OHTA.ca

Continued from http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic976.html

ticketcombat wrote:Now back to the green arrow tangent. I'm going to take one more stab at it. And yes it's making my brain hurt!

First the Act makes a distinction between a green indication and a green arrow indication. An indication and an arrow indication are different. Keep that in mind. Note also that s.14 does not require drivers to stop. Only s. 18 does. If you are not going in the direction of the arrow, s.14 does not give drivers the choice of stopping: "may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow". In other words, facing a red indication and a green arrow, s. 14 states they may turn in the direction of the arrow. Also note that s. 14 does not state "Despite s.18, drivers may proceed in the direction of the arrow without stopping." So imagine you were driving straight and now you've got a red light and a green arrow going left. Does that mean you have to go left? No, you can remain stopped until you are allowed to proceed straight. s. 18 & 14 work together. Let's look at some scenarios:

Scenario 1: Red indication. Driver must stop [s.18] but can turn right after stopping (s.19).

Scenario 2: Red indication, green arrow indication pointing right. The driver must stop [s18] OR she can turn right without stopping (s.14).

S.19 states "without a green indication showing" (that means a green light NOT an arrow). S. 19 (without mentioning s.14) states that a driver approaching an intersection without a green indication cannot turn right unless they come to a complete stop. Doesn't matter if a right green arrow is showing or not. Obviously that defeats the purpose of s.14. So let's include s. 14. Now s.19 is "subject to" s. 14. Meaning without a green indication showing, the driver can turn right without stopping because s.14 takes precedence.

Scenario 3: Red indication, green arrow indication pointing left. Driver must stop [s.18]. Driver can turn left without stopping (s.14). S. 19 says after stopping if there is no green indication, you can turn right. If you couldn't do this, then s.14 would have stated "Despite s.19 a driver can only proceed in the direction of the green arrow indication."

However I can see the s. 19 "subject to" being equivalent to a s. 14 "despite". So yes I am willing to admit it could be successfully interpreted the other way, as Bear states, depending on the day and the JP. But I do want to point out that s. 14 does not state "Despite s. 18". So 14 and 18 have to work together.

As I understand it, "indication" covers all traffic control signals, arrow or not. "Circular green indication" is the full green signal, "green arrow indication" is the green arrow. Now, I couldn't follow why you referred to that distinction, so I'm not sure what this changes in your argument. It's late at night...I'll come back to it tomorrow.

Ignore the post you quoted. I edited it about 45 times and submitted new versions about 10 times.

Here's the "final" one so far:

Now back to the green arrow tangent. I'm going to take one more stab at it. And yes it's making my brain hurt!

First the Act makes a distinction between a green indication and a green arrow indication. An indication and an arrow indication are different. Keep that in mind.

Next s. 18 requires drivers to stop at a red indication. S. 14 does not contain an exemption to this!!! Only s. 19 does! Think about it. You have to stop at a red light. The only exception is s. 19. S. 14 does not state "despite s.18 drivers may proceed in the direction of the arrow without stopping."

So as I read it, s. 18 requires drivers to stop. S. 19 says despite s. 18, after stopping you can make a right turn. But s. 19 also says "subject to s.14". I take that to mean, after stopping, if there is a green arrow indicator, you can only proceed in that direction on a red light. That means you have to STOP for a green arrow before proceeding if there is a red indication also showing.

Next look at s.13.

(13) A driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular flashing green indication or a solid or flashing left turn green arrow indication in conjunction with a circular green indication and facing the indication may, despite subsection 141 (5), proceed forward or turn left or right unless otherwise directed.

In other words you can only proceed without stopping on a green arrow if there is also a green indication. Otherwise you must stop. So think about every left turn lane where the green arrow comes on for left turns in both directions while the light remains red for through traffic. Technically all those vehicles turning left have to stop on the line first before proceeding in the direction of the arrow. Now my brain really hurts! Bear, you've opened up a can of worms!?!

I just found that post, too.

You still make a distinction between an "indication" and an "arrow indication". I think an "arrow indication" is just a type of "indication", as is a circular indication.

I think you might be onto something with ss. (18). Subsection (14) does not say "despite subsection (18)", so does that mean that all cars must stop when approaching a circular red indication? The wording of (18) does not seem to mean that a green indication (which includes the arrow by my definition) excuses the need to stop - it states that all vehicles must first stop, and then proceed when a green indication is shown. What the heck?

Now, to hijack this hijack once again, does ss. (13) mean that a left-turning driver will not be found at fault (re: charges, not insurance) if he or she turns under a flashing green indication and is hit by oncoming traffic? As far as I know, in all other cases (red light, amber, solid green), the driver turning left is always at fault for not making sure it is safe to turn.

You can't hijack your hijack. That's like double dipping.

So let's start from the top again. I got some sleep since my last blurry eyed post. There are two types of indications, a circular indication and an arrow indication. And they can be red, amber or green.

s(18] Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.

I take this to mean you must stop and cannot proceed until a green (arrow or circle) is shown.

s(19) Despite subsection (18] a driver, after stopping his or her vehicle and yielding the right of way may turn to the right without a green indication being shown

I cut this down a bit in order to dissect this provision. Ok this version says stop then proceed to turn.

But what do you do if there is both a circular red indication AND a green arrow indication? Anticipating this, s.19 is subject to

s(14) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing one or more green arrow indications only or in combination with a circular red or circular amber indication and facing the indication may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow.

So you can only go in the direction of the arrow. And since s19 is subject to s14, you can't go in any other direction. No right turn on red UNLESS there's a right green arrow or there are no green arrows. Bear was correct.

So finally, how does s.14 relate to s18? S.18 states stop and not proceed until a green indication. Now if you come to a red light you must stop. If the light turns green, there is no longer any red light! That may not be obvious at first so keep it in mind. No red light, no requirement to stop.

Next, red light AND green arrow. There IS a red light and there IS a requirement to stop. If s.18 was "subject to" s.14 then you wouldn't have to stop. But s.18 doesn't say that. And s.14 does not say "despite" s.18 which would also eliminate the stop provision.

Which brings us to s13 which is the only indication of turning on an arrow

(13) A driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular flashing green indication or a solid or flashing left turn green arrow indication in conjunction with a circular green indication and facing the indication may, despite subsection 141 (5), proceed forward or turn left or right unless otherwise directed.

Why would s13 state this? If it was a solid green arrow, why do you need the "in conjuction with a circular green"? I don't see anything that says you don't have to stop at a circular red indication.

Now my brain is starting to hurt.

WAIT! You're in the right lane, facing a circular red indication for that lane, because each lane has its own signal, correct?

Obeying lane lights

(10) Every driver shall obey every traffic control signal that applies to the lane that he or she is in.

So... if you're in the right lane and want to make a right turn on red, but the green arrow is only facing the driver in the left lane, how is the driver in the right lane restricted by the left arrow?

So with regard to subsections 13, 14, 18, and 19, does subsection 10 not frame the entire context from there? The way I read it, the only way the green arrow with a circular red indication would apply to proceed in only one direction is if you are on a single lane road.

Okay now I'm getting dizzy.

RI - Now that's a poorly worded section. I'm pretty sure, based on the title "Obeying lane lights," that this is meant to apply to lights which designate a lane for a specific direction or purpose of traffic. Those are the red 'X' or downwards green arrow signals, and maybe there are others which I have never seen.

EDIT: Nevermind, in the definitions, a 'traffic control signal' is defined as "one set of no less than three coloured lenses, red, amber and green". So, can it be argued that a leftward arrow applies only to designated left turn lanes? Or do all signals facing you apply to you? I have seen a leftwards green arrow appear on a set of traffic lights mounted by the sidewalk, in front of the rightmost lane. There are also signs on some signal lights that specify "Left Turn" (or something like that) - would that case mean that you could now turn right on a green arrow/circular red, as the set of lights with a green arrow is clearly intended only for the left turn lane? Those sections on their own aren't too badly worded, but put them together...holy hell.

TC - ss. (13) mentions "in conjunction with a circular green indication" because at the end, it basically says you can proceed in any direction.

Otherwise, I think our interpretations are the same. I don't see anything that says you do not have to stop first when facing a green arrow in conjunction with a solid red indication. Did we miss some oddly worded or oddly placed exception?

In the case of a green arrow indication with a circular red indication,

(18) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle <-- must stop first!

and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown. <-- which you may do so because there is a green arrow indication.

Wha?

Squishy wrote:Or do all signals facing you apply to you?

Always thought that they put up the traffic lights so that they directed specific lanes to do specific things. Otherwise, why not just put up one light at each intersection instead of two lights for two lanes?

Just to make matters worse, has anyone driven in Toronto on Lawrence Avenue and been through the traffic lights at Mount Pleasant? THAT is one messed up set of lights, easy in principle but the first time you see them you go

My head really hurts...

ticketcombat wrote:Now back to the green arrow tangent. I'm going to take one more stab at it. And yes it's making my brain hurt!

Think I know the reason......

Radar Identified wrote:

Squishy wrote:Or do all signals facing you apply to you?

Always thought that they put up the traffic lights so that they directed specific lanes to do specific things. Otherwise, why not just put up one light at each intersection instead of two lights for two lanes?

Just to make matters worse, has anyone driven in Toronto on Lawrence Avenue and been through the traffic lights at Mount Pleasant? THAT is one messed up set of lights, easy in principle but the first time you see them you go

My head really hurts...

On six-lane streets (three in each direction), there is not a set of lights for every lane, though. I have seen intersections with traffic lights suspended over a cable across the intersection where that was the case, but don't remember seeing any in Ontario. Plus, in Toronto, I remember seeing leftward green arrow indications appear on the rightmost set of lights. Very rare, but they do exist; I think I remember it being a highway off-ramp - 401? Don Valley?

On the lights which have signage indicating that they are for the left turn lane, I think you would be able to make this argument, as the red, amber, and green lights are all for the turn lanes and never apply to through lanes. On the four-indication traffic lights, the top three still apply to through lanes.

Squishy wrote:On the four-indication traffic lights, the top three still apply to through lanes.

Section 144 has to be tied for the worst-worded section of the Highway Traffic Act. As for not having a traffic light for each lane, let's take a major intersection with three lanes in each direction and a left turning lane. There are two red/amber/green combination traffic lights, one on the right curb, the other in the centre median. If the centre median has the green arrow to turn left, but the right one is still red, is the driver in the right lane arguably only facing the circular red signal?

Was the intent of "proceed only in the direction of the arrow" not written in there to prevent drivers from seeing the arrow but proceeding straight through, "disobeying the arrow," so to speak?

This section is so frustrating to get a grasp on... where's that damn wine and cheese?

Radar Identified wrote:Was the intent of "proceed only in the direction of the arrow" not written in there to prevent drivers from seeing the arrow but proceeding straight through, "disobeying the arrow," so to speak?

I was more thinking along the lines of 3 lanes each direction (one being a left turn lane).....left turn green arrow comes on for both (say NB and SB facing traffic).....not turning right on the red allows the left turners to clear thru without some dumbass interfering by turning right

hwybear wrote:

Radar Identified wrote:Was the intent of "proceed only in the direction of the arrow" not written in there to prevent drivers from seeing the arrow but proceeding straight through, "disobeying the arrow," so to speak?

I was more thinking along the lines of 3 lanes each direction (one being a left turn lane).....left turn green arrow comes on for both (say NB and SB facing traffic).....not turning right on the red allows the left turners to clear thru without some dumbass interfering by turning right

In your case the right turner should arrive in the right lane and the left turner should arrive in the left lane.

But most left turners on arrow do not stay to the left lane.

If we all did it right there is no problem.

Cheers

Viper1

Radar Identified wrote:As for not having a traffic light for each lane, let's take a major intersection with three lanes in each direction and a left turning lane. There are two red/amber/green combination traffic lights, one on the right curb, the other in the centre median. If the centre median has the green arrow to turn left, but the right one is still red, is the driver in the right lane arguably only facing the circular red signal?

Unless the centre median has two sets of lights, one clearly marked for left turn lanes and another set of red/amber/green lights (in addition to another set of lights on the right), then the left turn arrow shown on the set of lights mounted at the median would be in conjunction with a circular red meant for through traffic. So I don't think it could be argued that the leftward green arrow is only meant for left-turners, as the rest of that same light fixture is intended for through traffic. However, could a car in the right lane expect to only obey the light on the right, assuming in this case that it has no arrow indication?

Section 144 could really use some cleaning up. Way too many subsections, some repeat, some contradict. Haha, if we all e-mailed our MPPs, think it could get tacked on to the next HTA-related bill?

Squishy wrote:However, could a car in the right lane expect to only obey the light on the right, assuming in this case that it has no arrow indication?

Because the red light on the right side would, theoretically, according to section 144 (10) apply, then I think they're not "facing" a green arrow "in their respective lane."

But I think viper1 raises a valid point: You're supposed to turn into the corresponding lane. Driver turning right goes into right lane, driver turning left goes into left lane (many do not). Where it is only one lane, would think that driver facing the red signal would only have to stop and yield to any driver turning left onto the same single-lane road, otherwise proceed.

I'm wondering what kind of response we'd get if we DID e-mail our MPPs...

If "their respective lane" is taken completely literally, then wouldn't that make the centre lanes of a six-lane street basically uncontrolled?

I think the distinction is in these two types of intersections that allow protected left turns:

1) This is the type I think most of us would picture. The top three lights control through traffic, with a fourth arrow indication for left turning traffic.

http://www.drivingschool.ca/drivereduca ... /3c_2c.jpg

In this case, I think that through traffic would still be "facing" the green arrow indication, as the top three lights are within the same fixture and those, without question, do apply to through traffic.

2) This is the second type, where a completely separate fixture controls only the left turning lanes.

http://www.drivingschool.ca/drivereduca ... /3c_4a.jpg

In this case, I think through traffic would not be facing the green arrow indication, as it is a separate fixture clearly marked for the left turning lanes. In such a case, I would argue that it is legal to turn right on a red when the left turn lanes have a green arrow indication.

I've been considering e-mailing our local MPP about doing something about s. 154 where it specfically allows passing on the right, where most areas that address passing on the right forbid it. I'll have to make it a very convincing letter.