right for oncoming carts! Section 148!!

The 70% stat came from a YD instructor... that was a while ago. I looked and I could not find any study to support it, but it would seem to make sense. In the mean time... the "left" lane next to the HOV lanes has been shown to be extremely dangerous:

Squishy wrote: I have considered before that supermarket cart etiquette could very well be a reflection of a person's driving etiquette.

X2 big time! That almost became an issue on CWD. While being interviewed I said, "It's likely the women who can't maneuver a cart around a store can't drive a car worth a *EDIT* either." They then tried to get me to say I think women are bad drivers! LOL. I wasn't gonna' bite though, hehe. Could you imagine saying something like that on national TV?? I'd be trampled to death by mobs of angry women! LOL