Yes Squishy, I'm sure you have turned right on to Eglinton many times because like me, you never saw any signs prohibiting a right turn. I've been driving down the Allen for many years, sometimes twice a day, I have always made a right and I'm willing to bet that if you stood at that intersection for an hour and watched the traffic go by, you wouldn't see one car stop on the red light and wait for the green before turning right, providing of course there are no pedestrians or oncoming traffic. In fact, I might just park in the parking lot next to the offramp and video tape the traffic coming off Allen just to see how many people actually make a right turn on red. What do you think, would that help my case any?

I just re-read over all this again....in particular the sections

Green arrow

(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

Red light

(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

Exception – turn

(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

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

Translate to english a little...

Exception - turn

(19) Defiance of subsection (18 ) and under authority to subsection (14)

(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I still think section 14 over rules the turn right on a red light.

Then why bother even mentioning (14) under (19)?

TC like many of us.....we don't have a flippin' clue....there are many hta sections that are worded really bad and will depend on the jp that day on their take on it, and the same JP could take it different the next day

I don't think subsection (14) is poorly worded, although mentioning it in subsection (19) isn't completely necessary so maybe that makes (19) poorly worded.

"(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 "

Red and amber lights are mentioned because you may proceed in other directions if facing a circular green indication in combination with a green arrow.

Subsection (19) mentions (14) and (18) because they are directly related. (18) says you may not proceed forward while facing a red, and (19) presents an exception. (14) doesn't have to be mentioned, but it helps make the connection that (14) is a condition upon (19).

Hey guys thanks for your continuing input, by the way ticketcombat, just spent most of the day reading through your website, wow. So much great info there. Anyway, once again guys, I think section 144(14) doesn't apply in this case because there are no green arrows or green flashing lights. It's just red or green. Here's an interesting piece of info I came across today when I was looking through my son's official MTO Drivers Handbook -

Changing directions- Right turn on a red light

Unless a sign tells you not to, you may turn right on a red light as long as you first come to a complete stop and wait until the way is clear. Remember to yield to pedestrians and others using the road.

So, is the MTO teaching new drivers to break the law? Or for that matter, does a Right turn on a red light even fall under section 144(18)? The way I would interperate ss(18) is that when stopped at an intersection facing a red light, you cannot go straight through the intersection before the light changes to green. Now, if this Interpretation is correct then it cannot possibly apply here because Allen Rd. ends at Eglinton, you cannot go straight through, you either have to make a left turn or a right turn. As far as the MTO drivers handbook is concerned, there was no sign saying no right turn on red, I was stopped at the red light where the sign said to stop, I did let two pedestrians cross the street and I waited for three westbound busses, coming out of the subway just to the left of me, to cross the intersection before I made my right turn. to me that sounds like a textbook right turn on a red light but I don't know, I might be missing something. Do you guys agree?

Hey Squishy, just in time, you just gave me an inspiration.

Section 19 states:

Exception – turn

(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

What if ss(14) does not apply? for that ss(14) to apply that means there would have to be a green arrow on the traffic control signal directly ahead, right? So, if there is no green arrow, ss(14) becomes a mute point which leaves ss(19) which says Despite subsection (18 ) you may (a) turn to the right; What do you guys think about that?

(14) doesn't apply in your case because there is no green arrow.

(19) covers turning right on a red, not (18). If there is no green arrow, you can turn right by treating the red light as a stop sign, unless there are signs posted prohibiting it. If there is no such sign and you properly yielded to pedestrians and traffic facing a green, then I think it was legal.

The MTO Driver's Handbook is a very simplified version of the HTA, along with some etiquette or courtesy 'rules', which is why people who ask me to teach them to drive must read the 'Rules of the Road' section of the HTA first. I don't think the Driver's Handbook would have any relevance in court, at least not enough to overrule the HTA.

Zyrynx wrote:

..........In fact, I might just park in the parking lot next to the offramp and video tape the traffic coming off Allen just to see how many people actually make a right turn on red. What do you think, would that help my case any?

That could work if you tape a cop's car making the same right turn on red.

Is the sign "Stop here on red signal" erected by city by-law? and therefore bilingal defence would not work, would it?

Zyrynx thanks for the positive feedback on my site. I really appreciate it! As long as there is definitely no sign prohibiting a right turn, you are home free with this charge. It's a drag to have to go through this process but look at it this way, it makes you stronger and more knowledgeable should there ever be a next time.

Since your new here you'll have to get used to the regulars taking any thread and going off on a tangent for pages! So forgive us as we debate the nuances of a green arrow at an intersection even though it doesn't apply to your situation at all.

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.

(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.

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!?!

Hey, thank you Ticketcombat, you've been alot of help as have all the posters. I'm going to continue my research into this case, I think my next step is to go to the City of York and inquire what the by-law is for that intersection, also there is a an overhead closed circuit camera atop a pole just in front of the police station which I assume is pointed towards the subway station across the street which happens to be inbetween the Allen Rd. off ramp and on ramp. I'd like to find out who operates that and if it would be possible to use that video in my defense. I'll be in the area tomorrow so I might just go sit in the parking lot next to the off ramp and video tape the traffic turning right onto Eglinton just to see how many people actually stop and wait for the light to turn green before turning. Anyway, I'll keep you all updated on any new developements as they happen.

Hey TC, I thought you had conceded. Shenanigans!

This tangent has turned into a full-blown topic, so I started a new thread to discuss it.

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic994.html

I totally absolutely conceded. Then I started to look at what I wrote and the ACT and then I edited my post for the last 1.5 hours as I worked through this. I went from disagreeing with you and Bear, to conceding, to fighting you and Bear again, to blowing my brains out with a totally different interpretation. This last one has got me reeling. I think I need to sleep on it.

Quick update, Went to the courthouse today to set trial date, should be within 6 months I was told. When I asked for a First Attendance Form I was told it doesn't apply to my charge. Quick question for Ticketcombat, the disclosure form on your website, there is a general request and a specific request, I understand the specific but how does the general apply?

The general request is "give me disclosure". But then it's up to the Crown to decide what to give you. It should be all the elements that they are required to prove in order to convict you.

The specific request is anything they have that will be useful to you to prepare your defence. This list is (theorectically) endless. And if they don't give you something that is fundamentally important to having a fair trial, then it becomes one of the best ways to use s.7 of the Charter to stay your charge.