OHTA.ca

Hi all

Does anyone know if s. 141 offenses have been considered by the courts as strict or absolute liability?

Also, is anyone aware of s. 141(9) being used as a defence to a ss. (2), (3), (6) or (7) offense with respect to numerous vehicles (combination of vehicles) clogging the intersection, therefore requiring the outside lane of the intersecting road only to be utilized (in a safe manner - no traffic entering that lane from the opposite direction) in order to complete the turn to avoid becoming gridlocked?

Strict liability

Thx Simon

Anyone used/familiar with 141(9) as a defence?

What's your question with regards to 141(9) exactly? I'm not sure I understand from your original post.

s. 141(9) reads:

"Where, because of the length of a vehicle or combination of vehicles, a turn cannot be made within the confines of the lanes referred to in subsection (2), (3), (6) or (7), a driver, when making such a turn, is not in contravention of any such subsection if he or she complies with the applicable provision as closely as practicable."

If a number of vehicles (two or more) are stuck in the intersection waiting to turn left into the left hand lane, preventing you from completing a turn (you are already in the middle of the intersection and entered on the assumption you could complete the turn safely) in that lane prior to the light turning red and leaving you gridlocked, and at the same time, the right hand lane of the intersecting highway is clear and safe, can you then complete the turn into the empty right hand lane of the intersecting highway? I would think that, ostensibly, this section is to exempt transports from ss.(6), for eg., as they are too large to not use both lanes for a turn. However, with the inclusion of "combination of vehicles" you could interpret "cannot be made with the confines of the lanes" to mean "cannot be made 'SAFELY' within the confines of the lanes" with respect to multiple vehicles waiting to turn into the single left hand turn lane due to heavy volume of traffic? I think you could use this arguement within the realm of a strict liability offence in any event (not moving into the right lane and turning would cause more danger than remaining in the intersection) however if you could make a case that ss.(9) allows a specific exemption in those circumstances, all the better. Thoughts?