Now back to the green arrow tangent. I'm going to take one more stab at it. And yes it's making my brain hurt!

First the Act makes a distinction between a green indication and a green arrow indication. An indication and an arrow indication are different. Keep that in mind. Note also that s.14 does not require drivers to stop. Only s. 18 does. If you are not going in the direction of the arrow, s.14 does not give drivers the choice of stopping: "may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow". In other words, facing a red indication and a green arrow, s. 14 states they may turn in the direction of the arrow. Also note that s. 14 does not state "Despite s.18, drivers may proceed in the direction of the arrow without stopping." So imagine you were driving straight and now you've got a red light and a green arrow going left. Does that mean you have to go left? No, you can remain stopped until you are allowed to proceed straight. s. 18 & 14 work together. Let's look at some scenarios:

Scenario 1: Red indication. Driver must stop [s.18] but can turn right after stopping (s.19).

Scenario 2: Red indication, green arrow indication pointing right. The driver must stop [s18] OR she can turn right without stopping (s.14).

S.19 states "without a green indication showing" (that means a green light NOT an arrow). S. 19 (without mentioning s.14) states that a driver approaching an intersection without a green indication cannot turn right unless they come to a complete stop. Doesn't matter if a right green arrow is showing or not. Obviously that defeats the purpose of s.14. So let's include s. 14. Now s.19 is "subject to" s. 14. Meaning without a green indication showing, the driver can turn right without stopping because s.14 takes precedence.

Scenario 3: Red indication, green arrow indication pointing left. Driver must stop [s.18]. Driver can turn left without stopping (s.14). S. 19 says after stopping if there is no green indication, you can turn right. If you couldn't do this, then s.14 would have stated "Despite s.19 a driver can only proceed in the direction of the green arrow indication."

However I can see the s. 19 "subject to" being equivalent to a s. 14 "despite". So yes I am willing to admit it could be successfully interpreted the other way, as Bear states, depending on the day and the JP. But I do want to point out that s. 14 does not state "Despite s. 18". So 14 and 18 have to work together.

Now back to the green arrow tangent. I'm going to take one more stab at it. And yes it's making my brain hurt!

First the Act makes a distinction between a green indication and a green arrow indication. An indication and an arrow indication are different. Keep that in mind.

Next s. 18 requires drivers to stop at a red indication. S. 14 does not contain an exemption to this!!! Only s. 19 does! Think about it. You have to stop at a red light. The only exception is s. 19. S. 14 does not state "despite s.18 drivers may proceed in the direction of the arrow without stopping."

So as I read it, s. 18 requires drivers to stop. S. 19 says despite s. 18, after stopping you can make a right turn. But s. 19 also says "subject to s.14". I take that to mean, after stopping, if there is a green arrow indicator, you can only proceed in that direction on a red light. That means you have to STOP for a green arrow before proceeding if there is a red indication also showing.

Next look at s.13.

In other words you can only proceed without stopping on a green arrow if there is also a green indication. Otherwise you must stop. So think about every left turn lane where the green arrow comes on for left turns in both directions while the light remains red for through traffic. Technically all those vehicles turning left have to stop on the line first before proceeding in the direction of the arrow. Now my brain really hurts! Bear, you've opened up a can of worms!?!

s(18] Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular red indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle and shall not proceed until a green indication is shown.

s(19) Despite subsection (18] a driver, after stopping his or her vehicle and yielding the right of way may turn to the right without a green indication being shown

s(14) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing one or more green arrow indications only or in combination with a circular red or circular amber indication and facing the indication may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow.

(13) A driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular flashing green indication or a solid or flashing left turn green arrow indication in conjunction with a circular green indication and facing the indication may, despite subsection 141 (5), proceed forward or turn left or right unless otherwise directed.

Obeying lane lights

(10) Every driver shall obey every traffic control signal that applies to the lane that he or she is in.

Or do all signals facing you apply to you?

Now back to the green arrow tangent. I'm going to take one more stab at it. And yes it's making my brain hurt!

Always thought that they put up the traffic lights so that they directed specific lanes to do specific things. Otherwise, why not just put up one light at each intersection instead of two lights for two lanes?



Just to make matters worse, has anyone driven in Toronto on Lawrence Avenue and been through the traffic lights at Mount Pleasant? THAT is one messed up set of lights, easy in principle but the first time you see them you go

My head really hurts...

On the four-indication traffic lights, the top three still apply to through lanes.

Was the intent of "proceed only in the direction of the arrow" not written in there to prevent drivers from seeing the arrow but proceeding straight through, "disobeying the arrow," so to speak?

I was more thinking along the lines of 3 lanes each direction (one being a left turn lane).....left turn green arrow comes on for both (say NB and SB facing traffic).....not turning right on the red allows the left turners to clear thru without some dumbass interfering by turning right

As for not having a traffic light for each lane, let's take a major intersection with three lanes in each direction and a left turning lane. There are two red/amber/green combination traffic lights, one on the right curb, the other in the centre median. If the centre median has the green arrow to turn left, but the right one is still red, is the driver in the right lane arguably only facing the circular red signal?

However, could a car in the right lane expect to only obey the light on the right, assuming in this case that it has no arrow indication?