Interesting interpretation of new speeding laws?
 

My brother posted this on his FB... tis an interesting take. Any comment from the resident constabulary on this (off the record, of course, just because you're more familiar with how the wheels of justice turn)?

These new laws will see all sorts of abuse. Better just do what the government wants and drive like a granny in the right lane.

I know one thing - when I am in the left lane with a short right lane merging into the left lane after an intersection, I'll sometimes speed up a bit (within the speed limit) to allow more room for the car in the right lane to merge in behind me.

I won't be doing this to make room for other drivers anymore for fear of being convicted of "street racing".

Of course you could also return the favor by filing a complaint that he was trying to outdistance you ;)

Technically anyone passing another vehicle is now a "street racer". The new safety sheriffs will love this.

I think the interpretation uses a rather liberal definition of "preventing"... near as I can tell, he's counting on this:
His reasoning was that, "Under the MVA it is unlawful to pass on the right. This includes (confirmed by traffic lawyer) a pass in the right lane." Thus by blocking the left lane, this person is "preventing" him from passing.

Personally, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Would this not effectively permit the driver to pass using the right lane?

See, I KNEW this exact thing had been discussed here recently (passing in a right lane), and just couldn't find it. Thanks.

When dealing with laws, the context is as important as the actual words...for example..

""race" means circumstances in which, taking into account the condition of the highway, traffic, visibility and weather, the driver or operator of a motor vehicle is driving or operating the motor vehicle without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may cause harm to an individual by doing any of the following:
(a) outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles;
(b) preventing or attempting to prevent one or more other motor vehicles from passing;
(c) driving at excessive speed in order to arrive at or attempt to arrive at a given destination ahead of one or more other motor vehicles; "

The act of not passing has to be taken into the context of all the highlighted areas of this section. Simple lane driving would not qualify unless you were doing what it says in addition.

Ya, like I say, I think he's going by the bits I highlighted in post #4... which I suppose COULD apply as such, except for the interpretation of "preventing or attempting to prevent". If the person ahead of you was repeatedly changing lanes in front of you and intentionally blocking you, this could be valid, but simply cruising along in the left lane? Don't think so.

Funny how he also incorrectly writes "to to all you tits out there that cannot keep left except to pass. You better learn to do it fast, or pray that I do not get behind you or I will ruin your year!!!!!"

I don't get why he's trying to be all hardcore and taking the law completely out of context. Stating a fact/law, albeit incorrect, is fine I guess and does't make you look like a douche, but threatening to "ruin" someone's year by utilizing said fact/law...lmao.

Nobody is preventing you from passing if they just cruise in the left lane. You can always pass in the right lane.
Perhaps he should read the MVA more closely since passing on the right is legal at all times as long as there's a lane there.

He can certainly report another driver for racing, but there is a long stretch between him making a report and this being the outcome. There would have to be a willingness to attend court as a credible witness, sufficient evidence to be articulated, a police investigation and maybe then we'll see how it works out.

How old is your brother Soundy? Sounds like he is young and doesn't have much experience with police officers.

Another similar example would be spinning your tires. According to the letter of the law this could be interpreted as stunt driving, which falls under street racing. So on any given wet/snowy day, if any car chirps its wheels while leaving a stop, you could report them for stunting.

While this may be the letter of the law, it is not the spirit of the law and no officer is interested in enforcing this. They understand a little wheel spin can happen, and most good drivers will back off once sensing wheel spin to regain traction. Only those who continue spinning the wheels down the street will get fined.

Do we have an active peace officer on RS? I noticed a few say "retired"

The new excessive speeding law does deserve some attention if it is handled at all like it was in Ontario. When first introduced in Ontario there was a summer blitz and very little discretion applied. If you were 50 over, your vehicle was impounded for 2 weeks and your license suspended. This tactic worked, the media picked up the many excessive speeding stories and practically everyone knew about the new law and slowed down.

There doesn't seem to be as much media coverage here about this new law, so I think it is going to take people by surprise. Moreso if the police decide to do a blitz enforcing the law right away. Plus the media articles that have been run state the officers will be given no discretion, if you're 40 over you're getting impounded.

Can any active peace officer confirm if there will be increased enforcement and that the no discretion policy is true?

Here's a response to an article on drivers.com:

There is no "spirit" of the law. The letter of the law is all that counts. Unfortunately, the officer calling the shots isn't always seeing things from the same vantage point as the driver.

Better to stay behind a crazy driver, than to get in front of them.. if you want to stay out of harms way.. ;) Easier to call the police on them too.. so you can observe them and get a plate, etc..

I'm sure there's more to that story.. considering the BC law hasn't come into play yet!

2 wrongs don't make a right.

If a driver is all over the road, back off and report them. Excessive speed to pass an already dangerous driver only makes the situation more dangerous. Instead of having the vehicle impounded, the father could have been side-swiped while doing 50 over the limit and be going home in a body bag rather than a cab.

The officer made the correct call, the father did not exercise good judgment.

See, we don't know the context. We don't know what happened, we don't know if the "swerving" vehicle was weaving in and out, or was swerving for something. It is entirely possible that the officer who issued the suspension didn't see why the other vehicle was swerving either.

Who said the father was going 50 over the limit?

1. What province was this in?
2. Why was the vehicle impounded? (Street racing, excessive speed, ...)
3. Why would the son say "my father usually drives 10 over"?

I assume this was Ontario, and the reference to the father's usual speed was because he was caught excessive speeding.

Unless the answers to my questions are posted with the article, it is just another sob story without any credibility and we're free to make assumptions.

Ontario and it was an inpoundment for stunting, not racing which makes me believe the act was a quick reaction to avoid a dangerous situation.

Stunting, racing, excessive speeding, ... are all part of the same law in Ontario. It is funny to read media reports of speed traps catching "street racers" or "stunt drivers" in Ontario, when really they are only catching excessive speeders.

Since the son references the father passing the swerving car, and makes a point to say the father usually doesn't speed, I assume it was speeding and this is just another sob story.

Regardless of what you or I assume, this story has too many holes to be used as a valid example of why the law doesn't work. There are much better stories, like people being caught at 80->50 zones cause they were doing 100+ in the 80, then were 50 over in the 50. This kinda strict enforcement sucks, if you're at least slowing down then they should have some discretion and just give you a speeding ticket. They impounded a firetruck, ambulance, and police car using this law - so officers certainly weren't using discretion.

Maybe it's not a good idea to drive 10 over...

psh. yeah no kidding. I was suspended for it.

What percentage of collisions where speed was the only contributing factor (no "driver inattentive", "alcohol", "following too close", etc...) were caused by drivers driving 10km/hr over the limit in good weather conditions?

I assume your argument is that would want better driver education. Here's a question: would you pay $2000 to get your license and take 12 courses?

Politicians play the cards they have. Few are suddenly going to support revamping the entire driver education system to be inline with the best in the world, charging everyone $2000 to be retested and taking time out of their lives to complete 12 courses. Instead it is much easier to give the already bad drivers a little bit more time to react and brake with stricter speed enforcement.

Here's an awesome site that was against photo radar: http://sense.bc.ca/research.htm

This is a site that is pro-speeding, yet even its data does not support excessive speeding. This graph is fantastic at showing 2 things:
1. Most people don't speed 40 kmph, despite opinions to the contrary on this site.
2. The risk of accidents starts going way up at 40 kmph over.

http://sense.bc.ca/img/isku_85th_1.gif

When I got my licence the total cost of education and tests was ~$1200. If the cost of training and testing was $2,000 in BC, we'd be on par with many European countries. Driving is a privilege after all.

I am well aware of the Sense website and I have read many of the documents and reports available there. I don't think they are pro-speeding, but rather pro-reasonable speed.

I'm not pro-excessive speeding, but I don't think we need this law either.

And as for the price of driver education - ICBC is spending $20,000,000 to install new red-light cameras. By contrast, many places in the US have been removing them because a simple change to the timing of the yellow light is rendering the cameras unprofitable to run.

Twenty million dollars would provide a lot of driver education that would improve driver ability and safety far beyond how to deal with red lights.