OHTA.ca

A few months ago, IDKY I still remember it, but for some reason I do, I saw this guy do this one thing that I did not know what it would be classified as. I would of called it running an amber light, but idk. It was at this one intersection where it has a green arrow for both sides so they can turn left. By both sides I mean the ones directly across from each other. The arrows went yellow, so this guy slowed down to a near stop, but then went. The light didn't turn red until he was passed the white line and was in the middle of the intersection. He was making a left (was a left turn arrow). The light only stays red for about half a second, then goes green for both sides. It went green when he was still in the center, he turn and made it across. He didn't cut anyone off or anything. But I found it kinda funny, idky. I assumed it would be called running an amber light because the arrow was still yellow as he completely crossed the line. I don't know if that's what it would really be called, so anyone have any idea? lol

Why Im asking this, idk, just made me wonder XD

is IDKY a licence plate you remember?

hwybear wrote:is IDKY a licence plate you remember?

No it stands for I don't know why.

If the signal facing him changed to a full green, he didn't really fail to stop for the amber. However, if traffic had to wait for him to clear the intersection, I'd call it "Left turn - fail to yield to through traffic," contrary to section 141 (5) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Radar Identified wrote:If the signal facing him changed to a full green, he didn't really fail to stop for the amber. However, if traffic had to wait for him to clear the intersection, I'd call it "Left turn - fail to yield to through traffic," contrary to section 141 (5) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Ok. I thought it would be called running an amber cause it went red before it turned green. But makes sense. Thanks.

i would agree with you omega - fail to stop for amber or fail to stop for red light

If the driver could have actually safely stopped at the line, then you could lay a charge of amber light, fail to stop. If he couldn't have safely stopped, then everything else sounds lawful.

I've always found amber light charges seem somewhat rare compared to red light charges. They're probably a somewhat harder charge to prove in Court since "can safely stop" is open to some opinion and interpretation.

hwybear wrote:i would agree with you omega - fail to stop for amber or fail to stop for red light

It'd probably be fail to stop for amber cause it didn't go red till he was completely passed the line and in the intersection. And when it went red, it was red for like a second, then went green for his side. I just found it funny that he couldn't wait that few seconds for it to go from amber to red to green lol.