Disobey Stop sign - sign location suspect - need Ont. spec's

Got above charge at three way intersection. Stop sign location looks suspect as road is 2 lanes wide and the sign is very far to right. I am looking for the sign erection regulations/specifications particulary with respect to maximum allowable distance from road centerline at intersection.

Didn't even see the sign and went right through the intersection making a left hand turn from left lane. Also cars parked on right hand side of road close to sign - obscuring the sign from oncoming traffic.

Checked HTA on elaws can't find specs. Need to put evidence together.

Please help!! Trial next week.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... 5.html#BK2

Thanks Bookm

Clauses as below are applicable. In particular how would clause 7 pertain to a three way intersection where there is no road on the right - as in a 'T' intersection. In a strict interpretation of the regs, the only intersecting road is to the left and would be measured diagonally from the sign to the road edge a distance exceeding 15metres. This may work. Thoughts?

7. A stop sign shall be erected on the right side of the highway, facing approaching traffic, at a point not less than 1.5 metres and not more than 15 metres from the intersecting roadway or the nearest rail at a railway crossing. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 615, s. 7; O. Reg. 63/06, s. 1.

8. A stop sign shall be erected so that the left edge of the sign shall be not more than 4 metres from the edge of the roadway. O. Reg. 63/06, s. 2.

Probably the production of the road to your left.

Also need OPS on specs for driver cone of view (COV) at prescribed distance and speed of travel on local road approaching intersection. Stop sign is likely out of COV. Can't find them @:

https://www.raqsa.mto.gov.on.ca/techpub ... PSHomepage

Where are they? Am I looking at the right source?

Help appreciated.

Thanks,

See "45." under GENERAL.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... .html#BK23

Thanks for more ammo. I will be at the intersection next week with a measuring tape or wheel and camera.

Case withdrawn. Cop didn't show.

Nonetheless, the intersection (Stavebank Rd. S. and Port St. E. in Port Credit, Ontario) has inappropriate signage and obvious driver view problems.

Specifically, multi-lane approaches with cars parked on right (as Stavebank Road S. ) should not be "all-way stops" (see Ontario Traffic Manual - Book 5 - pg. 20) and at a min. distance of 60m and greater (see Sec. 45 @ http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... .html#BK23) the stop sign on Stavebank approach is outside of the 10 and 40 degree driver cones of view (see OTM - Book 12 - pg. 109).

Be careful the cops sit around the NE corner on Port St. E and nab people inadvertantly driving through the intersection instead of having the intersection properly signalled for the safety of residents, pedestrians and motorists!!! Why should they - getting ticket revenue is more important than safety!!! If you do get a ticket at this intersection fight it and you will win.

Muskie wrote:

Specifically, multi-lane approaches with cars parked on right (as Stavebank Road S. ) should not be "all-way stops" .

I have never driven there, but just zoomed with google maps....it is single lane traffic, with parking on the side. So I just don't buy the sign is too far too the right thing.

A prudent driver in an unfamiliar area would be that much more meticulous in observing street signs. Not only for the street they might be looking for, but for traffic signs. If they are familiar with the area, they know the signs exist.

Having said that, the satellite imagery does not show any road markings or a stop line, which IMHO should be at each stop sign, so I will conceed that defence for you. The city I live in just completed this on all residential streets.

Thanks for your feedback. Looks like a single lane but really is 3 lanes wide at approach (including illegal parking at side) yet lanes are unmarked. Including the north direction lane the road is 4 lanes wide at the approach. Use Google Earth and it is quite obvious. Also I took on site measurements to confirm the imagery. It is very wide. Your right re: the missing stop line, it was one of my additional arguments.

Your right drivers should be prudent. However, we often drive in and on unfamiliar areas and roads, respectively, hence, the need for common and conspicuis sign/signal locations, sizes and placements. This is what design standards/regs are for. Based upon most 'T' intersections the wider road most often has 'right of way'. This intersection is definitely not the norm and based upon my measurements is improperly signed/signalled.

This was the first time I drove through this intersection. Not being familiar with the intersection did not save me from getting the ticket.

Thanks again.

Muskie wrote:

. Based upon most 'T' intersections the wider road most often has 'right of way'. This intersection is definitely not the norm and based upon my measurements is improperly signed/signalled.

In most "T" the road going straight has the right of way, with the stop sign of course for the driver coming to a "T". Unless of course it is an all way stop. Having identified this problem, have you contacted the local roads department or city councillor to address it. Main reason would be to prevent a serious collision from missing the sign.

Muskie wrote:

Be careful the cops sit around the NE corner on Port St. E and nab people inadvertantly driving through the intersection...

If they're sitting there a lot, surely they must know the intersection has issues. I'm sure the police will be quick to report the problem to the proper authorities

I will pass it on to the City. Expecting the police to report it is very hopeful. I got the ticket in Winter of 2008. Everything is still the same.

Also this time of the year on your next drive check and see how many signs are obscured to oncoming drivers by vegetation (tree limbs, etc.). Doesn't stop police from handing out tickets for whatever the sign prohibits or regulates. Again they want $$$$$.

In fact I got out of a ticket many years ago for just this reason. I told the officer when he pulled me over that I would see him in court if he gave me a ticket as the sign was obscured by a tree limb. He huffed, puffed, and grumbled but I got no ticket - he knew I was right. Nonetheless, he stayed there and kept giving out tickets. Or how about when new speed limits are posted in an area. They don't give much chance for local residents to get used to the new limit. They just give a ticket. Or they will sit in areas known for speeding - why because drivers inadvertently speed there. Eg. - near highway off ramps why? drivers have sucumbed to velocitization (see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... citization) and are easy prey.

I am cynical and very cautious of police ticketting tactics. Many cases verge on entrapment. Everyone fight your tickets always!!! Let them know we are not 'passive' Canadians who pay our tickets.

Entrapment: is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense which would be illegal and the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit

******************************

So the day a law enforcement officer tells a driver to clearly disobey a sign, when the driver would not have and then receive a ticket for it.....that would be entrapment!

******************************

I have never heard to go hand out tickets for money (and I'm nearing the half way of my career). What I have heard is that we have received complaints from local citizens or town councillors about "speeding vehicles on road "y"....or collisions at this intersection, go out and be visible and enforce the zone accordingly.

Thanks again for your feedback. I enjoy the discourse. Note I mentioned verging on entrapment. Maybe not inducing - but condoning the offence through infraction issuance rather than remedying the reason why the offence occurs when the reason is known (e.g. design flaw, tree limb obstruction, etc.) and clearly rectifiable to the enforcement agency/body (i.e police).

Please take no personal offence from my comments, but, with all due respect, (and most importantly for your service) the political body will never say point blank to do so. It is often quite costly to rectify design issues and you can't ignore the fact the there is an implicit revenue gain from issuing tickets. Politicians want a quick fix and response to ensure that residents are satisfied and to get themselves re-elected.

The bigger and harder question to ask is why are drivers violating the law overall and specifically in that particular area and to solve the underlying problem. I don't agree with known problematic areas/intersections not being fixed and tickets continually being issued and in some cases for years on end!

Have you ever requested that a sign or intersection be re-designed or fixed knowing that the enforcement is not fair to drivers despite an order to do so? In certain situations something as minor as trimming a tree branch or moving a sign to a more visible location is not hard to do. Of course intersection issues and redesign are more involved. After rectification subsequent enforcement is fair.

Thanks