Right; lines are not a regulatory device.
|
|
|
Lane changes approaching/in an intersection
- Thread starter elkymutt
- Start date
Right; lines are not a regulatory device.
Metastable
Well-known member
No wrong - Lines ARE a regulatory device in a few cases. It is written in the HTA, not just disobeying a sign. The others revolve around where to stop at a stop sign or intersection and the other one has to do with making a turn or something there abouts at an intersection with marked lanes. I'm not going to dig it up, but the HOV lanes are one of them plus there are about 2 others where lane markings ARE LAW in Ontario. However, as I stated before they USUALLY aren't.
Actually they aren't, in the case of HOV lanes. The lanes must be marked with a sign, that designates them as HOV lanes. The sign is the regulatory device, indicating that the lines are to be obeyed. Without the signage, there can be no HOV lane.
Regulations for high occupancy vehicle lanes
154.1 (1) Where a part of the King’s Highway has been divided into clearly marked lanes for traffic, the Minister may by regulation designate any lane as a high occupancy vehicle lane for that part of the King’s Highway and may make regulations,
(a) limiting the designation to specified months or times of the year, days, times, conditions or circumstances;
(b) limiting the use of high occupancy vehicle lanes to vehicles, or any class or type of vehicles, with a specified number of occupants, and prescribing conditions and circumstances for such use;
(c) regulating the use of high occupancy vehicle lanes, including prescribing rules of the road applicable to the use of the lanes, exemptions from any requirement in this Part or in a regulation made under this Part applicable to the use of the lanes and conditions and circumstances for such exemptions;
(d) providing for the erection of signs and the placing of markings to identify high occupancy vehicle lanes and the entry and exit points for high occupancy vehicle lanes;
(e) prescribing the types of the signs and markings referred to in clause (d), instructions to be contained on them and the location of each type of sign and marking. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 25.
Metastable
Well-known member
It does talk about the markings specifically.... and others do too.
Yup, but without the sign, those markings are meaningless.
awyala
Guest
You can change lanes but you cannot pass the front bumper of the lead car within 30m of a pedestrian crossing. So change lanes but don't pass the lead car!!!
Never heard of that. Care to post the section?
I almost got tagged today because of this. Fortunately, not my vehicle, and I wasn't driving!
Driver of an airport shuttle bus that I was in, made a left turn directly to the right lane of the road he was turning onto (wrong), and simultaneously, an airport taxi coming from the opposite direction made a right onto the same road - obviously wanting to go into that very same right lane.
They didn't hit, but it was close.
I see left turns done wrongly in this manner all the time.
My countermeasures are as follows. If I'm doing the left and I need to end up in the right lane, it's simple. Do the left turn to the left lane, followed by a properly shoulder checked and signalled lane change to the right. If clown behind me does it wrongly and goes straight to the right lane with the intent of overtaking me on the right, that's what the throttle is for. On the other hand, if I'm doing a right, and there are people turning left from the opposite direction onto the same road, I know that people do it wrongly so frequently that I either wait for all the left-turners to finish, or time my arrival in the intersection to be in between two of the left-turners, certainly not directly beside any of them ...
Driver of an airport shuttle bus that I was in, made a left turn directly to the right lane of the road he was turning onto (wrong), and simultaneously, an airport taxi coming from the opposite direction made a right onto the same road - obviously wanting to go into that very same right lane.
They didn't hit, but it was close.
I see left turns done wrongly in this manner all the time.
My countermeasures are as follows. If I'm doing the left and I need to end up in the right lane, it's simple. Do the left turn to the left lane, followed by a properly shoulder checked and signalled lane change to the right. If clown behind me does it wrongly and goes straight to the right lane with the intent of overtaking me on the right, that's what the throttle is for. On the other hand, if I'm doing a right, and there are people turning left from the opposite direction onto the same road, I know that people do it wrongly so frequently that I either wait for all the left-turners to finish, or time my arrival in the intersection to be in between two of the left-turners, certainly not directly beside any of them ...
awyala
Guest
Pedestrian crossover, duties of driver
140. (1) Subject to subsection (2), when a pedestrian or a person in a wheelchair crossing a roadway within a pedestrian crossover,
(a) is upon the half of the roadway upon which a vehicle or street car is travelling; or
(b) is upon half of the roadway and is approaching the other half of the roadway on which a vehicle or street car is approaching so closely to the pedestrian crossover as to endanger him or her,
the driver of the vehicle or street car shall yield the right of way to the pedestrian or a person in a wheelchair by slowing down or stopping if necessary. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (1).
Where vehicle stopped at pedestrian crossover
(2) When a vehicle or street car is stopped at a pedestrian crossover, the driver of any other vehicle or street car overtaking the stopped vehicle or street car shall bring the vehicle or street car to a full stop before entering the crossover and shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian or a person in a wheelchair,
(a) who is within the crossover upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle or street car is stopped; or
(b) who is within the crossover and is approaching the half of the roadway from the other half of the roadway so closely to the vehicle or street car that he or she is in danger if the vehicle or street car were to proceed. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (2).
Passing moving vehicles within 30 metres of pedestrian crossover
(3) When a vehicle or street car is approaching a pedestrian crossover and is within 30 metres thereof, the driver of any other vehicle or street car approaching from the rear shall not allow the front extremity of his or her vehicle or streetcar to pass beyond the front extremity of the other vehicle or street car. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (3).
In layman's terms, don't pass the front bumper of (corrected) any other car in front within 30m of an intersection or it becomes an offence. So you may change lanes, but you may not pass any other vehicle. The caveat is that the other car is "approaching". If they are stopped, this doesn't sound like it applies (for example, a line up of cars in the right lane to turn, and you pass in the left lane to go through the light).
I find this law to be next to rarely if ever enforced and highly impractical. It would imply that if one lane were moving (all be it slowly), no one in the lane next to them could proceed!!! So if there was a crawling left turn or right turn lane, then no one in an unobstructed free flowing lane could pass the slower traffic to either side within 30m of an intersection.
This law seems restrictive and perhaps that is why I have never heard of it being thrown at anyone. The intent seems to be to prevent some impatient speeder from jutting out into the next lane, missing a visual qeue that had prevented the car in front from proceeding, speeding past and potentially hitting a pedestrian. It makes sense in those circumstances...but next time you are out on the road, I'll bet you can count at least 5 times you see this infraction. I have seen cops witness it and not even bother a double take. But it is there in the books if they want to nail ya!
Last edited:
A different situation, and this one IS illegal. If multi-lanes are involved, you must turn into the closest lane from which you are starting; left turn into the left most lane or right turn into the right most lane then lane change if you need to, as you mentioned you do.
Well now I can go home, my day is done, I've learned something new although I don't think it matters if it's the LEAD car; the way I read it you can't pass ANY car within 30 meters. Thanks for posting the section.
The sloppy left turn is the norm it seems and, as you suggest, if you need to be in the right lane soon after just use the throttle. Of course that could be described as trying to "Outdistance" and you would end up with a HTA 172. There are a lot of intersections where a cop could end up with writer's cramp by enforcing some safe turn laws.
Pretty much ANY intersection to a multi-lane road, these days. Sometimes I feel like I'm the last person in the world, who both signals turns and makes legal turns.
One of my favourites... The drivers who will brake from 70kph with no indication of why, then 10 feet before the intersection once they have slowed to about 25kph is when they turn on their turn signal. Thanks.
I have a sort of related question.
At this intersetction.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Londo...n,+Middlesex+County,+Ontario,+Canada&t=h&z=19
I was driving East on Huron stopped facing a green light and waiting to turn left onto Clarke. For traffic traveling West on Huron making a right onto Clarke there is a yield sign for the right turn lane. I waited unto there was no Westbound through traffic on Huron to make my left turn. There were a few Westbound vehicles approaching the intersection but in the right turn lane. One of them a CBR954. As I made my turn the rider turned right barely slowing down and ended up pretty close in front of me on Clarke. He didn't seem to pleased and gave me the finger.
In that situation, when I'm facing a green and there is no oncoming through traffic and the opposing right turn traffic is facing a yield sign. Do I have the right of way or do they? I was under the impression that I did.
Last edited:
That's an interesting question and I'm not sure it's one I can definitively answer. The yield sign is obviously meant to keep people from slamming into through traffic, on Clarke, but it's not conditional. The ordinary situation is that you would have to yield to the oncoming driver, who is making the right turn.
My gut tells me that you must yield as that is the standard for road use, and you cannot be expected to be aware of what signs he is seeing.
My gut tells me that you must yield as that is the standard for road use, and you cannot be expected to be aware of what signs he is seeing.
No. Once he has completed his turn onto northbound Clarke, he effectively becomes the through traffic that right-turning traffic on the ramp must yield to. It would be a different story if the ramp and yield sign was not there, in which case it would become an ordinary intersection in which the OP would have to yield to both through and right-turning traffic.
Whether the OP can see that a yield sign is or is not there is not relevant. What is relevant is that right-turners can see that sign and are governed by it. That yield is an unconditional yield - yield to traffic that is coming through on the north-bound lane regardless of its origin.
But at what point does he become through traffic, if the other vehicle has arrived there first? As I said, the situation is rather unclear. The duty of a left turning driver to yield is also unconditional.
The left turner must yield to oncoming traffic in an intersection, but that extended right turn lane and island in effect create TWO intersections, the standard cross-street intersection controlled by a traffic light, and another nearby on ramp controlled by a yield sign. On-ramps generally must yield to through traffic, unless it is the "non-ramp" traffic that is facing a yield sign instead.
Once the OP has completed his turn after yielding to straight-through traffic at the traffic light and before he hits the point that he meets right turners facing the yield sign, he is no longer a left-turner. He is just ordinary traffic as far as the right turners facing the yield sign are concerned.
Last edited:
My current understanding is basically the Turbodescription, but I could be wrong. I was under the impression that the split righ turn lane, island, and yield sign effectively turns that right turn lane into a separate, albeit very nearby, intersection. Do I become Northbound Clarke traffic prior to the right turn merge or am I still considered a left turning vehicle versus a right turning vehicle?
Would the situation be different if instead of facing a green I was facing an advanced green arrow?
This is more or less how I thought it worked. I see it's still pretty unclear though.
That comment just changed my mind.
awyala
Guest
Actually you may have read it more correctly than I have. I am not sure where I got the "lead car" thing. I'll have to re-read other sections, but I think you may be right...it seems to suggest the "other" vehicle, which could mean simply any other vehicle than yours...which would imply no passing, even partially within 30m approaching a pedestrian crossing.
I editted my post above.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|