looking for an official call on right turn onto a double lane road . If I'm at a four lane intersection , the lane across has an advance green to turn left , can I turn right into the second lane . The drivers across are suppose to stay in the leftmost lane which should allow me to merge into the rightmost lane . However most drivers swing across both lanes into the rightmost lane . Do I have to allow all vehicles turning left to turn before I make my turn . I hope I explained myself all right , rather difficult to describe . Thanks

The obligation placed on both drivers under Section 142 (1) is to "before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety".

This technically applies to both parties in your situation, although I would suggest the person making the left turn is more at fault.

There are no specific rules in the HTA about which lane a person must stay in when they make a turn.

You should yield the right of way to the cars with the advance green.

A right turn on a red light means that you are only allowed to proceed if the way is clear. No cars or pedestrians in your way who DO have the right of way.

The reason why a lot of cars just cut across both lanes is they may have to make a very quick right turn onto another street or off the road into a parking lot. Some entrances to streets and lots are very close to intersections.

You are right though, in drivers ed you are taught if making a turn you should stay in the most outside lane (closest to median) and then when the way is clear signal and get over to the curb lane if not passing another vehicle or needing to make another left turn soon.

The other problem is if you need to be in the right lane to get onto an approaching on-ramp for a highway and that lane is backed up it can be very difficult to merge into that lane without going directly into that curb lane during the turn (the reason is all the cars behind you are making the turn incorrectly and going directly into the curb lane making it near impossible (especially if the lane is backed up) to merge into the curb lane you need to be in in order to get onto the on-ramp to the highway.

IMO if you hit a driver who had an advance green and you were making a right turn on a red you would be the driver who is charged. So is it worth the 5 seconds of time that you will save by turning right on a red when there is an advance green when you already know you will have a green light as soon as the advance ends?

-Simon

You think the driver who is turning right on a red light would not be at fault for hitting the driver who had an advance green? Even though he didn't correctly enter the median lane but as you said there is no requirement (legally) as to what lane you must enter after a left turn.

Just to add... here's sections 141 (2), (3), (6) and (7) of the HTA:

Right turn at intersection

(2) Where a driver or operator of a vehicle intends to turn to the right into an intersecting highway, he or she shall, where the highway on which he or she is driving has marked lanes for traffic, approach the intersection within the right-hand lane or, where it has no such marked lanes, by keeping immediately to the left of the right curb or edge of the roadway and he or she shall make the right turn by entering the right-hand lane of the intersecting highway where the lane is marked or, where no such lane is marked, by keeping immediately to the left of the right curb or edge of the roadway being entered. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 141 (2).

Right turn, where multiple lanes

(3) Despite subsection (2), where more than one lane of a highway has been designated as a right-turn lane, the driver or operator of a vehicle intending to turn to the right into an intersecting highway shall approach the intersection in one of the lanes and leave the intersection in the lane of the intersecting highway that corresponds to the lane from which the turn was commenced. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 141 (3).

Left turn, at intersection

(6) Where a driver or operator of a vehicle intends to turn to the left into an intersecting highway, he or she shall, where the highway on which he or she is driving has marked lanes for traffic, approach the intersection within the left-hand lane provided for the use of traffic moving in the direction in which his or her vehicle is proceeding or, where it has no such marked lanes, by keeping immediately to the right of the centre line of the highway and he or she shall make the left turn by entering the intersection to the right of the centre line or its extension and by leaving the intersection in the left-hand lane provided for the use of traffic moving in the direction in which his or her vehicle is proceeding where the lane is marked or, where no such lane is marked, by passing immediately to the right of the centre line of the intersecting highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 141 (6).

Left turn, where multiple lanes

(7) Despite subsection (6), where more than one lane of a highway has been designated as a left-turn lane, the driver or operator of a vehicle intending to turn to the left into an intersecting highway shall approach the intersection in one of the lanes and leave the intersection in the lane of the intersecting highway that corresponds to the lane from which the turn was commenced. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 141 (7).

Short version: If you're turning, you must exit the intersection in the corresponding lane that you entered it. What you're supposed to do is make the turn then change lanes after completing the turn. In this scenario, the driver with the advanced green did not comply with section 141 (6) and should be charged for Improper Turn, but the driver turning right on red could be charged under 142 (1) as well... or maybe 144 (19).

Actually... I'm going to have to correct my statement about 144 (19)... because here's the key point:

(19) Despite subsection (18 ) and subject to subsection (14), a driver, after stopping his or her vehicle and yielding the right of way to traffic lawfully approaching so closely that to proceed would constitute an immediate hazard, may,

(a) turn to the right; or

(b) turn to the left from a one-way street into a one-way street,

without a green indication being shown.

Key part: "Lawfully approaching." I'd say a driver who makes a wide turn is not lawfully approaching.

What's everyone else's take on that?

.

Hi guys:

JUST MY OPINION, NOT LEGAL ADVICE

Actually the rules are definite in a situation like this, although perhaps a little confusing.

There are two vehicles turning which come from opposite directions.

As Simon says, both vehicles are subject to s 142 (1), which curiously is under the titles: "Signalling turns and stops - Signal for left or right turn".

The applicable and relevant parts of the section are:

"The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection ... or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic ... shall first see that the movement can be made in safety."

However, the analysis should start with section 141 under the title: "Turning at intersections"

Right turn at intersection

141 (2) Where a driver or operator of a vehicle intends to turn to the right into an intersecting highway, he or she shall, where the highway on which he or she is driving has marked lanes for traffic, approach the intersection within the right-hand lane ... and he or she shall make the right turn by entering the right-hand lane of the intersecting highway...

and for the other driver:

Left turn, at intersection

141 (6) Where a driver or operator of a vehicle intends to turn to the left into an intersecting highway, he or she shall, where the highway on which he or she is driving has marked lanes for traffic, approach the intersection within the left-hand lane ... and he or she shall make the left turn by entering the intersection to the right of the centre line ... of the intersecting highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 141 (6)...

"centre line" means,

(a) in the case of a highway on which traffic is permitted to move in opposing directions, the marked line or median that divides traffic moving in opposing directions on the highway or, where there is no marked line or median, the centre of the roadway...

Which in this case means that when making a right turn you must enter the rightmost lane and when making a left turn by entering the leftmost lane of the highway (street) you are turning to.

Simon Borys wrote:

There are no specific rules in the HTA about which lane a person must stay in when they make a turn.

Actually you must turn from the left lane into the left lane and remain in that lane until "the movement [changing lane] can be made in safety. 142(1)"

It seems to me that in case of a collision, the driver making the left turn would be at fault.

Cheers.

.

EDITED TO ADD: Assuming the collision took place in the right lane of the street they turn to, the left turning driver could be charged under s 142(1) or s. 141(6)

.

I think that 141(2) about making a right turn is quite clear - It states that the driver must turn from the right lane into the right lane of the intersecting highway.

However 141(6) for making a left turn is less clear. It only states that the driver must turn from the left lane to "right of the centre line". If we envision an intersection of two roads, each with two lanes in each direction, the person making the left turn could turn into the left lane or into the right lane (the curb lane) and still be complying with 141(6) because they were "right of the centre line". It does not say "into the left lane" or "into the lane immediately to the right of the centre line".

Therefore, I think it comes back to 141(1), about not making any turn unless it can be done in safety. Honestly I think there is probably grounds to charge both drivers with Turn Not in Safety and let the prosecutor decide how to proceed.

Hi Simon:

JUST MY OPINION

As you most likely know, when analyzing a piece of legislation, you have to do it both purposely and contextually.

Contextually, section 141(2) is the first indication of corresponding from and to turning lanes. Turn from the right lane enter into the right lane.

The concept of lane correspondence is again stated in subsections 141 (3) and (7)

Section 141(6) includes the expression "immediately to the right of the centre line" twice.

Purposely, it is unreasonable to think that the legislators created a situation whereas someone making a right turn from the right lane into the right lane of the intercepting highway, could be found guilty of doing so, and that a vehicle making a left turn from the left lane would have the right of way of one or more lanes on the intercepting highway.

That both drivers could be charged under s. 142(1) constitutes an ambiguity, which would make the section unconstitutional.

Now, if you take a closer look at s.142(1), you'll see that it is a strict liability offence, which deals with negligence and due diligence: "... shall first see that the movement can be made in safety ..."

If a vehicle makes a left turn from the left lane and enters the left lane of the intercepting intersection, while simultaneously a vehicle makes a right turn from the right lane into the right lane of the intercepting highway, no collision would occur and both vehicles complied with sections 141 (2) and (6).

But they also complied with section 142 (1) because the movement could be and was made in safety, which removes the issue of negligence and due diligence.

How could the driver making the right turn be negligent? He/she expects that the left turning vehicle will enter the left lane, making thus his movement (right turn) safe.

From the perspective of the left turning vehicle, wouldn't create a hazard to be able to legally enter into the path of a right turning vehicle fully complying with section 141(6)?

Even more, again contextually but in the negative. I would agree with you if section 141(6) would incorporate something like "subject to section 142(1)", which is very common type of code and yet not included here.

And lastly, have you seen the line markings at intersections with dedicated left and right turn lanes" They seem to enforce the idea of "keeping within your lane". They always go to corresponding lanes. I've never seen markings giving the driver a choice of lanes to enter when making a left turn.

Is section 141(6) clear? No; and I agree with you.

Simon Borys wrote:

... However 141(6) for making a left turn is less clear... It only states that the driver must turn from the left lane to "right of the centre line". If we envision an intersection of two roads, each with two lanes in each direction, the person making the left turn could turn into the left lane or into the right lane (the curb lane) and still be complying with 141(6) because they were "right of the centre line". It does not say "into the left lane" or "into the lane immediately to the right of the centre line"

But as you know is the letter and spirit of the law what counts... And the Supreme court, after the Charter, added the effect of the law.

But, then again, it's just my opinion. I wonder if this is more than just academic and there is an actual charge. I'd like to know what happens.

Cheers.

.

I was always taught,, as a professional truck driver ,that you stay in the lane you turn from and then when safe merge to your right . This was why I questioned this scenario as I have seen drivers turning left and laying on the horn as someone was turning right on the red . Always wondered who had the right of way. I guess maybe an accident and trial by judge would be the only true test of this . Thanks for the discussion.

Dhart-

You are correct.

When I took driver training 5 years ago that is exactly what I was taught by the instructor.

Stay in the lane you turned from.

I'm pretty sure on your driving test you would actually be docked marks for not following this rule.

As I said in my previous post though, if you were to watch an intersection I would say 80% of drivers don't follow this rule when turning left onto a two-lane road. Usually for reasons I mentioned before, or it could be laziness as well.

I still think IMHO though if you are turning on a red you better be darn sure your not going to hit anyone for whatever the reason may be, because you are never suppose to turn on a red until the WAY is CLEAR, you must yield to EVERYONE else on a turn right on a red or wait til the light is green then you only have to yield to pedestrians walking.

When I'm turning on a red and the traffic across has an advance green I wait the 5 seconds for the advance to end and then I go because most of the cars enter that right lane instantly which would certainly result in a collision. Why leave it to the courts to decide who was in the right or wrong sometimes you just have to drive with common sense regardless of who actually may be right or wrong is it really worth a risk of a collision?

.

HighMileJon wrote:

When I'm turning on a red and the traffic across has an advance green I wait the 5 seconds for the advance to end and then I go because most of the cars enter that right lane instantly which would certainly result in a collision. Why leave it to the courts to decide who was in the right or wrong sometimes you just have to drive with common sense regardless of who actually may be right or wrong is it really worth a risk of a collision?

That's right! Regardless of who has the right of way, this is the best way to avoid a collision and keep alive.

Cheers.

.