|
|
|
Lane changes approaching/in an intersection
- Thread starter elkymutt
- Start date
rib
Well-known member
Been a while since I took a road test or read the book, but I'm pretty sure you cannot change lanes in an intersection.
elkymutt
Well-known member
This is what I've been led to believe...
The Ministry likes to teach drivers to avoid doing so, but there is no real black or white when it comes to when you can or cannot as per the HTA. There are lots of rebuttals for and against it but let's face it, it should only be done if there is no other choice (downtown where cars are parked in the right lane immediately following an intersection, or construction in that particular lane ahead, etc...
I had to look this up a couple of years ago and couldn't find anything in the HTA that specified that the act is in fact illegal. I consulted with a police officer friend of mine that confirmed changing lanes in an intersection is not against the HTA. It may very well be unsafe, and not a practice to get to comfortable with, but not illegal. Personally, I won't do it unless it is absolutely necessary.
This is the most I found today about passing. Sorry, I don't have the time to dig any deeper.
Passing vehicle going in same direction
(8) No person in charge of a vehicle shall pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going in the same direction on a highway unless the roadway,
(a) in front of and to the left of the vehicle to be passed is safely free from approaching traffic; and
(b) to the left of the vehicle passing or attempting to pass is safely free from overtaking traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148.
Driving to left of centre prohibited under certain conditions
149. (1) No vehicle shall be driven or operated to the left of the centre of a roadway designed for one or more lines of traffic in each direction,
(a) when approaching the crest of a grade or upon a curve in the roadway or within 30 metres of a bridge, viaduct or tunnel where the driver's view is obstructed within that distance so as to create a potential hazard in the event another vehicle might approach from the opposite direction; or
(b) when approaching within 30 metres of a level railway crossing.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply,
(a) on a highway divided into clearly marked lanes where there are more such lanes for traffic in one direction than in the other direction;
(b) to a road service vehicle where precautions are taken to eliminate the hazard; or
(c) on a highway while it is designated for the use of one-way traffic.
R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 149.
Passing to right of vehicle
150. (1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signaled his or her intention to make a left turn;
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or
(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only. According to section 150, paragraph (1), subsection (a)...we may pass to the right of a vehicle that is making a left turn.
Approaching the intersection; yes but if something happens while doing so, it'll likely be on you (as JZ67 said, 'in safety')
In the intersection; no.
In the intersection; no.
Not sure what you're saying here, Rob, but it looks like you're saying you can't change lanes in an intersection.
There is NO section of the HTA that states that a lane change cannot occur within an intersection.
I've heard of people being charged with it, but can't find anything definitive. The only thing that I can surmise, is that it was under an interpretation of 144 (12): "... may proceed forward or turn left or right unless otherwise directed."
The catch all; careless but you'd have to have an element of being an unsafe move to make it work, ie; cut someone off or, more likely, causing a collision.
Salos Dafee
Well-known member
Ontario has a method to prohibit changing lanes:
A rectangular white sign with black letters saying "DO NOT CHANGE LANES" is that method.
I have seen other wording, such as "STAY IN YOUR LANE", in Ontario and elsewhere.
If you see such a sign, then you cannot change lanes.
If you do not see it, there is no prohibition.
For an example, ride where there is an HOV lane, such as 403 through Mississauga, and read the signs.
In some jurisdictions, a double solid white line means "DO NOT CHANGE LANES",
and it seems a single solid line means changing lanes is extra perilous hereabouts.
Yes, examiners make up their own rules, and these vary unpredictably.
If you are going to ride in B.C. check to see if their laws are different,
as they are, for example, for flashing green lights.
Edit later: Instead of "If you do not see it", I should have typed, "If it is not there". There is of course no excuse for not seeing a sign that is visible and properly erected.
A rectangular white sign with black letters saying "DO NOT CHANGE LANES" is that method.
I have seen other wording, such as "STAY IN YOUR LANE", in Ontario and elsewhere.
If you see such a sign, then you cannot change lanes.
If you do not see it, there is no prohibition.
For an example, ride where there is an HOV lane, such as 403 through Mississauga, and read the signs.
In some jurisdictions, a double solid white line means "DO NOT CHANGE LANES",
and it seems a single solid line means changing lanes is extra perilous hereabouts.
Yes, examiners make up their own rules, and these vary unpredictably.
If you are going to ride in B.C. check to see if their laws are different,
as they are, for example, for flashing green lights.
Edit later: Instead of "If you do not see it", I should have typed, "If it is not there". There is of course no excuse for not seeing a sign that is visible and properly erected.
Last edited:
If it is signed then yes, you could be charged with fail to obey official sign.
Double yellows? In Ontario, unless it's signed for no passing, you can pass on a double yellow. However in Quebec, you can't. Don't ask me how I know about Quebec.
I asked the same question a while back and got the answer that it wasn't illegal. It makes it harder for someone making a right on red when they have to second guess the future lane position of a vehicle approaching from the left as well as pedestrians suddenly changing their minds.
Salos Dafee
Well-known member
Absolutely RIGHT ON. When you contemplate a right turn on a red light, then look left and see an oncoming vehicle that is NOT in the curb lane, the driver of that vehicle has the right to change into the curb lane, and you must yield to it if it makes that change. It CAN make that change while you glance right to make sure you are not about to hit a pedestrian, so just wait a bit longer until no vehicle is coming from your left in the curb lane or the next lane out ... or maybe all the lanes, eh?
And if the driver behind you honks, your throttle hand is available for the appropriate salute.
(That is why gloves are better than mittens, even though gloves may not be quite so warm.)
Salos Dafee
Well-known member
I found the specific law in British Columbia:
Driving on laned roadway
151 A driver who is driving a vehicle on a laned roadway
(a) ...
(b) must not drive it from one lane to another if that action necessitates crossing a solid line,
(c) ...
So the single solid lines we see between, for example the southbound lanes of Yonge Street as it approaches Eglinton Avenue mean, "be extra cautious crossing me", but the same paint on Cambie Street in Vancouver means, "it is an offence to cross me".
And U-turns are also verboten in Vancouver, whether or not a sign says so ...
Fun, eh?
Driving on laned roadway
151 A driver who is driving a vehicle on a laned roadway
(a) ...
(b) must not drive it from one lane to another if that action necessitates crossing a solid line,
(c) ...
So the single solid lines we see between, for example the southbound lanes of Yonge Street as it approaches Eglinton Avenue mean, "be extra cautious crossing me", but the same paint on Cambie Street in Vancouver means, "it is an offence to cross me".
And U-turns are also verboten in Vancouver, whether or not a sign says so ...
Fun, eh?
And closer to home; don't cross over lines in Quebec either. Don't ask me how I know.
Metastable
Well-known member
This is the way I interpret some of our lame laws.
A solid white line is IMPLIED that you SHOULDN'T pass it..... a solid Yellow line ..... is discretionary.
OK, now having said that, with some exceptions (and there are about 3 of them that I can remember) that specifically state crossing a solid white line should not be done (ie HOV lane on highway), nothing clearly states that you cannot cross a white line approaching an intersection.... or change lanes in the middle of an intersection.
A solid white line is IMPLIED that you SHOULDN'T pass it..... a solid Yellow line ..... is discretionary.
OK, now having said that, with some exceptions (and there are about 3 of them that I can remember) that specifically state crossing a solid white line should not be done (ie HOV lane on highway), nothing clearly states that you cannot cross a white line approaching an intersection.... or change lanes in the middle of an intersection.
In Ontario, lines on the roadway are of a cautionary nature; more lines = more caution. In the case of the HOV lanes you wrote, it is the posted signs prohibiting the crossing of the white lines, not the lines themselves that determine the legality of crossing the lines.
|
|
|
|
|