Left hand turn, yellow light question

[griff2]

Bad example. When one vehicle rear ends the other, the vehicle which hits the other in the back is always at fault.
Either careless driving or following too closely.

Huh? The example I gave had nothing to do with a rear-end collision. It had to do with this one - Fiery crash kills 3 http://www.chch.com/fiery-crash-kills-3/

Are you suggesting that the left-turning SUV driver is somehow at fault because he didn't allow for a motorcycle approaching him at double or more the speed limit?

This entire question can be responded to very simply.
If you are trying to make a left on an amber and the vehicle coming towards you speeds up do you honestly think you can make the turn safely with the other vehicle bearing down on you?
Is there anything in your common sense that tells you this is a safe thing to do?
That's what 90% of the HTA is, common sense.
The fact the government has to spell all these things out in a statute speaks volumes about the drivers, not the government.

This assumes that you are able to actually judge the speed of the approaching vehicle. What if it is not "speeding up" to make the light, but is in fact doing more than twice the highway speed limit? What if, in deciding to turn or not turn, the motorcycle is more than far enough away (assuming reasonably expected speeds on a given road) to allow one to make a left turn?

A motorcycle with but one headlight (assuming it is even working) and a very narrow profile makes judging approach speed very difficult. It won't visibly "bear down on you" in the same way that a vehicle with two headlights and a wider aspect will.

Should someone not make a turn if a vehicle is anywhere even remotely in sight on the remote chance that the approaching vehicle may actually be travelling much faster than anyone could reasonably expect? Traffic in the GTA would be in complete gridlock if such was the case.

That's what 90% of the HTA is, common sense.
The fact the government has to spell all these things out in a statute speaks volumes about the drivers, not the government.

Common sense indeed. How about this one where a left turner ended up in collision with one of three motorcycles approaching "in a hurry", and which ended up seriously injuring a pedestrian on the sidewalk at the corner of Yonge and St.Clair in Toronto? The left-turner had no reasonable expectation that a motorcycle would appear out of nowhere after a snap lane-change made at speeds unexpected and unreasonably high for the area and traffic conditions.

Charges for that one: "Police have now charged the 29-year-old Yamaha R6 driver, Haytham Markos of Brampton, with dangerous operation causing bodily harm, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and stunt driving. The other motorcycle rider, 30-year-old Narciso Castro Gonzales of Ajax, has been charged with dangerous operation and stunt driving." The left-turning driver? Nothing, and rightfully so as he should not have to be held to account for making what would have been a safe turn but for the unreasonable conduct of the approaching motorcycles.

Yes, a person should not make a left turn unless the way is reasonably clear, but that does not mean that every left-turn collision is the fault of the left-turner. Common sense should let you figure that one out.

 

[statsman]

40 km/hr zone. The driver of the car going through the intersection speeds up to 100 km/hr to make the light.
Question: Was the way clear for the driver making the left. Answer: NO it wasn't.
Therefore the driver making the turn is at fault.
Common sense. You don't make the turn unless the way is clear.
Any arguments presented that tries to make the driver of the speeding vehicle responsible is an attempt by the turning vehicle to avoid their responsibility.
There seems to be a belief among many in Toronto that the light turning amber is the same thing as a green arrow. It isn't.

The last time I went through the intersection at Yonge and St. Clair which was this morning, there were no left turns allowed 24/7. It has been like this all four ways since the streetcar tracks were re-done.

Not "reasonably clear", clear. If a driver makes a left turn and the vehicle coming through the intersection has to touch the brakes to avoid a collision, the person turning left screwed up...regardless of what colour the light is.

Now, you will no doubt feel compelled to comment on my comments. Feel free. But there are certain policies that over ride everything else.
First of all, the main criteria of the HTA is punish the person who caused the problem. If the left turner in the scenario had waited, he could have made his turn on the red. Under these circumstances he probably would not have got a ticket even though its illegal.
Second, you don't have the right of way unless someone else is giving it to you.
Third, we all know the rules of the road and how they are supposed to work. Problems arise when we choose to ignore them. Always of course for what we feel is a good reason.

 

[griff2]

40 km/hr zone. The driver of the car going through the intersection speeds up to 100 km/hr to make the light.
Question: Was the way clear for the driver making the left. Answer: NO it wasn't.
Therefore the driver making the turn is at fault.

Change the story just a little. Replace speeding car with a speeding motorcycle weaving in and out of other traffic, including larger vehicles like trucks and buses approaching the light. Now things change. The bike is not visible to the turning traffic until it is too late. Bike is responsible for that crash, not the person who initiated the turn when the way was in fact clear.

4The last time I went through the intersection at Yonge and St. Clair which was this morning, there were no left turns allowed 24/7.

Not "reasonably clear", clear. If a driver makes a left turn and the vehicle coming through the intersection has to touch the brakes to avoid a collision, the person turning left screwed up...regardless of what colour the light is.

Yonge and St.Clair was the area, not the intersection. The actual intersection was Yonge and Pleasant, 100 metres south of St Clair, and left turns are permitted there. The crash (caught on video) happened because of the scenario described above, with motorcycles weaving in and out of other traffic at significantly higher speed. The left-turner was not charged. There is a reason why the two motorcycle riders were charged and the left-turner not. There is a reason why the one rider was facing extremely charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and the left-turner not.

Not "reasonably clear", clear. If a driver makes a left turn and the vehicle coming through the intersection has to touch the brakes to avoid a collision, the person turning left screwed up...regardless of what colour the light is.

That's not what the HTA says. It requires is that the turning vehicle "has afforded a reasonable opportunity to the driver or operator of the approaching vehicle to avoid a collision." There is that word again, "reasonable".

If you were really a motorcycle rider, then surely you should know that it incumbent on you to ride in a way that gives other road users sufficient capability to see and anticipate your movements. You can't expect other road users to be able to be prescient and be able to anticipate your arrival if you are travelling at ridiculous speeds weaving through traffic and that traffic masks your bike from the view of approaching traffic. When you ride (or drive) in a way completely out of the expected norms of traffic, you are the cause of the crash, and not the turning vehicle.

 

[griff2]

Now, you will no doubt feel compelled to comment on my comments. Feel free. But there are certain policies that over ride everything else.
First of all, the main criteria of the HTA is punish the person who caused the problem. If the left turner in the scenario had waited, he could have made his turn on the red. Under these circumstances he probably would not have got a ticket even though its illegal.
Second, you don't have the right of way unless someone else is giving it to you.
Third, we all know the rules of the road and how they are supposed to work. Problems arise when we choose to ignore them. Always of course for what we feel is a good reason.

If the motorcycles had been riding with the flow of traffic instead of using other cars as if they were apexing pylons on a high speed road course, the crash would not have happened.

You're speaking of rules of the road, and ignore the impact of street racing on the normal and expected movement of traffic?

Okkkkkkk...........

 

[hedo2002]

This thread has gotten WAY off course so let's bring it back to the ACTUAL scenario, not ones "dreamed up" to alter responsibility. There were no motorcycles at 200% the posted limit, nor trucks obstructing views, nor cattle falling from the sky... etc etc etc

The OP said his friend was charged with making an improper left turn, because an oncoming vehicle had an AMBER light, (so we can dispense with the "proving it was amber not red" etc, as it has been established that the light was indeed amber, by the person who was there, the OP's friend who made the left hand turn, and was charged with an offence).

Yes the section of the HTA says that a vehicle approaching an intersection, with an AMBER light "shall stop if it is safe to do so". The wording as it is with most HTA sections is vague. Had it simply stated SHALL STOP, and ended there then in the scenario presented the oncoming vehicle would be guilty of the offence of fail to stop. However, once the wording IF it is safe to do so, is introduced this gives the driver tons of wiggle room, and why the police at scene decided not to lay a charge as they knew "there is little prospect for a conviction" tag line to come into play. Now one could easily argue that it would have been safer for this vehicle to stop, as they would have avoided the collision, BUT we don't know if someone was right on his butt and they felt it unsafe to stop quickly for the yellow. So that covers why I wouldn't have charged that driver with fail to stop.

Now as for the left hand turner, because the oncoming vehicle had no "duty to stop" for the amber light, then that vehicle should not have attempted to complete their left hand turn. The section of the HTA states that the turn must be able to be competed in safety. Due to the simple fact that a collision occurred is proof enough that the act of the left turn could not be completed in safety. Hence the driver of the Left turning vehicle is the one who catches the infraction for improper left turn. That is from the HTA point of view. Now from an Fault determination rules it "may" be a different outcome. I would however respectfully submit, given that the oncoming vehicle did not violate the section of the HTA covering fail to stop, sufficiently to ave garnered a conviction the insurer is likely inclined to assign 100% fault to the left hand turn vehicle. However, the adjusters will discuss it and may for "expediency" declare it a 50/50 at fault collision and both drivers will see increases.

 

[statsman]

Quite correct hedo.
The circumstances keep changing to accommodate the "what ifs".
What was the actual situation that occurred. This controls who was at fault.

 

[griff2]

What was the actual situation that occurred. This controls who was at fault.

Perhaps in this instance. However, you keep arguing that the left turner is "always" at fault for a crash, and this is simply not true. If the riding/driving behaviour of the approaching vehicle is egregious enough, fault can shift from both HTA or criminal charge point of view and from a insurance or civil liability point of view. Anything thing else is simplistic dogma.

 

[hedo2002]

Perhaps in this instance. However, you keep arguing that the left turner is "always" at fault for a crash, and this is simply not true. If the riding/driving behaviour of the approaching vehicle is egregious enough, fault can shift from both HTA or criminal charge point of view and from a insurance or civil liability point of view. Anything thing else is simplistic dogma.

Point is THIS thread was a poster asking about a specific set of circumstances, (which were laid out in the OP), not what if a cow had fallen from a skyscraper and impacted the intersection JUST before the collision. Yes each collision will require the investigation to be completed, (by police), and the adjusters to look at all aspects of the collision and follow the Fault Determination Rules, (FDR's).

Police don't assign fault, they conduct an investigation and based upon their findings they may or may not lay a charge, (which is based on current legislation), not as to who is "at fault" for the collision. Just because someone is issued an infraction does not make them "at fault" as determined by the FDR's.

So all the "what if's" in the world won't change the facts of this collision as described in the OP. I have never investigated an collision where I could determine someone was "at fault" simply because they did or didn't do something.

Yes, there is no such thing as "always" at fault, Even in a rear end collision, (the majority are caused by careless or following too close), But in the event of a brake check the rear vehicle may not be "at fault". But those circumstances are rare, just as it is rare for a vehicle turning left not to be at fault.

In the end the OP asked for an opinion based upon the scenario he presented not "what if", so we should try to answer his question rather than start a pissing match over weather a bike doing 200% the limit is responsible, when none existed.

 

[statsman]

Griff
I did not once state that the left turner is always responsible for the crash.
That is YOUR spin to support your position.
I have stated that the left turner is generally responsible for not taking sufficient caution.
I can imagine several scenarios where the left turner would not be at fault.

 

[havefun]

About 25 years ago, friend of mine was waiting to make a left at a yellow, on a 2 lane road. Oncoming traffic, did not have a turn lane, either left or right. Posted speed for the area was 60km/h

Light turned red, car in oncoming traffic lane stopped, so he went to complete the left turn.
A second oncoming car went around the stopped car, passing on the right gravel shoulder, entered the intersection after the light turned red, and t-boned my friend. From reports the car was definitely exceeding the posted speed.

Luckily no fatalities, but the person in the front passenger was in a coma for several weeks.

I still remember being completely baffled that my friend was charged, and can still remember the wording of the ticket, "failure to provide reasonable opportunity to avoid a collision"

The insurance company lawyers represented him in court, and lost. Baffles the mind.
If you look at 141(5), pretty much its always on the driver making the left. But going around a stopped car using the shoulder, come on. In my opinion, the stopped car, made the turn reasonable, but the courts disagreed.

 

[statsman]

IMO a situation where the person making the left turn was not at fault.
The light was red, he had taken reasonable precautions and when he made the turn the way was clear.

 

[JFD]

when i was 18, i was waiting at a yellow to turn left. Light turned red, and i proceeded, but car decided to come straight through.

i didn't get charged. I can't remember what the other guy got. Someone on the corner mentioned the driver ran the red clearly.

Way i see it, there's reasonable expectation that it's clear to move if the light is clearly red and car is approaching it (and would not be antipcated as hammering on gas just before intersection).

 

[griff2]

when i was 18, i was waiting at a yellow to turn left. Light turned red, and i proceeded, but car decided to come straight through.

i didn't get charged. I can't remember what the other guy got. Someone on the corner mentioned the driver ran the red clearly.

Way i see it, there's reasonable expectation that it's clear to move if the light is clearly red and car is approaching it (and would not be antipcated as hammering on gas just before intersection).

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj34/2009oncj34.pdf

Regina v. Dillman, supra., Duncan Ont. Ct. J. said. of the text of subsection 142(1)of the Highway Traffic Act:

[14]Furthermore, in considering the issue of the existence of due diligence in relation to the offence of turn-not in safety, Mr. Justice Duncan wrote as follows:…

All of the circumstances must be considered in determination of whether a turn was made in safety.

Where, as here, visibility of oncoming traffic is limited, it is my view that safety requires that the left turning driver make allowances for the predictable shortcomings and potential negligence of drivers who may soon appear.

While it has sometimes been said that a driver is entitled to assume that other drivers will obey the rules of the road, I think there are limits to such an assumption particularly where there is an onus to do something “in safety”.

In my view the safe left turner is not entitled to assume that all other drivers will be strictly adhering to speed limits or paying perfect attention to the road ahead.

On the other hand it would be an unreasonable standard of care and tantamount to imposing absolute liability to hold that the turn was not made in safety because an accident was caused by, for example, the gross speed or gross inattention of an oncoming driver.​

 

[statsman]

What did he have to say in the rest of the decision?
Case law is to be interpreted narrowly.
This means that for a judge or JP to be bound by this specific decision in case law they would need to read the entire decision.
Not just the paragraph that agrees with the defendant's positon.

 

[griff2]

What did he have to say in the rest of the decision?
Case law is to be interpreted narrowly.
This means that for a judge or JP to be bound by this specific decision in case law they would need to read the entire decision.
Not just the paragraph that agrees with the defendant's positon.

You're missing the point. The actual verdict in the case cited is secondary. The main points are that turn not in safety is a strict liability offence for which an accused driver has access to a due diligence defense.

Justice Duncan gives a clear opinion that a verdict should come only after the totality of the circumstances is examined, and that one aspect of that totality can include examination of the actions of the non-turning driver.

In another case, R. v Lawson in Oakville, a driver charged with unsafe turn was acquitted on that exact basis, that being the examination of the totality of circumstances including the conduct of the other driver. She turned and struck another vehicle that was in the place she was turning into.

That JP's judgement laid out the considerations necessary to obtain conviction as follows:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2008/2008oncj741/2008oncj741.pdf

[5] In order to establish the actus reus of the subject offence, the prosecution must prove that at the material time and place, the defendant was the driver or operator of a vehicle on a highway who executed a manoeuvre from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic, without first determining that the movement could be made in safety. These elements must be established by the prosecution to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[6] As the defendant is presumed innocent of the charge until proven guilty, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and that legal burden never shifts to the defendant.
[7] The subject offence is one of strict liability. The prosecution is not, therefore,required to prove the element of mens rea. The fault element of negligence is automatically imported into the offence, once the commission of the prohibited offence is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
[8] If the actus reus is established, the Court may consider a potential defence of due diligence. The onus rests on the defendant to prove such a defence on a balance of probabilities.

THE ISSUES
[9] The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether or not the prosecution has established that the defendant committed the actus reus of the subject offence, beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution has met its burden in this regard, the Court must consider whether the defendant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that she exercised due diligence in the course of committing the offence.​

The accused was able to convince the JP that she had done everything reasonably possible to make a safe turn despite ultimately being in a collision, that the other driver was in a place that she could not have reasonably anticipated and allowed for, and as such was not guilty of making an unsafe turn. Her defence of due diligence was successful, and hinged in part on the other driver's unanticipated actions that placed him in a place that he would not ordinarily be expected to be.

​

 

[hedo2002]

Yes due diligence is a viable defence, BUT due diligence can NOT be based upon a driver "reasonable belief" In the case you cited, the left turned had a reasonable belief that she could make the turn in safety. But when you read the actual circumstances she estimated the vehicle to be traveling at 60 - 70 km/h and to be 60 - 80' away. As the JP in the case pointed out at that distance, and speed the vehicle would have covered the distance in time to have struck the left turner. that is why she was convicted. Also remember, the case you cited was a ruling by a JP so it is NOT a precedent setting case. To be so it must have been appealed to a higher court. BTW in the initial case you cited the driver WAS CONVICTED her due diligence defence was ruled to have not been sufficient to avoid a conviction read the very last three paras of the JP's decision.

But again NONE of this has anything to do with the circumstances as posted by the OP.

 

[griff2]

Yes due diligence is a viable defence, BUT due diligence can NOT be based upon a driver "reasonable belief" In the case you cited, the left turned had a reasonable belief that she could make the turn in safety. But when you read the actual circumstances she estimated the vehicle to be traveling at 60 - 70 km/h and to be 60 - 80' away. As the JP in the case pointed out at that distance, and speed the vehicle would have covered the distance in time to have struck the left turner. that is why she was convicted. Also remember, the case you cited was a ruling by a JP so it is NOT a precedent setting case. To be so it must have been appealed to a higher court. BTW in the initial case you cited the driver WAS CONVICTED her due diligence defence was ruled to have not been sufficient to avoid a conviction read the very last three paras of the JP's decision.

But again NONE of this has anything to do with the circumstances as posted by the OP.

Yes, the driver in the first case cited was convicted, but again, that is secondary to the JP's considerations in arriving at that conviction, that being that the other driver's actions can be examined and taken into account in some circumstances. The judgement there hinged on the accused testimony that she thought the approaching car was 60 to 80 feet away when she turned, and she also testified that the approaching car was doing either 60 km and maybe even 70 kmph. The speed limit there is 60 kmph, so even 70 wouldn't be that much faster than would be expected in the area.

The problem with that (as noted in the judgement) is that an approach speed of even just 60 kmph or the speed limit at that point correlates to a closing rate of 55 ft per sec. Turning when she thought the approaching car was only 60 to 80 feet away does not really support an argue of having undertaken sufficient due diligence regardless of the approach speed. That "honest belief" was clearly unreasonable. BUT, the due diligence claim was still examined as a potential factor. Had the distance been two hundred feet and the approach speed been 140, would the ruling have been any different?

The driver is the second case was acquitted. The JP ruled that she had exercised reasonable due diligence before turning out, and so was acquitted despite a collision having occurred. JPs can and do reference rulings from other lower courts.

Getting back to the Yonge and Pleasant crash where a left turner struck a lane weaving motorcycle, only the motorcycle riders were charged. The left-turner was not.

None of this pertains to the OP's circumstances, but it does pertain to the discussion of whether the left-turner is always charged or if charged, is always summarily guilty or not.

 

[statsman]

This issue just gets more and more muddy.
One section of the HTA says one thing, another section says something different.
One decision agrees, another disagrees.
I think this horse has been flogged to death.

 

[hedo2002]

I agree with the sentiment stated below this has been flogged to death. Statsman, believes that the left turner is always at fault, just as you believe that other factors can be taken into account. I would suggest respectfully both are somewhat correct, but neither is 100% correct. I have tried to bring this thread back on point. Can we just let it go. There is no hard and fast rule which will show all drivers in a particular incident are charged nor that none are charged. That is why an investigation needs to be done.

Yes, the driver in the first case cited was convicted, but again, that is secondary to the JP's considerations in arriving at that conviction, that being that the other driver's actions can be examined and taken into account in some circumstances. The judgement there hinged on the accused testimony that she thought the approaching car was 60 to 80 feet away when she turned, and she also testified that the approaching car was doing either 60 km and maybe even 70 kmph. The speed limit there is 60 kmph, so even 70 wouldn't be that much faster than would be expected in the area.

The problem with that (as noted in the judgement) is that an approach speed of even just 60 kmph or the speed limit at that point correlates to a closing rate of 55 ft per sec. Turning when she thought the approaching car was only 60 to 80 feet away does not really support an argue of having undertaken sufficient due diligence regardless of the approach speed. That "honest belief" was clearly unreasonable. BUT, the due diligence claim was still examined as a potential factor. Had the distance been two hundred feet and the approach speed been 140, would the ruling have been any different?

The driver is the second case was acquitted. The JP ruled that she had exercised reasonable due diligence before turning out, and so was acquitted despite a collision having occurred. JPs can and do reference rulings from other lower courts.

Getting back to the Yonge and Pleasant crash where a left turner struck a lane weaving motorcycle, only the motorcycle riders were charged. The left-turner was not.

None of this pertains to the OP's circumstances, but it does pertain to the discussion of whether the left-turner is always charged or if charged, is always summarily guilty or not.

 

[statsman]

This is the second time you have said that I believe the left turner is always at fault.
This will be the second time that I am denying it.
What I posted was that the left turner is generally at fault for turning when the lane wasn't clear.
I also posted that I could think of scenarios where the left turner was not at fault.
How this became in your mind "THE LEFT TURNER IS ALWAYS AT FAULT" is a mystery.