OHTA.ca

Petition to change HTA 136 (1)(A)Failure to Stop at Stop Sign

Hello, it does not seem right that not coming to a complete stop, that your wheels do not stop turning or rolling stop carries the same penalty as not stopping at all at a stop sign . I think it's time this laws challenged and quashed. I wondered how to go both that? Can we start a website that we can sign a petition to have this law changed. We all need to get together on this, there are people there with the skill to build a website, and lawyers I'm sure that would gladly assist. Let's make this happen

Well if people are interested, we can simply create a Petitions forum on this site, and then you can simply add whatever hta releated petition you want there.

edfun wrote:Petition to change HTA 136 (1)(A)Failure to Stop at Stop Sign

Hello, it does not seem right that not coming to a complete stop, that your wheels do not stop turning or rolling stop carries the same penalty as not stopping at all at a stop sign .

it is the identical thing...wheels keep on moving (whether 1km/hr or 30km/hr) = the vehicle did not come to a complete stop

If you don't think you deserve the full fine you can try and plead guilty with an explanation and see if the Justice of the Peace agrees.

I personally disagree. If they felt it was safe for you to simply slow down they would have put up a yield sign. Stop means stop and you either did or you didn't.

[it is the identical thing...wheels keep on moving (whether 1km/hr or 30km/hr) = the vehicle did not come to a complete stop]

The problem here is the wheels can stop turning for half a second and you're not breaking the law, but that does not mean the body of the vehicle stops moving. The body of vehicle is mounted on springs and shocks that even the wind can move around. The officer has to be able to see the tire has stopped turning. So what are they looking at, the body of the vehicle, the bumpers ,the top of the tires, speed of the vehicle. My complaint with this offense is that it is not defined enough, I find in monitoring stopping vehicles myself that full concentration and visibility is required, and that this law is broken by the police themselves. I suggest other people interested in this petition monitor a stop sign near their local police station and see for themselves. As for my case I did stop.

Unless you happen to be skidding with the tires locked (not likely unless it's sheer ice or you hammered the brakes), if the tire stops turning, the vehicle's forward motion will cease. As for the wind continuing to move the vehicle, you'd need the force of wind from a hurricane, microburst or tornado to do that.

I agree rolling stops are pretty common. I'd rather see the offence differentiated into failure to stop, vs. failure to stop where another vehicle, pedestrian, cyclist, etc., was affected by the movement - although you could argue that is already taken care of by the charge of careless driving.

Instead of petetioning to have the wording of the offence changed or create a new HTA offence, you should petition your municipality to replace unnecessary stop signs with yields. It seems to be somewhat of an epidemic in North America to put 4-way stops at almost all intersections regardless of traffic volumes and rates of collisions. IMHO, a stop sign should only be used when a priority and non-priority road intersects. The heavily travelled road need not have stops when it is crossed by a minor road. This is the trend in Europe. (Why is it that we seem so backwards & non-progressive?!?)

Slightly off topic, but this is also done with traffic lights that are installed at an intersection that only needs to be controlled in the morning and afternoon during rush hours. No, instead we sit idle for 2 minutes waiting for a green (day or night) when not a vehicle is in sight..... save for that LEO burning the midnight oil just waiting for you to burn that red