OHTA.ca

I got a ticket for fail to obey the sign at st Clair and Keel. I was early in the morning and st clair was jammed from keell to Guns Rd.

I was driving on the right line and at front of me there were other vehicules trying to change lines. I had my signals on indicating that I wanted to go on the left line...finally someone let me in about 250 meters from the curve. The white line that divide the two lanes was intermittent. Immediatelly after passing Keel, the police officer pulled over and gave me the ticket. He told me that I was holding the traffic for the cars that wanted to turn right. I feel that I was doing the right thing. Need advice. Thanks.

farisimo wrote:I feel that I was doing the right thing

The right thing is to continue straight and make the right turn as directed by the signage, not to impede traffic. The officer was correct.

How far away from the intersection you have to be in order to legally change lanes?

farisimo wrote:How far away from the intersection you have to be in order to legally change lanes?

The problem is not that you are changing lanes. The problem is that you are impeding traffic in a lane that is signed for right lane only.

I was at the dotted lane. The sign that reads "right lane exit " was ahead of me. That is when I turned my signals to move to the left lane.

farisimo wrote:I was at the dotted lane. The sign that reads "right lane exit " was ahead of me. That is when I turned my signals to move to the left lane.

You sat in the right turn only lane with your left turn signal waiting for someone to finally let you in. You were completely oblivious to the fact that you are creating a traffic jam behind you of people who wish to turn right. You can't turn on your signal and stick your fingers in your ears. You have to keep moving and follow the signs. If the sign says right turn only, so be it.

I am not sure if I can post pictures or videos... coming east on St Clair early in the morning and rush our is a traffic jam. The jam is because the two lanes become one lane at keele st. About 90% of the traffic want to continue on St Clair. At that time the lane on the left is very slow and the lane on the right is jam with cars that want to change lane. Cars at front and behind me were waiting for a chance to move to the left. The car that was at front of me change lanes to the left and right before the intersection it went North. I don't think I was the cause of the jam.

t

Streetview pictures of advisory/enforceable signs at the intersection of Keele & St. Clair.

________________________________________________________________

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... uote]Where highway divided into lanes

154. (1) Where a highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic,

(c) any lane may be designated for slowly moving traffic, traffic moving in a particular direction or classes or types of vehicles and, despite section 141, where a lane is so designated and official signs indicating the designation are erected, every driver shall obey the instructions on the official signs. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 154 (1).[/quote]The sign designates that right lane (L3) for right turns.

If he interfered with traffic, maybe an amended charge could be HTA S.170 (12)?

Parking on roadway

170. Vehicles interfering with traffic

(12) Despite the other provisions of this section, no person shall park or stand a vehicle on a highway in such a manner as to interfere with the movement of traffic or the clearing of snow from the highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 170 (12).

The sign designates that right lane (L3) for right turns.

If he interfered with traffic, maybe an amended charge could be HTA S.170 (12)?

(L3) at St Clair and Keele going east starts a few meters before the intersection. I changed lanes way back before the exit of the warehouse of home depot, At no time I parked my car or interfered with traffic. I was driving going with the flow (slow) waiting for a chance to move to the left lane.

farisimo wrote:The sign designates that right lane (L3) for right turns.

If he interfered with traffic, maybe an amended charge could be HTA S.170 (12)?

(L3) at St Clair and Keele going east starts a few meters before the intersection. I changed lanes way back before the exit of the warehouse of home depot, At no time I parked my car or interfered with traffic. I was driving going with the flow (slow) waiting for a chance to move to the left lane.

Ive lived in that area for 25 years. What a complete disaster that intersection is. You couldn't wait and you got nailed. You are probably one of many that day.

btw, I had an illegal right turn ticket reduced to interfere with traffic by a really decent prosecutor. This was last year. A real bonus as it was not a moving violation, did not affect my insurance.

The first sign (yellow) is not enforceable, but the second one (white and black) is.

The first sign (yellow) is not enforceable, but the second one (white and black) is.

Can you please tell me where is the by law that says that? This is interesting. I am going to look the colours of the signs.

The Highway Traffic Act has a regulation dealing with signs: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... g-615.html

It states that speed limit signs must have black numerals on a white background. The yellow speed limit signs, typically seen on on-ramps, are suggested precautionary speeds.

Edit: Oops, should have read the post more carefully. Not dealing with speed limit signs, but same thing. The black and white arrow is the enforceable lane designation sign. The yellow sign is simply an advisory.

I looked at the sings this morning. There are 3 yellow signs before the black sign indicating right turn only. I change lanes right after the first yellow sing way before the black sign. I think I was not supposed to get a ticket.

I may stand corrected on this one. While there may be another ticket more suitable here, failure to obey the posted sign may not be one of them.

The yellow signs are indeed just cautionary signs, as are all yellow markings. Maybe the officer could have come up with a more suitable charge for what you did before the sign, or even keep the same charge had it occurred after the sign, but it's irrelevant if it occurred well before the enforceable sign.

That being said, it's all going to be all for nothing if your version of the events vary from what is in the disclosure. If you wish to make a case out of this, request a trial, file for disclosure, and go from there.