Hi Simon:
JUST MY OPINION As you most likely know, when analyzing a piece of legislation, you have to do it both purposely and contextually.
Contextually, section 141(2) is the first indication of corresponding from and to turning lanes. Turn from the right lane enter into the right lane.
The concept of lane correspondence is again stated in subsections 141 (3) and (7)
Section 141(6) includes the expression "immediately to the right of the centre line" twice.
Purposely, it is unreasonable to think that the legislators created a situation whereas someone making a right turn from the right lane into the right lane of the intercepting highway, could be found guilty of doing so, and that a vehicle making a left turn from the left lane would have the right of way of one or more lanes on the intercepting highway.
That both drivers could be charged under s. 142(1) constitutes an ambiguity, which would make the section unconstitutional.
Now, if you take a closer look at s.142(1), you'll see that it is a strict liability offence, which deals with negligence and due diligence: "... shall first see that the movement can be made in safety ..."
If a vehicle makes a left turn from the left lane and enters the left lane of the intercepting intersection, while simultaneously a vehicle makes a right turn from the right lane into the right lane of the intercepting highway, no collision would occur and both vehicles complied with sections 141 (2) and (6).
But they also complied with section 142 (1) because the movement could be and was made in safety, which removes the issue of negligence and due diligence.
How could the driver making the right turn be negligent? He/she expects that the left turning vehicle will enter the left lane, making thus his movement (right turn) safe.
From the perspective of the left turning vehicle, wouldn't create a hazard to be able to legally enter into the path of a right turning vehicle fully complying with section 141(6)?
Even more, again contextually but in the negative. I would agree with you if section 141(6) would incorporate something like "subject to section 142(1)", which is very common type of code and yet not included here.
And lastly, have you seen the line markings at intersections with dedicated left and right turn lanes" They seem to enforce the idea of "keeping within your lane". They always go to corresponding lanes. I've never seen markings giving the driver a choice of lanes to enter when making a left turn.
Is section 141(6) clear? No; and I agree with you. Simon Borys wrote:... However 141(6) for making a left turn is less clear... It only states that the driver must turn from the left lane to "right of the centre line". If we envision an intersection of two roads, each with two lanes in each direction, the person making the left turn could turn into the left lane or into the right lane (the curb lane) and still be complying with 141(6) because they were "right of the centre line". It does not say "into the left lane" or "into the lane immediately to the right of the centre line"
But as you know is the letter and spirit of the law what counts... And the Supreme court, after the Charter, added the effect of the law.
But, then again, it's just my opinion. I wonder if this is more than just academic and there is an actual charge. I'd like to know what happens.
Cheers.
.