“Hta Vs. Bill 31 - Yielding To Pedestrians Crossover/crosswalks”

Hi HTA forum.

This is going to be a bit long, so TLDR at the end. I posted this on Reddit too, but a user suggested I post here.

01/06/2017

I was going northbound on Kennedy Rd., making a right on Sheppard Ave. (eastbound). It was green light and there were pedestrians crossing from both sides...I waited until the pedestrian from my side reached the middle "island," and the approaching pedestrian was either at the island too or right before it. That is when I made my turn, and that is when the cop came to pull me over. The pedestrians definitely did not have to stop or even slow down, and that I left them enough room (2 full lanes and maybe a bit more).

I received a ticket for “failure to yield to pedestrian” (144(7).

Disclosure:

“vehicle observed in right turn lane of nb kennedy rd

Traffic signal controlling northbound kennedy rd was green

Crosswalk is clearly marked with horizontal lines going across pavement of sheppard ave

I observed 2 pedestrians crossing from north curb of sheppard to south curb

I then observed above vehicle make a right turn into L2 of EB Sheppard as directly into pedestrian’s path and failing to yield. Pedestrian was not struck as they were in L1 of EB sheppard

Driver identified with a valid Ontario drivers licence with photo matching

Police Cam Video: https://vimeo.com/226913168

1st court hearing

I talked to the police regarding what I thought was a discrepancy in the disclosure vs. the video/what happened. The report mentioned the pedestrian crossed midway point, but I said they didn’t and the video showed it. Officer said he was willing to drop the charge if that was true during trial. Trial had to be postponed because there was not enough time for trial.

2nd court hearing

I talked to the prosecutor and they said the video was not helpful because it was blurry/unclear (low res and too far). Trial had to be postponed again because there was not enough time for trial.

3rd court hearing 07/27/2018

The officer was first to make his case and the video was played.

Officer’s main points

The pedestrians passed the halfway point when I made my turn, so I didn’t give sufficient space.

Cross Examination - Officer answers after ?

Prosecutor asked 1 question (forgot what it was)

I asked “did the pedestrians have to slow down or stop so they wouldn’t get hit by my car” No

“how far was your vehicle parked from the intersection?” 12-15 meters

“Did I cut off the pedestrians?” In my opinion yes

My case:

Oncoming pedestrians didn’t make it to the halfway point yet, so I gave adequate space for the pedestrians to cross (without interruption), therefore yielding.

Cross Examination - My answers after ?

Prosecutor asked when did I make the turn? When the pedestrians walking northbound reached the halfway point and when the pedestrians walking southbound almost reached halfway point

How long did it take me to complete my turn? 2-3 seconds

When did the pedestrians walking southbound pass the halfway point? After I completed my turn

How do you know? I assume

The judge agreed that I left sufficient amount of space for the pedestrians to cross. A break was taken.

The judge came back with the HTA handbook.

The judge began to recite section 144(7)

Yielding to pedestrians

(7) When under this section a driver is permitted to proceed, the driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (7).

The judge then read a case study that was taken place in Saskatchewan, where someone was struck in the intersection.

The judge then said 144(7) falls under 140 of the HTA

Pedestrian crossover

Duties of driver

140 (1) When a pedestrian is crossing on the roadway within a pedestrian crossover, the driver of a vehicle approaching the crossover,

(a) shall stop before entering the crossover;

(b) shall not overtake another vehicle already stopped at the crossover; and

(c) shall not proceed into the crossover until the pedestrian is no longer on the roadway. 2015, c. 14, s. 39 (1).

Since the 144(7) falls under 140, the judge said crossovers and crosswalks at the intersection is interchangeable, and the focus is on point C, where a vehicle cannot proceed into the crossover until the pedestrian is no longer on the roadway

“Although you gave the pedestrians sufficient space, that point is redundant since they have to completely off the road” I lost the case.

The main problem/confusion I have with this is the “new” law that was enforced in Jan 2016, as part of Bill 31.

MTO Site:

Media Outlets:

Consensus “The law, which came into effect this month, says that drivers and cyclists have to stop and wait until pedestrians have completely crossed at pedestrian crossovers – or, at normal crosswalks, if there's a school crossing guard there.”

Quote from the MTO site:

Drivers - including cyclists - must stop and yield the whole roadway at pedestrian crossovers, school crossings and other locations where there is a crossing guard. Only when pedestrians and school crossing guards have crossed and are safely on the sidewalk can drivers and cyclists proceed.

This law does not apply to pedestrian crosswalks at intersections with stop signs or traffic signals, unless a school crossing guard is present.

Definition of crossover from the HTA: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/150402

Google Map of incident: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7833728 ... 312!8i6656

As you can see, this intersection does not fall under as a “crossover”

I am not sure how to interpret the HTA https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08 where 144(7) falls under 140, which means the crossover and crosswalk at an intersection is interchangeable as per the judge. The new law according to MTO completely contradicts this (site refers to the law), along with all the media outlets. I know these are not legal wordings compared to the HTA or the judge, but something is wrong here.

I think there is either a mistake in the ruling or the law that came into affect in 2016. Judge ruled vehicles must yield the whole roadway as crossovers = crosswalks as HTA 144(7) falls under 140, and the new law in 2016 (MTO website) says the opposite. What do you guys think?

TLDR: I made a right turn on a major intersection while giving pedestrian sufficient space (Judge agreed sufficient). Judge ruled vehicles must yield the WHOLE roadway as crossovers = crosswalks as HTA 144(7) falls under 140.

In the definitions section it says:

"“crosswalk” means,

(a) that part of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or

(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface; (“passage protégé pour piétons”)"

A crossover is always a crosswalk but a crosswalk is not always a crossover. You drove through a crosswalk.

I think you have a case.

I'd agree with argyll.

They are two different things. Crosswalk and Pedestrian Crossover both have their own definitions in the HTA.

“crosswalk” means,

(a) that part of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or

(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface; (“passage protégé pour piétons”)

“pedestrian crossover” means any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs on the highway and lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway as prescribed by the regulations; (“passage pour piétons”)

Definition of pedestrian crossover says it requires signs AND lines OR other markings on the surface of the roadway according the regulations.

The signs are required but the surface markings can be different. The reason it says this is because there are two levels for pedestrian crossovers (Level 1 and Level 2). Both levels use signage but both can be marked differently (e.g. Level 1 uses a giant "X" marking on the roadway where Level 2 uses a "shark teeth" yield line and a ladder painted crossover).

A crosswalk doesn't have the same requirements by its definition.

Kennedy and Sheppard doesn't follow the requirements for a crossover, so why would it follow the rules of one?

I believe the fact that you were making a right turn a signalized intersection would negate the requirement to have to wait until all pedestrians have cleared the intersection. As noted in the information you provided - "This law does not apply to pedestrian crosswalks at intersections with stop signs or traffic signals, unless a school crossing guard is present." This is my understanding of the new law. If I'm incorrect, which I don't believe I am, Municipalities should start looking at banning right turns on red at signalized intersections with heavy pedestrian usage.

The best and brightest have spoken, and FWIW I agree with them. As I read your post, you have been convicted, right? So, you need to start an appeal. That's a bit more complicated process, as I understand it, and there are specific time limits, etc. Depending on your comfort level you might consider retaining some help.

Please report back on the progress and/or outcome.