Allen road and Eglinton Ave. - No right turn on Red Light???

Hi all, first time here, any help would be appreciated. Several days ago I was traveling southbound on Allen road and when I reached Eglinton Ave. I stopped at the crosswalk, I waited for two pedestrians to cross and three busses pulling out of the subway station going westbound. I then checked to make sure there were no other pedestrians crossing and no further oncoming traffic and I proceeded to make a right hand turn. On the south side of Eglinton directly across from the Allen exit is a police station where I noticed a police cruiser waiting to drive out of the parking lot onto Eglinton. After making my right turn I reached a red light at Marlee Ave. and found myself right in front of the police cruiser that had just pulled out. As soon as the light turned green and I proceeded to cross Marlee the officer put on his lights and horn and pulled me over. He advised me I had made an improper turn and asked me if I did not see the sign and also how long have I been coming down this way. The next day I drove down the same route to check all the signs and did not see any signs stating no right turn on a red light. The only sign was right at the crosswalk stating "Stop Here on Red Signal". The offense on the ticket states Red light - Proceed before green, contrary to the HTA 144(18), Set fine $150.00, total $180.00. I then went into the police station and asked the officer at the front desk if it is illegal to make a right turn on a red light at which he replied no, as long as you make a full stop. I then asked if it was illegal at that particular intersection stressing that there is no sign clearly prohibiting a right turn on red and again he replied no. When I told him I received a ticket for that the day before, he said "Well that would be worth going to court for". I would be very interested in any comments and to know if anyone else has had this experience, Thank you.

Zyrynx wrote:

Hi all, first time here, any help would be appreciated. Several days ago I was traveling southbound on Allen road and when I reached Eglinton Ave. I stopped at the crosswalk, I waited for two pedestrians to cross and three busses pulling out of the subway station going westbound. I then checked to make sure there were no other pedestrians crossing and no further oncoming traffic and I proceeded to make a right hand turn. On the south side of Eglinton directly across from the Allen exit is a police station where I noticed a police cruiser waiting to drive out of the parking lot onto Eglinton. After making mright turn I reached a red light at Marlee Ave. and found myself right in front of the police cruiser that had just pulled out. As soon as the light turned green and I proceeded to cross Marlee the officer put on his lights and horn and pulled me over. He advised me I had made an improper turn and asked me if I did not see the sign and also how long have I been coming down this way. The next day I drove down the same route to check all the signs and did not see any signs stating no right turn on a red light. The only sign was right at the crosswalk stating "Stop Here on Red Signal". The offense on the ticket states Red light - Proceed before green, contrary to the HTA 144(18), Set fine $150.00, total $180.00. I then went into the police station and asked the officer at the front desk if it is illegal to make a right turn on a red light at which he replied no, as long as you make a full stop. I then asked if it was illegal at that particular intersection stressing that there is no sign clearly prohibiting a right turn on red and again he replied no. When I told him I received a ticket for that the day before, he said "Well that would be worth going to court for". I would be very interested in any comments and to know if anyone else has had this experience, Thank you.

A Friend of mine got a similar ticket many years back, i did not know what he did about it.

I wonder if the bilingal defence would work. Wait to hear from ticketcombat response.

Hey thanks for the advice, too bad you don't know what happened with your friends ticket. The bilingal defence may or may not work, the only problem is the sign I am charged with disobeying is not there at all, you know the sign with the traffic lights and above the lights there is an arrow turning right with a red circle around it with a line going through it, it just isn't there, in any language. Thanks for the response.

If I recall correctly, the sign isn't above the light, it's on the right side of the road as you approach the traffic light at Eglinton. You're right in that bilingual defence won't work in this case. Would be worth driving by, however, and seeing if the sign is posted on the right side of the road, adjacent to the right lane. If there's nothing there, a simple photograph with a time-date stamp on it should be sufficient to get it tossed... but take the photograph ASAP!

Even if the sign is there, there is some good news. Key thing will be to set up the court date and file a disclosure request, getting the officer's notes and an explanation and clarification of the charge. Ask, succintly, for "all relevant evidence" and an "explanation and clarification of the charge." Don't go beyond that! You did stop and comply with 144 - 18. If the sign is there, what you did, apparently, was disobey a sign. Your questioning of the officer would be something like this:

You: Was I facing a circular red light?

You: Did I proceed THROUGH a circular red light?

Read sections 144 - 18 and 144 (19) of the HTA to him and ask if you have read that correctly. Don't take the stand in your own defence. Simply state to the JP that the Crown has failed to prove the elements of the charge as issued, and they appear to be describing the elements of a different charge entirely. As such, you came prepared to defend only against 144 - 18 and as they have not proven it, you respectfully ask for it to be dismissed. The Crown may attempt to withdraw the charge and issue a new one. Object, state that the incorrect charge was not a minor error, and if the Crown is not prepared to proceed with the charge as stated, you ask that it be dismissed. That should do it.

The officer may not show up. It's about 50-50 in Toronto these days. Before it gets there, I'm fairly sure that the "no turn on red" sign requires a by-law to be erected. If the Crown does not provide a certified copy of the by-law to you in the disclosure package, file a motion in advance of the trial for a stay based on improper disclosure. Just make sure that you don't point out to the Crown that the officer appears to have charged you under the wrong part of the HTA, at least until the trial starts.

Some of the other regulars here will probably have some additional info, or correct any errors I've made. Good luck with it.

Clever!

Just a side note related but not to this particular situation.

If stopped at a red light, and then a green arrow appears to turn left....no motor vehicle can make a turn to the right while the red is showing.

Just and FYI

The sign is there and it's on the post and on right side of the road.

I think it's black english letter on white background, that's why i was thinkink of bilingual defence.

hwybear wrote:

Just a side note related but not to this particular situation.

If stopped at a red light, and then a green arrow appears to turn left....no motor vehicle can make a turn to the right while the red is showing.

Just and FYI

I don't think I would interpret it that way. Did you experience a ruling recently??

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.

...

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.

liveontheedge wrote:

The sign is there and it's on the post and on right side of the road.

I think it's black english letter on white background, that's why i was thinkink of bilingual defence.

Are you absolutely sure there's a sign? I don't remember the right turn prohibition. I do remember joining a very long left turn line and debating turning right and doing a u-turn at that intersection. Which means the right turn lane was turning on red while the left turn lane had to wait out the light.

ticketcombat wrote:

hwybear wrote:

Just a side note related but not to this particular situation.

If stopped at a red light, and then a green arrow appears to turn left....no motor vehicle can make a turn to the right while the red is showing.

Just and FYI

I don't think I would interpret it that way. Did you experience a ruling recently??

I've never used it, do not have traffic lights......I remember it as an OPC trick question some 12yrs ago.

hwybear wrote:

ticketcombat wrote:

hwybear wrote:

Just a side note related but not to this particular situation.

If stopped at a red light, and then a green arrow appears to turn left....no motor vehicle can make a turn to the right while the red is showing.

Just and FYI

I don't think I would interpret it that way. Did you experience a ruling recently??

I've never used it, do not have traffic lights......I remember it as an OPC trick question some 12yrs ago.

That's how I have interpreted it as well. It says "subject to subsection (14)", not "despite", so that subsection is still in effect, while subsection (18) does not apply to the situation described in subsection (19).

Zyrynx wrote:

.....The next day I drove down the same route to check all the signs and did not see any signs stating no right turn on a red light. The only sign was right at the crosswalk stating "Stop Here on Red Signal". ..... Thank you.

Absolutely sure, no. But i thought that the existing of the sign has been confirmed by the OP.

On another note, there is a small island deviding the right turn lane and the left turn lane so pedestrians when crossing Allen Rd. will have to pass by that island, which OP called it a crosswalk.

hwybear wrote:

I've never used it, do not have traffic lights......I remember it as an OPC trick question some 12yrs ago.

Section 18 is stop at a red light. S. 19 says despite s.18 you can still proceed to turn right (or left on one-ways) subject to yielding right of way, proceeding with caution, yada yada yada.

S. 14 says you don't have to stop if you are going in the direction of the green arrow. If you couldn't do anything else, why would they mention s. 14 under s.19 which is the exemptions? If they had no reference to s. 14 then no you wouldn't be able to make a right on a red unless there was a green arrow pointing right.

But they DID mention s. 14 under s. 19. I take "subject to" to mean you have to stop at a red, you don't have to stop if you're going the direction of the green arrow, and you can turn right after stopping (or left one-way to one-way) subject to yielding right of way, proceeding with caution, yada yada yada. Otherwise there is no need to mention s.14 under s. 19.

First of all, thanks to everyone who has contributed replys for this post and keep your input coming, the more help I can get the better chance I have of beating this ticket. Let me just clear up a couple of things for those of you not familiar with this intersection. First, as you are driving southbound on Allen Rd., as you approach Eglinton Ave., you come to an island where the left lane stops straight ahead and the right lane sort of curves a bit to the right. For those making a left turn there is no flashing green or green arrow because Allen Rd. ends at Eglinton. If you were to go straight you would end up in the parking lot of the police station, by the way, there is a sign that states you are not allowed to go straight through that intersection. Next, there is a crosswalk at the intersection and right at the crosswalk is a white sign that states in black letters "Stop Here On Red Signal" with an arrow pointing slightly downwards to the begining of the crosswalk. Now, if you were travelling westbound on Eglinton and wanted to turn right onto Allen Rd. it's basically the opposite of what I just described, with two key differences. First, the island is made up of yellow plastic posts I believe and the major difference is that there is a white sign next to the traffic light with a picture of a traffic signal with a right turn arrow and a red circle around the arrow with a red line going through it. As well there is the same "Stop Here On Red Signal" sign. I guess my question is, if it is understood that you cannot make a right turn on red, both coming off the Allen and going onto the Allen, then why is it necessary to have the no right turn sign on one, going onto Allen Rd., and not the other, coming off Allen Rd.? Please keep your imput coming.

ticketcombat wrote:

S. 14 says you don't have to stop if you are going in the direction of the green arrow. If you couldn't do anything else, why would they mention s. 14 under s.19 which is the exemptions? If they had no reference to s. 14 then no you wouldn't be able to make a right on a red unless there was a green arrow pointing right.

No, subsection (14) says that you may proceed only in the direction of the green arrow, regardless of there being a red light. The red light is only mentioned to cover all signal combinations.

Zyrynx - so the intersection is set up that you may not turn right on a red from Eglinton to the Allen Road on-ramp, but there is no such indication for turning right from the Allen Road off-ramp onto Eglinton? Back when I worked for TTC, we used to take Allen Road down to Eglinton when driving between our main administration yard and our main engineering yard. I'm pretty sure we have turned right on a red many, many times, although I can't guarantee my co-workers were perfectly law-abiding citizens.

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.