http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/20/emergency-vehicle.html
Earlier this year, a new law, passed by the provincial government, was implemented which requires drivers to move over to the passing lane if they are passing an emergency vehicle with flashing lights. The consequences of non-compliance to this law is a $490 fine and three demerit points. A repeat offence results in a fine up to $1,000 and possible jail time.
It is important to know that the exact clause states the following:
“…when approaching an emergency vehicle with its emergency lights activated, [a driver] must slow down, and must move away. In addition, on a multilane highway they must also move a complete lane away from the emergency vehicle if it's safe to do so.”
This law, being implemented in Ontario, will very well contribute to the safety of police officers. Pulling over a vehicle on the 401, and having cars passing close to the shoulder at high speeds, does put police officers lives at stake. There have been many instances where officers have been injured because of ignorant drivers who fail to provide ample room between their vehicle and the officer on the shoulder. So, in this sense, this law is beneficial to police officers. However, I personally believe that the clause is very ambiguous in its wording. What constitutes as “safe to do so?” What if one person differs in their perception of when a safe lane change can be done, versus another individual? Many people have different driving styles and some people may think it’s safe to change lanes when there is three meters of space, and someone else may think it is safe to change lanes when there is five meters of space. The result of this law will be a lot of tickets being fought in court. It is very hard to prove in court whether or not you felt it was safe to do so.
What do you guys think can be done to fix the ambiguity of the clause?
SS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think whats going to happen is that this will go to court and the courts will have to clear up the ambiguity.
It should say "change lanes when there is adequate space for your vehicle to fit without causing harm to your vehicle and its persons, or to nearby vehicles and their persons, and please, use your indicator".
You know there will always be issues fought in court regardless of what the clause is, people always find excuses to absolve themselves of responsibility. That's just the way our society is...
I think the important thing is that they made a law which shows that they are moving in the right direction. It will take some time before its meaning is fully understood but many laws start out like this.
I agree with Sunny's comment.."change lanes when there is adequate space for your vehicle to fit without causing harm to your vehicle and its persons, or to nearby vehicles and their persons, and please, use your indicator". Some people get nervous when it comes to changing lanes and can't time it properly. It may be safe for officers, but what about everyone else on the road. I think this will end up causing more accidents.
The clause is ambiguous because life is ambiguous. :) When "it's safe to do so" will be dependent on so many factors - the condition of the road, weather, traffic flow, etc. - making it impossible to specify what is safe in every possible scenario.
Post a Comment