“Left Turn When Light Turns, Before Letting Oncoming Traffic”

With all the new talk about the racing provisions (s. 172 of the Highway Traffic Act defining speeding 50 or more over as a "stunt") many people haven't looked at some of the other less talked about definitions of stunts.

In particular, one definition that many people may not know is this scenario:

Let's say you're late for work, you have to turn left at the next intersection, you're hurrying but the car in front of you is a slow poke. The light turns yellow, and as it turns red, the slow-poke in front of you makes the left turn, but you can't make it. So you're pissed; you're waiting for the light to turn, and all of a sudden the oncoming lane starts to fill up with a dozen or more cars waiting to proceed. You know that will take even more time once the light turns green to let them pass.

So, you look left, you look right and see no cars. Just as that light turns yellow and you anticipate the green, you advance into the intersection and begin your turn just as the light turns green. You safely proceed in front of the oncoming cars. You get to work on time, and the other cars don't get inconvenienced.

Good idea, right?

So... "it's probably illegal" you're thinking, "but how bad could it be".

ANSWER: It's treated as badly as driving 50km/h over the limit. It's treated as badly as driving for a stake or wager or in a race. It's defined as a "stunt" pursuant to s.172 of the HTA. I've done it before, many of you have done it before and it came as a total surprise to think that this is treated so severely as it is.

For the law, consult the regulations of the Highway Traffic Act:

RACES, CONTESTS AND STUNTS, O. Reg. 455/07

For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

iv. making a left turn where,

(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;

(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and

(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle.

$2,000 fine, 6 demerit points, massive increases to insurance premiums, potential jail time.

All of this for something which, IMO is less dangerous than running a red light...

You're right DL. There are many "stunts" that aren't nearly as dangerous, such as running stop signs, running reds, etc. But our current government and OPP chief are on a blitz to ruin the lives of young people in this province and grab as much cash as they possibly can.

It's funny how many respectable, regular citizens are getting pinched on these new stunt laws. I'm sure they were intended to put the squeeze on young street racers, but the collateral damage to us hard working regular citizens should warrant the destruction of the McGuinty government. We need leaders who focus on serving the general population, not some rampaging OPP Chief hell-bent on going down in history as the meanest cop this continent has ever seen!

Bookm wrote:You're right DL. There are many "stunts" that aren't nearly as dangerous, such as running stop signs, running reds, etc. But our current government and OPP chief are on a blitz to ruin the lives of young people in this province and grab as much cash as they possibly can.

This is the only weird stunt one that I can find that probably was added due to collisions in this type of scenario.....that's my guess.

Ruining the lives of young people, give me a "*^$^&@$#" break. If they can not follow the rules of the road and go to the extreme of these stunts listed, they need to be hammered, they need to get off the road. Last I need is someone behind 2000lbs of meteal taking me off my MC or taking out my family while doing any of these. Until you see the collisions every other day on average, you will never appreciate some of the laws we have.

Further it is not a cash grab or a tax! It IS the only tax/cash grab everyone can avoid by following the rules of the road. If you complain about something you can avoid..........try complaining and picketing something you can't avoid (ie gas prices, GST, PST etc..)

I believe the cash grab is the 50 over. All of the other listed elements of the racing law fit. Granted you do have to be hard on the loud pedal to be doing 50 over, but we already had a law for that. Why didn't we just increase the fines for the original 50 over instead of including it here?

Reflections wrote:I believe the cash grab is the 50 over.

Again....answer the following then: "It IS the only tax/cash grab everyone can avoid by following the rules of the road. If you complain about something you can avoid..........try complaining and picketing something you can't avoid (ie gas prices, GST, PST etc..)"

Reflections wrote:Why didn't we just increase the fines for the original 50 over instead of including it here?

They did, instead of $500 ($10 per km over) it is now $2000. Maybe it would have been more accepted by the "led footers" to keep it under the speeding area thou.

hwybear wrote:...If they can not follow the rules of the road and go to the extreme of these stunts listed, they need to be hammered, they need to get off the road.

I agree!!! ... partly. They DO need to get hammered. Give a kid a $600 ticket and he's gonna' learn a major lesson real quick.

Jack his insurance rates to $10,000/yr. and he's ruined.

I just returned from a day in Toronto. I have never seen so many Porches in my life. It's obviously a city swimming in money. For these families, I'm sure no monetary penalty is much of a problem. But for for the REST of the province, it's bad.

It's funny to sit back and listen to friends just now starting to complain about the impound laws, and how it comes down to the officers word. There was a time when these same friends thought I was a tad out-of-line getting all bent out of shape about changes to the HTA. Now THEY'RE telling ME how unfair things are becoming.

Get the street racers. They're nuts. Two cars racing each other down the road deserve what they get.

I dont know why anyone would speed 50 over and think its a safe thing to do.

Our highways were never designed for such speeds.

I am sick of these people cutting me off, as they can hardly control their cars at that speed, and they are doing sharp turns, because they HAVE to or they are gonna hit the guy infront of them who's only doing like 120.

I have never felt the need to speed 50 over, and why would I? I dont want to cut people off, swerve through lanes, and then have to suddenly break and mess up the traffic and the guy behind me when I hit the slow spots. It makes no logical sense for anyone to go that fast on our highways which were not made for those speeds.

The fines are well designed. As they will make our lives safer, and punish those who continue to drive thinking our highways are a racetrack.

Everyone likes to go fast, but have a sense of safety too.

Bookm wrote: For these families, I'm sure no monetary penalty is much of a problem. But for for the REST of the province, it's bad.

Maybe that's another reason for the impound part? makes these others hurt as their ride is gone for 7 days? just a thought

Bookm wrote:It's funny to sit back and listen to friends just now starting to complain about the impound laws, and how it comes down to the officers word.

The impound is based on identically the same principles as a 12hr suspension (soon to be 3 day) or a 90 suspension......all based on approved equipment (Alcotest 7410GLC, Intoxilyer 5000c, radar or lidar)obtaining a reading and the police using the reading for enforcement purposes. So your friends don't condone impaired drivers then either!

My view as a cash grab is that Mr. Fantino remarked after the law came into effect that he should have gone after 30 over.....! That's the comment that makes me believe it's about the money. Granted you have to haul a@@ to get to 50 over and I don't see me getting affected by this law but, police are human and can make mistakes. I will not be collateral damage or an after thought.

Turning left "first":

Is this turn subject to impoundment??

Bookm wrote:Turning left "first":

Is this turn subject to impoundment??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emzpcyM-Juo
(Sorry for the really bad quality... I'm going to use high-res option from now on.)

Someone is smoking something to ask that question....the video has a designated left turn lane and turn signal which is also green AND the through traffic in the same direction has a red, which every light I have seen in the province, if the turn signal is green, the opposite thru traffic would be RED. So NO it does not apply.

The turn signal then would cycle to yellow, then red, then thru traffic receives the green, after about another 10 seconds the turn lane then will also turn to green and maintain the same colour as the thru traffic.

Law is went for traffic facing each other, both ways go green at the same time, and numpty turning left hammers it and beats the straight thru vehicle coming from the other direction! This law was obviously put into place due to collisions in these circumstances.

hwybear wrote:...AND the through traffic in the same direction has a red,...

Why have you made that assumption? You are wrong. The"camara car" has no advance green.

But you have uncovered a VERY IMPORTANT issue. If the apposing car does not move, should we not be allowed to go? By law, how long are we supposed to wait before we can legally turn "across"? I guess it's just going to come down to the officers judgment, right?

So with this added information, was the turn legal?

Bookm wrote:Why have you made that assumption? You are wrong. The"camara car" has no advance green.

You show a video and ask an opinion and got one, so I am not wrong with what information that I can retrieve out of the video. If you are saying I'm wrong I need more information to clarify as I do not see any. Maybe go there and sit there and have the video focused on the lights for several rotations, so we can see how the lights cycle. Then the current video is a lot like a fight at the schoolyard, see one person getting punched, without the original push being shown. Let's see the complete information in it's totality.

- there are 4 traffic lights

- The traffic in the same direction is stopped, traffic is not shown moving at all for the video in the same direction, yet just sit there for at least 8 seconds while the left turn vehicle comes up and turns? Therefore oncoming traffic is also stopped at a red light

- it is a designated turning lane as pavemenet markings also indicate same

- I have never ever seen a designated turning lane without it's own traffic light

- 10:04:02 you see green on left light, and still no green on the thru traffic.

I guess since the video is of poor quality it brings on subjective opinions on what it could mean, kinda like the word "camara" (a chamber in a house).

Fair enough, the degradation in quality from the original to the Youtube upload is considerable. My summer car is coming out soon and it has a much better quality setup in it.

For this example, you'll just have to take my word for it that there was NO advance green. Both directions turn green at the same time, for all lanes. The camera car just happened to approach as the light changed. The camera car was the only one in (either direction) to proceed immediately.

By advancing the tape frame-by-frame, it was determined that the light had been green by a full 3 seconds (at least) before apposing traffic moved.

My view on the matter is that if a driver determines that apposing traffic is "snoozing", he should have the legal right to proceed. Actually, I hate that we even have to question our actions so carefully these days. Throwing so much doubt and fear into the driving equation can make for more errors.

Bookm...yeah, I'll take your word for it...I obviously wasn't there/don't even know what intersection that is!

I do not think one has to worry about this charge. The only way I can see it is during a collision, where witnesses say the car turning left, spun the tires/squealled and then struck and opposing vehicle...IMHO.