Topic '[Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?' in forum 'Canadian Chat' - dslreports.com

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:54:14 EDT

Gone posted :

As was pointed out already the backhoe does not meet the definition of "motor vehicle" under the HTA and is exempt from sec. 132.

Though, to the best of my understanding, if a road building vehicle it is plated it is then considered a motor vehicle, though road building vehicles are still exempt from 132 which specifically mentions that all road building equipment - including those which are plated - are exempt.

Gotta love the HTA.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:30:39 EDT

peterboro posted :

said by J E F F:

Pretty sure it is covered under the HTA.

As was pointed out already the backhoe does not meet the definition of "motor vehicle" under the HTA and is exempt from sec. 132.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:51:32 EDT

J E F F posted :

said by PX Eliezer:

Has to be some sort of rule about not obstructing traffic to that extent.

Pretty sure it is covered under the HTA.

quote:
132. (1) No motor vehicle shall be driven on a highway at such a slow rate of speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic thereon except when the slow rate of speed is necessary for safe operation having regard to all the circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 132 (1).

It might also be covered under by-laws as well. (local laws)

I never really experienced this, since most people pull over OR the highway is relatively quiet and safe to pass, even then, they'll pull to the shoulder a little for more clearance.

That driver was being an ass.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:32:18 EDT

WhaleOilBee posted :

said by Tig:

Impeding traffic flow with a slow moving vehicle is annoying. Weaving in and out of traffic on an SMV to avoid mailboxes etc is dangerous. Correct me if I am wrong but the posted limit for most of your route is 50 or 60 kph. If so, the backhoe added ten minutes to your travel time. Crossing the river west to east, in Manotick, during evening commute will try anyone's patience, backhoe or not.
I've been in the car and I've been in the slow moving vehicle. During the workday commute, the A holes in cars out number the A holes on SMVs by a couple orders of magnitude. I don't blame the guy for not pulling over and then taking his chances trying to get back in traffic.
If I'm holding up traffic for whatever reason at any time, I do pull over. At the same time, when I'm in a car, I don't begrudge a man some patience for what ever it takes for him to make a living.

As stated, 80 kph zone with plenty of safe opportunity with no mailbox or any other obstructions to temporarily moving onto the shoulder. Through Manotick was construction, so yes, the BH was able to keep up with the crawl of traffic. Once past the edge of town, the speed limit is back to 80 kph again with plenty of safe places to pull over. Eastbound past Manotick is not as busy as Westbound headed into it; so if he did pull over, he would have no trouble getting back on to pavement after the backlog cleared.

Right before I turned off at Dosois Road there is a right turn lane into a soccer park. He could have even driven along that and at least let 4 or 5 cars pass.

No I don't begrudge a man making a living, but what about the people in that line of cars? Suppose one was a delivery vehicle on a tight schedule. No, this person was simply being an asshole who didn't give a shit about anyone. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he knew exactly what a clog he was causing, and enjoyed it because he was a miserable nasty prick. Sure there are asshole car drivers. I would feel the same about one of them who decided to drive at 30 kph in an 80 zone.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:13:16 EDT

Gone posted :

said by peterboro:

Now as to the strict interpretation of my post, no you cannot affix a triangle thing to anything that does meet the definition of a “motor vehicle” and breach section 132 of the HTA with impunity.

Gotcha. As I said, just wanted some clarification.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:48:34 EDT

peterboro posted :

said by Gone:

You said it was perfectly legal for a slow moving vehicle displaying the slow moving triangle to hold up traffic on a public highway, whereas Section 132 would indicate otherwise regardless of a slow moving sign being affixed to a vehicle in accordance with Section 76 - unless it's a road service vehicle, of course.

The definition of “motor vehicle” does not include a backhoe which is by definition a roadbuilding machine and as such section 132 of the HTA is not engaged.

Now as to the strict interpretation of my post, no you cannot affix a triangle thing to anything that does meet the definition of a “motor vehicle” and breach section 132 of the HTA with impunity.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:57:13 EDT

Gone posted :

said by agtle :

I've always wondered if Section 7 applies. I never see number plates on these vehicles.

Section 7 would apply, but the regulations associated with Sec 7 differ depending on the type of vehicle.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:41:35 EDT

anon posted : I've always wondered if Section 7 applies. I never see number plates on these vehicles.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:15:51 EDT

Gone posted :

said by peterboro:

So there is an contradiction between the Regs. and Statutes?

The regulation only deals with the sign's appearance, visibility and its placement on a vehicle.

You said it was perfectly legal for a slow moving vehicle displaying the slow moving triangle to hold up traffic on a public highway, whereas Section 132 would indicate otherwise regardless of a slow moving sign being affixed to a vehicle in accordance with Section 76 - unless it's a road service vehicle, of course.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:26:41 EDT

Tig posted :

said by highwire2007:

I wonder why these people drive these slow vehicles in the fast lane? What are they thinking?

He's thinking, "since I can't safely change lanes when I want to, I'd better plan ahead for that merge or left turn that I will have to make"

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:20:57 EDT

Tig posted : Impeding traffic flow with a slow moving vehicle is annoying. Weaving in and out of traffic on an SMV to avoid mailboxes etc is dangerous. Correct me if I am wrong but the posted limit for most of your route is 50 or 60 kph. If so, the backhoe added ten minutes to your travel time. Crossing the river west to east, in Manotick, during evening commute will try anyone's patience, backhoe or not.
I've been in the car and I've been in the slow moving vehicle. During the workday commute, the A holes in cars out number the A holes on SMVs by a couple orders of magnitude. I don't blame the guy for not pulling over and then taking his chances trying to get back in traffic.
If I'm holding up traffic for whatever reason at any time, I do pull over. At the same time, when I'm in a car, I don't begrudge a man some patience for what ever it takes for him to make a living.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:10:14 EDT

peterboro posted : So there is an contradiction between the Regs. and Statutes?

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:58:42 EDT

Gone posted :

said by peterboro:

You unilaterally introduced section 132 where as section 76 and Regulation 616 are the appropriate authority.

Section 76 only applies to who must display the symbol and the O.Reg defines what the symbol must look like and how visible it must be. Section 132 has to do with driving unnecessarily slow to the point of obstructing traffic. It provides no exception for vehicles displaying a slow speed triangle in accordance with Section 76. Therefore, my unilateral introduction after PX Eliezer's comment and my request for clarification was more than appropriate in the context of this discussion.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:39:23 EDT

peterboro posted :

said by Gone:

Section 132 doesn't make any specific exemptions for that triangle, just road service vehicles. I'm sure you can clarify.

You unilaterally introduced section 132 where as section 76 and Regulation 616 are the appropriate authority.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:33:42 EDT

Gone posted : You didn't answer the question regarding Section 132.

I would imagine that if they were as exempt as you said they are, Section 132 would make reference to a vehicle displaying a slow moving vehicle sign in accordance with 76 just as 132 already does for road service vehicles.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:29:09 EDT

peterboro posted : »www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/···vs.shtml

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:27:21 EDT

Gone posted :

said by peterboro:

All perfectly legal with that triangle sign attached. I used to tear up the back roads in the county on tractors and hill groomers from our ski resort in the winter back in the day. Mind you only snowmobiles could keep up with me in snowstorms so holding up traffic wasn't a problem.

Section 132 doesn't make any specific exemptions for that triangle, just road service vehicles. I'm sure you can clarify.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:41:28 EDT

highwire2007 posted : I'm beginning to wonder if it's one douchebag who just drives a backhoe slowly around Nepean just to annoy us.

During the evening rush hour last week, there's was a backhoe in the "fast" lane on Woodroffe southbound at Hunt Club waiting at the light. I was beside him. A few seconds after crossing the intersection near the sportsplex, I looked back and he was barely through the intersection. Anyone who knows that area will confirm that the north-south light at that intersection is waaaay too short at the best of times, so there were probably a lot of really ticked-off drivers behind him who missed the light.

I wonder why these people drive these slow vehicles in the fast lane? What are they thinking?

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:38:55 EDT

IsItDoneYet posted : Because yellow snow. Now quit whining about your first world problems.
--
»libertarian.on.ca/

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:16:13 EDT

peterboro posted : All perfectly legal with that triangle sign attached. I used to tear up the back roads in the county on tractors and hill groomers from our ski resort in the winter back in the day. Mind you only snowmobiles could keep up with me in snowstorms so holding up traffic wasn't a problem.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Thu, 20 Dec 2012 06:17:25 EDT

Mike2009 posted : I see the same thing regularly in the West Hunt Club 416 area.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 23:49:56 EDT

PX Eliezer posted : [I could see in my mirror a line of headlights behind me to the horizon]

Surprised there was no cop around, or that no one called it in on cellphone.

Has to be some sort of rule about not obstructing traffic to that extent.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:51:26 EDT

Gone posted : Bankfield, right? There's all that new construction going on up on Greenbank that one shouldn't be surprised to see stuff like this, but not pulling over to let the cars pass is an asshole thing to do.

For what it's worth, it is typically the construction or municipal guys with heavy equipment who have no issue holding up or blocking traffic and being complete douchebags about. The rural farmer guys with slow-moving equipment like tractors or combines will typically pull over to let you pass as soon as they see you.

Re: [Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:33:39 EDT

Thane_Bitter posted : I don't know but I would love to know the answer, I see them driving around this town year round often several kilometres away from actual construction sites.

[Rant] Why the *** are you commuting in a backhoe?

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:33:44 EDT

WhaleOilBee posted : Today, on the way home from work, I got off the 416 in Ottawa at the Manotick (cty rd 8 ) exit. As I turned east toward Manotick, I joined a long line of red blinking brake lights that moved along at ~30 kph in an 80 kph zone. At the head of this parade was a backhoe driving down the middle of the lane, not even once pulling on to the shoulder which had ample room for the backhoe to safely use while allowing the backlog of cars to be on their merry way. No, this a-hole figured that if the best he could do was 30 kph, then everybody had to suffer with him. There was no opportunity to pass in this rush hour traffic; too much oncoming traffic. I have been in the situation of being the slow-moving-vehicle while towing my boat along Hwy 7 east of Peterboro. I always kept an eye on the backlog I was creating, and pulled over periodically to let it by.

Now, I understand that sometimes they have to drive their construction equipment on the road to go from one part of a job site to another, but this jerk was obviously in for the long haul. We went right through Manotick and out the other side along C.R. 8 for several more km. By this time I could see in my mirror a line of headlights behind me to the horizon.

I finally quit the parade when I turned off at my road. I don't know how much further this went on. How can someone be so inconsiderate and not realize the congestion he was causing? Maybe he was a total flaming asshole and did it on purpose just to piss people off. Merry Christmas, moron.

These vehicles have no license plates, why are they even allowed to use the highways for any more than the minimum distance to operate at a job site? Aren't they supposed to use a flatbed truck ( float ) to transport their equipment over distance?

Anyway, that's my rant. I rarely wish ill will on my fellow man, but if even part of what I was muttering the whole while following comes true, this jerk will have a very unpleasant Christmas!