Hi all, new here. I have a question about signage/intersection design, and right-of-way as modified by the signage. As we know, when two vehicles approach an intersection from opposing sides, both facing a circular green light, and both want to turn onto the same road in the same direction, the vehicle which is making the right turn has right-of-way over the vehicle that is turning left across traffic. In Windsor, and I'd imagine many other places, sometimes the right-turn lane has been separated from the other lanes at the traffic signal with a small triangular island. The right-turn lane is still directly beside the intersection, but is now somewhat separate. In Windsor, this separate right-turn lane faces a yield sign. It seems to me that the yield sign reverses the normal flow of right-of-way, where the opposing left-turning traffic now has right-of-way over the right-turning traffic facing the yield sign. An example if you wish to check it out on Google Maps would be the intersection of Howard Ave and Grand Marais Rd in Windsor: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2791454 ... 565,19.41z Think of traffic that is coming along Grand Marais beside the gas station, turning right onto Howard, facing opposing left-turning traffic. Can anyone break down how this is supposed to work? Am I correct in thinking that the yield sign overrides the usual right-of-way and forces the right-turning traffic to wait even when they face a green light? Your thoughts are appreciated.
Hi all, new here. I have a question about signage/intersection design, and right-of-way as modified by the signage.
As we know, when two vehicles approach an intersection from opposing sides, both facing a circular green light, and both want to turn onto the same road in the same direction, the vehicle which is making the right turn has right-of-way over the vehicle that is turning left across traffic.
In Windsor, and I'd imagine many other places, sometimes the right-turn lane has been separated from the other lanes at the traffic signal with a small triangular island. The right-turn lane is still directly beside the intersection, but is now somewhat separate. In Windsor, this separate right-turn lane faces a yield sign.
It seems to me that the yield sign reverses the normal flow of right-of-way, where the opposing left-turning traffic now has right-of-way over the right-turning traffic facing the yield sign.
Think of traffic that is coming along Grand Marais beside the gas station, turning right onto Howard, facing opposing left-turning traffic.
Can anyone break down how this is supposed to work? Am I correct in thinking that the yield sign overrides the usual right-of-way and forces the right-turning traffic to wait even when they face a green light?
Additional thoughts... If the right-turn lane were separated by some distance, in the style of a highway ramp, there would be no question: the yield sign applies at all times. But since these "forked" right turn lanes are directly connected to the main intersection, it is unclear exactly what the intent is. If the right-turning traffic is not deemed to be at the same intersection, then the traffic signal does not apply and the yield sign is all that matters for the right-turners.
Additional thoughts...
If the right-turn lane were separated by some distance, in the style of a highway ramp, there would be no question: the yield sign applies at all times. But since these "forked" right turn lanes are directly connected to the main intersection, it is unclear exactly what the intent is. If the right-turning traffic is not deemed to be at the same intersection, then the traffic signal does not apply and the yield sign is all that matters for the right-turners.
Yes, unfortunately that is the case I'm thinking. If one obeys the yield sign at some of these lights, the right-turning traffic will only ever be able to proceed as right-on-red after the light changes. It's completely asinine. Probably more an issue to table locally with city council, but I guess I'm wondering if anyone knowledgeable with the HTA sees anything noncompliant about these installations (putting a yield sign at a traffic light).
The bottom line is: you are facing a yield sign. The rest is irrelevant.
Yes, unfortunately that is the case I'm thinking.
If one obeys the yield sign at some of these lights, the right-turning traffic will only ever be able to proceed as right-on-red after the light changes. It's completely asinine.
Probably more an issue to table locally with city council, but I guess I'm wondering if anyone knowledgeable with the HTA sees anything noncompliant about these installations (putting a yield sign at a traffic light).
I'm not sure I understand your concern. When facing the green, the presence of the yield sign (while still having legal meaning) is pretty much irrelevant in practice. When facing the red, it allows you to continue without stopping when cross-traffic is light. What am I missing?
If one obeys the yield sign at some of these lights, the right-turning traffic will only ever be able to proceed as right-on-red after the light changes.
I'm not sure I understand your concern. When facing the green, the presence of the yield sign (while still having legal meaning) is pretty much irrelevant in practice. When facing the red, it allows you to continue without stopping when cross-traffic is light.
Where I live, these lanes are very common and referred to as a "bypass" lane. You are bypassing the intersection - the traffic lights do not apply to you. You do not have to stop first (in fact, you are NOT to stop in that lane) unless you need to give way to traffic already on the intersecting street or pedestrians crossing that lane. So don't think of the yield sign as being "at the intersection". It is beside the intersection, controlling traffic in a separate lane that has not been controlled by the lights. You are correct that it does "reverse" the usual priority of the right turn over the left turn, but most of the time these lanes do not exist on a one-lane road - they are employed on busier streets that have two or more lanes - and if people make their turns into the correct lane you should not conflict. In terms of having to wait - it really makes no difference whether you are sitting at the stop line waiting to make a right turn, or yielding in the right-turn bypass lane. If traffic is heavy, you may end up waiting until the green light faces your direction anyway, but outside of those busy times it greatly improves flow and reduces wait time. The thing I dislike most about these bypass lanes is the inconsistency on how to join the traffic on the next street - some have good acceleration lanes so you can merge after making the turn. Some have a tiny little lane (one car length or so) that forces you to stop and wait anyway, and some have nothing at all after the yield sign/crosswalk - you are immediately into the live traffic lane. You'd think there would be some sort of standardized sign that indicated what the lane arrangement was. Nothing more annoying than sitting backed up at one of these lanes waiting to turn while someone who doesn't realize there is an acceleration lane available holds everyone up. ;)
Where I live, these lanes are very common and referred to as a "bypass" lane.
You are bypassing the intersection - the traffic lights do not apply to you.
You do not have to stop first (in fact, you are NOT to stop in that lane) unless you need to give way to traffic already on the intersecting street or pedestrians crossing that lane.
So don't think of the yield sign as being "at the intersection". It is beside the intersection, controlling traffic in a separate lane that has not been controlled by the lights.
You are correct that it does "reverse" the usual priority of the right turn over the left turn, but most of the time these lanes do not exist on a one-lane road - they are employed on busier streets that have two or more lanes - and if people make their turns into the correct lane you should not conflict.
In terms of having to wait - it really makes no difference whether you are sitting at the stop line waiting to make a right turn, or yielding in the right-turn bypass lane. If traffic is heavy, you may end up waiting until the green light faces your direction anyway, but outside of those busy times it greatly improves flow and reduces wait time.
The thing I dislike most about these bypass lanes is the inconsistency on how to join the traffic on the next street - some have good acceleration lanes so you can merge after making the turn. Some have a tiny little lane (one car length or so) that forces you to stop and wait anyway, and some have nothing at all after the yield sign/crosswalk - you are immediately into the live traffic lane. You'd think there would be some sort of standardized sign that indicated what the lane arrangement was. Nothing more annoying than sitting backed up at one of these lanes waiting to turn while someone who doesn't realize there is an acceleration lane available holds everyone up.
I'm not sure I understand your concern. When facing the green, the presence of the yield sign (while still having legal meaning) is pretty much irrelevant in practice. When facing the red, it allows you to continue without stopping when cross-traffic is light. What am I missing? If you are facing this sign at an intersection where there is not any straight-through traffic coming from the same direction as you, and you are facing opposing traffic that has a never-ending supply of left-turning vehicles, you as a right-turner in the "bypass lane" will not be able to complete your turn until the light turns red, if you obey the yield sign. There are intersections with this flow in Windsor, where this type of sign is installed, and that is exactly where my concern comes from. I've watched people have near-misses because they have conflicting understandings of how it's supposed to work, and I've seen it happen every time I've been at one of those that flows that way.
If one obeys the yield sign at some of these lights, the right-turning traffic will only ever be able to proceed as right-on-red after the light changes.
I'm not sure I understand your concern. When facing the green, the presence of the yield sign (while still having legal meaning) is pretty much irrelevant in practice. When facing the red, it allows you to continue without stopping when cross-traffic is light.
What am I missing?
If you are facing this sign at an intersection where there is not any straight-through traffic coming from the same direction as you, and you are facing opposing traffic that has a never-ending supply of left-turning vehicles, you as a right-turner in the "bypass lane" will not be able to complete your turn until the light turns red, if you obey the yield sign.
There are intersections with this flow in Windsor, where this type of sign is installed, and that is exactly where my concern comes from. I've watched people have near-misses because they have conflicting understandings of how it's supposed to work, and I've seen it happen every time I've been at one of those that flows that way.
All of what you say makes perfect sense. I agree that people do not respect the lane they are supposed to turn into, and that is a major complicating factor here. One of the scenarios I referred to in my reply to the above post actually is a one-lane road, so that definitely throws a wrench into the flow of things. But it's not the norm. Unfortunately in Windsor, the majority of these do not turn into a protected/dedicated lane. Even in cases where they turn into an "acceleration lane", that lane is also a through-lane from the opposite side of the intersection, is often used as one, and ends too quickly to provide space for everyone to merge. I haven't seen how it's done in other cities, but I can't imagine this completely counter-intuitive engineering is standard practise. On the surface, it's a very clear and simple issue: turn into the correct lane, and both parties can go simultaneously with no issues. But it just doesn't end up working like that in reality. Especially if the "bypass lane" is not deemed part of the same intersection, the party entering the road from the bypass lane would be 100% at-fault (Insurance Act) if they were struck by a car that had turned on a green arrow, because now the car with the arrow has cleared the intersection before the collision happened. Food for thought, maybe.
Where I live, these lanes are very common and referred to as a "bypass" lane.
You are bypassing the intersection - the traffic lights do not apply to you.
You do not have to stop first (in fact, you are NOT to stop in that lane) unless you need to give way to traffic already on the intersecting street or pedestrians crossing that lane.
So don't think of the yield sign as being "at the intersection". It is beside the intersection, controlling traffic in a separate lane that has not been controlled by the lights.
You are correct that it does "reverse" the usual priority of the right turn over the left turn, but most of the time these lanes do not exist on a one-lane road - they are employed on busier streets that have two or more lanes - and if people make their turns into the correct lane you should not conflict.
In terms of having to wait - it really makes no difference whether you are sitting at the stop line waiting to make a right turn, or yielding in the right-turn bypass lane. If traffic is heavy, you may end up waiting until the green light faces your direction anyway, but outside of those busy times it greatly improves flow and reduces wait time.
The thing I dislike most about these bypass lanes is the inconsistency on how to join the traffic on the next street - some have good acceleration lanes so you can merge after making the turn. Some have a tiny little lane (one car length or so) that forces you to stop and wait anyway, and some have nothing at all after the yield sign/crosswalk - you are immediately into the live traffic lane. You'd think there would be some sort of standardized sign that indicated what the lane arrangement was. Nothing more annoying than sitting backed up at one of these lanes waiting to turn while someone who doesn't realize there is an acceleration lane available holds everyone up.
All of what you say makes perfect sense. I agree that people do not respect the lane they are supposed to turn into, and that is a major complicating factor here.
One of the scenarios I referred to in my reply to the above post actually is a one-lane road, so that definitely throws a wrench into the flow of things. But it's not the norm.
Unfortunately in Windsor, the majority of these do not turn into a protected/dedicated lane. Even in cases where they turn into an "acceleration lane", that lane is also a through-lane from the opposite side of the intersection, is often used as one, and ends too quickly to provide space for everyone to merge. I haven't seen how it's done in other cities, but I can't imagine this completely counter-intuitive engineering is standard practise.
On the surface, it's a very clear and simple issue: turn into the correct lane, and both parties can go simultaneously with no issues. But it just doesn't end up working like that in reality.
Especially if the "bypass lane" is not deemed part of the same intersection, the party entering the road from the bypass lane would be 100% at-fault (Insurance Act) if they were struck by a car that had turned on a green arrow, because now the car with the arrow has cleared the intersection before the collision happened. Food for thought, maybe.
"Because Windsor", I guess ;-) As is pointed out, the problem isn't really with the yield sign, it's with poor driving. If it were me, I would complain to my councilor. At the very least they should paint guide lines for that left turning traffic to try and nudge them into that correct lane. Better off, increase police presence at that intersection for a while.
"Because Windsor", I guess
As is pointed out, the problem isn't really with the yield sign, it's with poor driving.
If it were me, I would complain to my councilor. At the very least they should paint guide lines for that left turning traffic to try and nudge them into that correct lane. Better off, increase police presence at that intersection for a while.
Somewhat of a followup... It's called a "channelized right turn", and the traffic engineering people confirm that it is not considered part of the same intersection. It is a separate entrance into the flow of traffic, which is not controlled by the traffic signals, only the yield sign. Therefore, as discussed above, the traffic in that lane definitely do have to come to a full stop and remain so until traffic breaks. That lane never has right of way, it can only go when an opening forms. Of course, being a yield, stopping is not necessary if the way is clear. Interesting hypothetical: https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/rules-road/ ... right-turn The Ontario HTA might view the particulars a little differently, but if one were to continue and turn right after the island, the car making the right turn in those circumstances would have right-of-way.
Somewhat of a followup...
It's called a "channelized right turn", and the traffic engineering people confirm that it is not considered part of the same intersection. It is a separate entrance into the flow of traffic, which is not controlled by the traffic signals, only the yield sign.
Therefore, as discussed above, the traffic in that lane definitely do have to come to a full stop and remain so until traffic breaks. That lane never has right of way, it can only go when an opening forms. Of course, being a yield, stopping is not necessary if the way is clear.
The Ontario HTA might view the particulars a little differently, but if one were to continue and turn right after the island, the car making the right turn in those circumstances would have right-of-way.
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
