# Is This Traffic Ticket Worth Fighting??



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

Hi All,
My son, he's 17, recently was given a ticket under the traffic safety act - 213(2) Drive without Reasonable consideration for others. I guess my reason for posting here is just to get some opinions from others. I'm not sure whether to help him fight this ticket or which direction to take. This is going through the Courts now.

Here's the story-- My son was driving east & stopped at a stop sign. He turned left onto a 4 lane road. Another driver was is the far right lane going north. So they both were going the same direction. My son took the inside lane when he turned. According to the statement the other driver gave to RCMP he said that it "looked like" my son was going to lose control of his car.

At no point did my son's car ever enter the other lane. The driver of the other car swerved & he says that he ended up in the ditch. I am thinking that what possibly happened is that the other driver thought that my son was going to enter his lane, reacted to something that wasn't happening & lost control of his own car. The other driver phoned the RCMP and said that my son caused him to ditch his car. They pulled my son over later in the evening and gave him the ticket. 

The police didn't even go to the scene where this occured to see if there were tracks in the ditch. The grass was long enough to tell if a car had recently driven through it.

I could phone the police 50 times on any given day & say so & so cut me off, so & so didn't signal when lane changing, so & so is following too close, etc., etc. At the end of the day it is a he said/she said thing.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Sounds bogus, but you can't reverse a ticket once it is issued, so don't bother calling the police about the issue, unless you're calling to schedule a court date to fight the alleged charge.

• Can the other driver prove your son cut him off?
• Can the other driver prove he went into the ditch? (Or did he make that part up?)
• Can the police and prosecutor prove the other driver's allegations?

At 17 years of age, it would be an expensive mark to have on his record, insurance wise. My advice is to hire a professional ticket fighter and take the charge to court. (No matter how bogus the charge seems, or how little evidence the prosecution may have, you stand a better chance of being convicted on the charge rather than acquitted if you do not have the legal experience to fight said charge(s) in court.)


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

What possible evidence is there that the other driver isn't lying? Passengers in either car for instance? I didn't know ordinary citizens could issue tickets, especially so long after the alleged transgression.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

fjnmusic said:


> I didn't know ordinary citizens could issue tickets, especially so long after the alleged transgression.


No citizen issued a ticket -- the RCMP did. A citizen filed a complaint, which the RCMP followed up on. Presumed innocent until found guilty. If her son doesn't agree with the charge, take it to court. If a lack of sufficient, admissible evidence exists, the charges should be thrown out. Regardless, the matter is now in the hands of the courts, unless he caves and pleads guilty and subsequently pays the fine associated with the traffic violation.

The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that her son did indeed dangerously, and illegally, cut off the other driver. If this can't be proven, there is no case to fight.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

I'm having a hard time understanding this, he stopped at a stop sign and then turned left, but there was a car coming through on the cross street (in the next lane over).

If your son had the stop sign, he should have allowed the other car to go through before turning, regardless of the fact the car was in the lane beside the one son was turning into. You don't make a left turn from a stop sign when there is through traffic already in or approaching the intersection. The through traffic has the right of way.

Absent other evidence, I would tend to believe the sworn statement of the other driver. If my imagining of it is correct, it was a risky manouever, esp. for someone without a lot of time at the wheel to place the car accurately into the lane without any wobbliness, and the other driver didn't drive into the ditch just for the heck of it.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

CanadaRAM said:


> I'm having a hard time understanding this, he stopped at a stop sign and then turned left, but there was a car coming through on the cross street (in the next lane over).
> 
> If your son had the stop sign, he should have allowed the other car to go through before turning, regardless of the fact the car was in the lane beside the one son was turning into. You don't make a left turn from a stop sign when there is through traffic already in or approaching the intersection.
> 
> Absent other evidence, I would tend to believe the sworn statement of the other driver.


OK. I allege that you grabbed my ass when we were both standing at an intersection waiting for the light saying it is safe to cross. You can deny it, but I swear it's true. Again, why take the sworn statement of one driver over the other, especially in the absence of any corroborating evidence? We should believe the other driver just because her son is only 17? This ticket should never have been issued. I'd like to know what connection the other driver has to the police department.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> OK. I allege that you grabbed my ass when we were both standing at an intersection waiting for the light saying it is safe to cross. You can deny it, but I swear it's true. Again, why take the sworn statement of one driver over the other, especially in the absence of any corroborating evidence? We should believe the other driver just because her son is only 17? This ticket should never have been issued. I'd like to know what connection the other driver has to the police department.


It doesn't take a phone call, when you make a complaint, you have to go down to the department and swear out a legal statement describing what you allege happened. Then the police investigate and do whatever they do, and the judge would determine which witness is more credible, me or your ass. 

What do you mean it should never have been issued? Do you know what happened better than I or anyone other than the two drivers do? 

The admitted fact of the matter is that son turned left from a stop sign onto a road that was occupied by through traffic. That's a no-no right there.


----------



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

Hi Again,
My son has been to court once to enter a plea. He pled not guilty.

We got all of the RCMP witness reports, officers notes, etc. I've read it over about 1000 times today. On one page of the witness statement he says that he had to drive into the ditch, on the next page he says he almost had to drive into the ditch. So which is it?

The guy apparently had his wife in the car. My son had a friend in his, it was a girl but not a girlfriend. She says she will testify in court if needed. According to the RCMP notes they asked my son about the incident. He claimed the car did not go into the ditch but was in the other lane and then charged him under the traffic safety act.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I'd say if this guy is overreacting and driving into ditches he may represent a threat to traffic safety himself. My ass and I agree on this one.


----------



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

CanadaRam:
For the most part your diagram is correct. I forgot to mention in my original post that there is also a turning lane at that intersection. The guy was in his lane, my son turned into the lane that he was supposed to. 
In hindsight maybe my kid should have waited but at the same time it is also an illegal move to change lanes in an intersection.

It's his ticket...he has to fight it & has full intentions of doiing so.

I did think that they gave hime the ticket because of his age. Any other adult probably wouldn't of been charged. The ironic thing about this whole incident is my son is in the process of applying to become a RCMP officer.


----------



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

Oh and another thing. The guy phoned in his complaint from his cellphone. He didn't make a sworn statement until 3 1/2 weeks after the ticket was written.

Just noticed now that the registered owner of the car that is noted on the ticket is wrong. They have my son as the registered owner, my husband is the registered owner.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

hockeymom said:


> On one page of the witness statement he says that he had to drive into the ditch, on the next page he says he almost had to drive into the ditch. So which is it?


Make sure your son, or his legal representative, points this discrepancy out. Conflicting reports on the same incident may quickly discredit some or all of his testimony. (Do not ask them to clarify prior to making your arguments in court - you want to catch them off guard.)



fjnmusic said:


> I'd say if this guy is overreacting and driving into ditches he may represent a threat to traffic safety himself. My ass and I agree on this one.


:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

hockeymom said:


> Oh and another thing. The guy phoned in his complaint from his cellphone. He didn't make a sworn statement until 3 1/2 weeks after the ticket was written.
> 
> Just noticed now that the registered owner of the car that is noted on the ticket is wrong. They have my son as the registered owner, my husband is the registered owner.


Sounds like you have seven ways from Sunday to effectively have this ticket thrown out since it would seem to have little merit. Unless the other guy was the mayor or something.


----------



## Jeepdude (Mar 3, 2005)

Lars said:


> Make sure your son, or his legal representative, points this discrepancy out. Conflicting reports on the same incident may quickly discredit some or all of his testimony. (Do not ask them to clarify prior to making your arguments in court - you want to catch them off guard.)
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao: :lmao:



Be careful to ensure that you are specific about how you want the ticket fought, if you contact a firm like "X-Copper". Some of them simply meet with the Justice of the Peace and negotiate a reduction in the charge/fine/points. If you have a sound argument (sounds like you may have something to argue) make sure this lands before a judge--not just reduced. 

Be specific--I'm talking from a bad experience on this...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Absolutely fight this ticket. There is NO way it will hold up in court. Also, if you go to court, the other guy will have to show up as well. If he doesn't show, no case.

Find a cheap paralegal to go in with you. Probably cost you about $300 for the trial.

Once you win this case (easy), file a small claims action against your accuser for the money you had to spend defending yourself.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

CanadaRAM said:


> I'm having a hard time understanding this, he stopped at a stop sign and then turned left, but there was a car coming through on the cross street (in the next lane over).
> 
> If your son had the stop sign, he should have allowed the other car to go through before turning, regardless of the fact the car was in the lane beside the one son was turning into. You don't make a left turn from a stop sign when there is through traffic already in or approaching the intersection. The through traffic has the right of way.


This type of turns occurs about a million times a day in Toronto. For instance, you are exiting a parking lot or driveway onto a 4-lane road. The left lane is open, there are cars in the right, curbside lane. If you don't make that turn, you are going to be sitting there a long, long time.

I'd like to see the relevant HTA section on this.

I agree with all the other posters on this. Fight it, fight it, fight it. It is worth your time and money.


----------



## Flipstar (Nov 7, 2004)

hhk said:


> This type of turns occurs about a million times a day in Toronto. For instance, you are exiting a parking lot or driveway onto a 4-lane road. The left lane is open, there are cars in the right, curbside lane. If you don't make that turn, you are going to be sitting there a long, long time.
> 
> I'd like to see the relevant HTA section on this.
> 
> I agree with all the other posters on this. Fight it, fight it, fight it. It is worth your time and money.


That's fine.. you can sit your butt waiting for cars to pass. I'd rather have you sitting there than crossing the two lanes and risking an accident with the person in the curb lane. It's that kind of mentality that causes accidents. 

If you think it's going to take a long time, make a right turn and and turn around in a safe manner.


----------



## bagend23 (Sep 12, 2006)

hhk said:


> This type of turns occurs about a million times a day in Toronto. For instance, you are exiting a parking lot or driveway onto a 4-lane road. The left lane is open, there are cars in the right, curbside lane. If you don't make that turn, you are going to be sitting there a long, long time.
> 
> I'd like to see the relevant HTA section on this.
> 
> I agree with all the other posters on this. Fight it, fight it, fight it. It is worth your time and money.



Speaking as a ex-professional driving instructor, while the OPs' sons turning left into the centre lane while through traffic was approaching from the right in the right lane isn't technically illegal (at least not in BC…don't know about other jurisdictions), it most certainly wasn't a wise or safe driving habit to get into as CanadaRAM pointed out.

In the past, right after a student of mine had passed their drivers exam, I would buy them a cup of coffee and give them my last lecture, the gist of it being that "I taught you to drive by the book because the drivers examiner will test you by the book, but if we go out to a busy intersection right now and watch traffic for an hour you will notice that almost no one even knows the book exists. The drivers exam you just passed and driving in the real world are as different as night and day." 

In a perfect driving world drivers making turns on to multilane roads will turn into the first available lane and through traffic on multilane roads will not lane-change in an intersection. Unfortunately that world doesn't exist. I watch drivers change lanes in intersections all the time and almost no one turns into the first available lane when they're making a turn. When was the last time you saw someone stop at a stop sign, stop before making a right turn at a red light or before making a left turn on a red light if they're turning left onto a one-way street? And by 'stop' I mean the 'complete cessation of movement'. You haven't very much, if at all, because the vast majority of drivers don't drive by the book.

While the OPs' son didn't, in my opinion, do anything illegal, if he can be faulted for anything it would be poor judgement and even then I wouldn't judge him too harshly simply because of his age and relative lack of driving experience. He's still driving by the book and, I think, naively trusting other drivers to drive by the book as well. He trusted the other driver would stay in his lane and not change lanes in the intersection, but the other driver (likely more experienced) didn't trust the OPs' son would turn into the centre/left lane. Which brings me to one of the next points in my lecture to my fledgling drivers as they were about to leave the nest; *TRUST NO ONE*. Apologies to Mulder…

The only driver you can trust to do the right thing is yourself. You *cannot* trust any other driver on the road. When you trust another driver you put your life in their hands and your life belongs in your hands and your hands only. You can't trust pedestrians to stay on the sidewalks or not jaywalk. You can't trust cyclists, even though they're considered vehicles under the MVA they often don't ride by the book. You can't trust signal lights; the only thing you know for sure about a signal light is that it works. Not that many people actually use their signals… 

The next to last point I would make to my students is to develop good driving judgement as soon as humanly possible. "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots." When you're in a given driving situation you have to make a snap judgement as to whether or not you have the right of way. If you decide you have the right of way, before you move out into traffic, ask yourself one more question: "Do I have the right of weight?" (I define traffic with the 'right of weight' to be anything bigger or moving faster than you are.) I would pose a hypothetical question such as "If I turn left into the centre/left lane of a multi-lane road and through traffic in the right lane illegally lane changes to the left lane in the intersection while I'm making my perfectly legal left turn, who loses?" Almost invariably my student would say "I lose." And I would say "Yes, you lose. You didn't have the right of weight and it doesn't matter a whit that you have the right of way if you're dead." And then I'd ask "Why are you dead? What was your big mistake?" The more perceptive would reply to the effect, "Because I trusted someone else?" And I'd say "Yes."

And finally the last point I would make to them is that driving is a hyper-aware state of being. You have to pay 110% attention 110% of the time. That means no distractions; no eating, no drinking (especially alcohol), no smoking (legal and illicit) no fixing makeup, no iPods, no iPhones, no earphones, no headphones, music from the car stereo is okay, but if you can't hear a siren from a block away with the windows closed then it's too loud (okay so I can be a bit of a driving Nazi…)  

Occasionally a student would comment that my suggestions as to what they shouldn't do while driving were a bit draconian. I'd tell them they had just be judged mature enough and responsible enough to control a rather large deadly weapon and that "you owe it to me, the driving, cycling and pedestrian public to be the best driver you can be and by the same token we owe the same to you. And don't forget, you still can't trust us…"  

Sorry for the length of this post. It's approaching rant-like proportions and I didn't mean for that to happen. 

FWIW I hope the OPs' son takes this to court and wins. To my mind if the driver of the car in the right through traffic lane was surprised enough by the OPs' sons' left turn that he felt he had no choice but to take evasive action and put his car in the ditch then he wasn't paying attention and should be punished accordingly.

Best…


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

I will play devils advocate here and say that you could lose this in court as well.

What would have happened if the driver in the inside lane decided last minute to make a lane change as your son made the left from the STOP SIGN? The driver heading North bound no matter what lane they are in HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, period! It doesn't matter how many lanes there are. Yes, it can be done by turning into the inside lane, but MY GOD, we don't even do that here where I live in my own city because it is NEVER safe to do so, because you never know who will make that lane change.

Kind of like making right hand turns on red in Ontario, most people here in my city will not pull out until BOTH lanes are clear on a 4 lane road. Meaning inside and outside lane clear and then turn right on red. 

Your son took the risk of many by hoping that person would not last minute make a lane change and decided to go. We all do it when we can, but is it right? If the other driver felt like he was in danger, I do not see this winning in court for your son, but actually losing. That is, of course if everyone shows up, ticket is valid and the judge has no complaints with how the paperwork is done etc..... if the judge goes ahead with it, good luck!

Let us know how this ends up .


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

There are lots of places on the Trans Canada here in Saskatchewan where there is a "turn-into" lane for folks making a left turn onto the highway and if you don't use it, you could be there for a long time waiting. The extra lane allows traffic to accelerate from a standing stop up to highway speed before pulling into the driving lanes.

Through traffic should have no reason to change lanes to be in the turn-into lane.

But having said that, it's customary to avoid making the left turn if there is a car visible in the driving lanes because on-coming traffic has no way of knowing that there is a turn-into lane until you're right there, so if you're traveling along and see a car making a left turn to travel in the same direction as you're going, you can't know that he has a safe place to do it in.

I for one would probably panic.

Margaret


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

So basically the advice seems to be make sure your son avoids this kind of turn in the future, as it has the potential to be dangerous. However, that advice has no impact on whether or not this was a valid ticket to be issued in the first place. Both witnesses were passengers in the respective vehicles and their stories are likely to cancel each other out, just as the drivers stories are. We cannot assume the older driver has any more of a monopoly on the truth than the younger one. Absent any other witnesses or evidence as gathered by the police, this sounds like a nowhere case. As an earlier poster said, innocent until proven guilty. The only way your son could be found guilty here is if he incriminates himself somehow. I'd be careful what I say if I were him.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> So basically the advice seems to be make sure your son avoids this kind of turn in the future, as it has the potential to be dangerous. However, that advice has no impact on whether or not this was a valid ticket to be issued in the first place. Both witnesses were passengers in the respective vehicles and their stories are likely to cancel each other out, just as the drivers stories are. We cannot assume the older driver has any more of a monopoly on the truth than the younger one. Absent any other witnesses or evidence as gathered by the police, this sounds like a nowhere case. As an earlier poster said, innocent until proven guilty. The only way your son could be found guilty here is if he incriminates himself somehow. I'd be careful what I say if I were him.


Even if the son's maneuver was not illegal, paying the fine might teach him that it is not a move he should make "just because he can". 

Margaret


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

My gut feeling is that the young man is not telling the whole story.

This maneuver is not only legal (when done properly) but performed millions of times a day without incident.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
I agree, there has to be more to the story. For someone to actually go to a police station and file a complaint, it seems to be much bigger than what your son is talking about. The other driver did manage to get a description of the car as well as the license plate number.

If I understand the story (and refering to the diagram CanadaRam posted), if your son had a stop sign, while the other driver had the full right of way - your son broke the law - unless the definition of stop is somehow different in Saskatchewan than in Ontario.

In Ontario it is illegal to run a stop sign in such a manner when a car is proceeding through the intersection with the right of way, because it is entirely legal to make a correct (ie. signaled) lane change through an intersection. It seems your son either just ran the sign completely and perhaps even going fast enough that it looked to the other driver that your son may actually not make the illegal manouver into the lane he wanted, but into the other lane - forcing an avoidance manouver.

If I were you, I wouldn't let your son drive your own car. Let him buy his own car, his own insurance, and teach him some responsibility. If he crashes his own car, then it is all his own problem that he can pay for out of his own pocket.

As for fighting it - one can perhaps hope that the other party does not show up at court and hence, the not guilty may stick, because otherwise, there is not much of a case - since your son ran a stop sign and did not give right of way to on coming traffic. He did a dangerous thing, and this is something that you have to consider when it come to you allowing him to use your own vehicle - because with those kinds of driving stunts, that vehicle is liable to become a big heap of scrap metal - perhaps reported as another "tragedy" on the roads.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Here's the thing -- and it has happened to me far too many times. I see it all the time when people do rolling stops or blow up to (and past) the stop line at full speed then slam on the binders. They look at me like "what? I stopped, din't I?" and my silent glare reply is "And how was I supposed to know you would, [email protected]$$, when all the evidence was to the contrary?"

So, I'm driving along, there's a car stopped at the sign. Then the car starts pulling out in such a way that they might intersect with my path. Bad timing choice on the part of the other driver, at the least.

But has he seen me? I don't know. Certainly I have my doubts because he's pulling out now as opposed to waiting 2 seconds more until I am clear.

Does he know I could be making a lane change? I don't know.

Will he make a tight turn into his lane? I don't know.

He's pulling out pretty quick - will he over-shoot and go into my lane, or fishtail as he gooses it? I don't know.

So I practice defensive driving and move over to the right as far as is safe.

Son says he never went out of his lane -- that's easy to say after the fact, but there is _no way_ for the other driver to know that ahead of time. 

Whether the other car did or did not go into the ditch, or the shoulder, is immaterial - it's not what Son is cited for. He is cited for making a potentially dangerous move "Drive without Reasonable consideration for others". 

The judge will sort out whose evidence is stronger. But what would the motivation for the other driver to make the complaint be if they DIDN'T feel that the move threatened them? Picking random people to swear out a complaint against because they don't like the colour of the car? I can't see it. There must have been, at least in the other driver's perception, a basis for the complaint.

Evan, I read it as Son was properly stopped at the stop sign, before proceeding into the turn.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

kps said:


> My gut feeling is that the young man is not telling the whole story.


Somebody certainly is not telling the whole story.

The first clue is the notion that this ticket is the result of a 3rd party complaint. The police *almost never* issue a ticket based on a 3rd party complaint in traffic situations. I know this because I have tried several times to have other drivers ticketed because of some egregious action and the police listen patiently, perhaps open a file but always state that it has to be a police officer witnessing the action for them to act outside of an accident situation which they can actually observe. I assure you from experience that it takes WAY more than a phone call. The idea that this ticket was generated from a phone call is about 99% bogus, IMHO.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Being in the "right" does not give you the "right" to cause an accident.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

winwintoo said:


> Being in the "right" does not give you the "right" to cause an accident.


The kid also needs to be educated in the concept of "dead right" - emphasis "dead".


----------



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

Hi Again Everyone, 
I have read through all of the posts & I will try to answer all the points made.
I do appreciate everyone's advice, which is the reason that I posted here in the first place.

That type of turn is made countless times a day. I have done it myself oodles of times. Whether it is legal or not I have no idea & am trying to find info on the exact law. Everybody does the same thing countless times a day. There was no one in the inside lane. It was my son was taking the inside lane & the other guy on the outside lane. He says that he did see the other guy coming in the outside lane. 

I went to the scene of this last night just to place in my mind the distances involved. I tried travelling at different speeds just to see how much time there would of been to make the turn. From where my son could see the other guy (ontop of an overpass bridge) it is a 25 second count to the intersection. That 25 second count was my car travelling at 70 km/hr (yes I broke the law by speeding). The guy says he was going 50 km/hr. 

From where the other guy says that he thought he was going to be hit until the point to where he says he drove in the ditch is a 35 second count at 70 km/hr. To end up in the spot where he says that he landed he would of had to go on the shoulder of the road, drive through 1 ditch, go over an approach & come to a stop where he claims he did on the other side of the approach in a second ditch. All of that at 50 km/hr??? I somehow doubt it. 

This person followed my son for approximately 20 km. There were times according to my son & his friend that the other car was so close to his back bumper he couldn't see the guys headlights. My son made random turns down different roads just to see if the guy was infact following him. It just so happened that my son ended up driving to where the RCMP were at the time. Why would of the guy have been following him?? Probably to scare the crap out of him. According to his police statement his destination was no where near to where he followed my sons car. 

I know he has learned a lesson & won't make that same turn again. Whether the turn was legal or not is not the point. He was NOT charged for making an illegal turn, failing to stop at a stop sign, proceeding before safe, etc. He was charged with causing an inconvenience to the other driver, which is what driving without consideration for other is according to the law. He wasn't inconvenienced enough to follow my kid for 20+ km. Then my son was charged because he said that he had to drive in the ditch? I guess they can pick out which parts of the story they believe to suit them. So which parts are true & which ones aren't? I guess that's for the judge to decide.

My son makes his own car payments & insurance premiums. He purchased the car from his dad & when it it fully paid off it will be transferred into his own name. Saying that he should pay his own way is not an issue, he already does that. 

At any rate, he is out this afternoon taking pictures, videos, etc. to support his case. It makes absolutely NO sense to me that someone can call the police, say so & so cut me off (or whatever the case may be), then the police charge the person that supposedly did that. I could call the police 50 times on any given day to report drivers for doing whatever. Do I expect the police to go and charge them? Of course not. As I said before, any adult would not be charged.

Thanks again for the replies.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

hockeymom said:


> It makes absolutely NO sense to me that someone can call the police, say so & so cut me off (or whatever the case may be), then the police charge the person that supposedly did that..


This is exactly where I have the problem with this. The police DO NOT do this, at least here in Ontario (OPP territory) they do not neither do they do this in New Brunswick which is RCMP territory. I know because I have tried to have it done. There is something more operating here, imho.

Make no mistake, I respect a Mom standing up for here kid - it is rarer than you might think. But based on what is described I just feel something is hinky here.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

I think fighting the ticket and making the necessary steps to back his argument is the valid lesson here. Paying the ticket and sucking it up is a mistake. Sometimes, the Man is just wrong and you gotta do something about it. Learning that you can fight City Hall is a valuable lesson.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

You're correct, this type of turn is not illegal. We have thousands of turns like this in my city all over the place.

However, the person who makes the turn from a stop sign into a 2 lane road always has to give way to the traffic that is moving in the 2 lanes. It doesn't matter if the person is in the outside lane, or inside lane. In most cases people around here will enter the inside lane and hope that the person in the outside lane will not make that lane change last minute. However, quite a few major 5 car pile ups have happened at the one near where I have to make that turn everyday because of poor judgement on the person making that turn from the stop sign. You also have a lot of bad drivers who make that turn and immediately go into the outside lane, which is wrong. That causes a lot of problems as well. 

I wish your son luck, who knows, anything could happen in court.


----------



## broken_g3 (Jun 27, 2008)

No matter what, *FIGHT THE DAMN TICKET*. Believe me, the $200 you spend fighting this ticket is *NOTHING* compared to the $1200 jump you will have in the insurance later on.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacGYVER said:


> You're correct, this type of turn is not illegal. We have thousands of turns like this in my city all over the place.
> 
> However, the person who makes the turn from a stop sign into a 2 lane road always has to give way to the traffic that is moving in the 2 lanes.


I still do not understand how such a move can be "legal"? A person that has the stop sign is supposed to actually stop, and wait for on coming cars to clear before proceeding, no matter how many lanes there may or may not be. That is, unless it is an All Way Stop, where the other driver must come to a complete stop as well.

If there was a significant period of time between the son proceeding and the vehicle that ended up tailgating, that is another story, though I can't see how someone could file a report to the police if there was a 25 second gap. A 25 second gap would not require any kind of evasive action, except perhaps to ease up on the gas and reduce speed (especially if they were speeding in the first place). A 25 second gap at the speed they reported is about a quarter of a mile...

This is a pretty strange situation... The people that ended up tailgating for an excessive amount of time - if the situation holds true to what goes on in The Hammer, were clearly either drunk drivers or taking drugs. And unless the son was doing something foolhearty, I do not see how someone that is a quarter of a mile away from an intersection would feel compelled to tailgate for an extended period of time. It wouldn't surprise me if guns were involved either - since I have seen that kind of stuff going on for years, especially when they had the rifleman shooting out truck windshields on the 403 years ago.

In fact, tailgating is illegal, and a tailgater can be charged with assault, attempted assault, and if they happen to touch bumpers - it becomes a case of attempted manslaughter... The person in behind is liable for any situation because they are supposed to leave sufficient room for evasive manouvers, and that amounts to a minimum of a three second gap between vehicles.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> I still do not understand how such a move can be "legal"? A person that has the stop sign is supposed to actually stop, and wait for on coming cars to clear before proceeding, no matter how many lanes there may or may not be. That is, unless it is an All Way Stop, where the other driver must come to a complete stop as well.
> 
> If there was a significant period of time between the son proceeding and the vehicle that ended up tailgating, that is another story, though I can't see how someone could file a report to the police if there was a 25 second gap. A 25 second gap would not require any kind of evasive action, except perhaps to ease up on the gas and reduce speed (especially if they were speeding in the first place). A 25 second gap at the speed they reported is about a quarter of a mile...
> 
> ...


That's what I meant, of course the person has to stop at the stop sign. It is not illegal however, to make a left hand turn. Yes, technically you're supposed to wait for traffic to be cleared before proceeding to make that left turn. But, hardly anyone does that these days if the inside lane is clear. The danger happens if the person(s) travelling down the 2 lanes make a lane change and you are making that left turn into the inside lane, you're screwed and at fault. If the person making that left turn from the stop sign, turns into the outside lane on a 2 lane, that also is not the way you're supposed to drive.

So yes I agree, you are supposed to wait until traffic is clear and I believe they still practice this with young drivers? Not sure these days....


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacGYVER said:


> That's what I meant, of course the person has to stop at the stop sign. It is not illegal however, to make a left hand turn. Yes, technically you're supposed to wait for traffic to be cleared before proceeding to make that left turn. But, hardly anyone does that these days if the inside lane is clear.


It is not illegal to make a left turn unless it is prohibited by a trafficator - but one can not make such a turn if the way is not clear to make the turn. It is not a good idea to just turn into on coming traffic. In Ontario, this kind of manouver is entirely illegal, since the on coming traffic has the right of way, no matter how many lanes there may be. And even in The Hammer, where bad driving habits are predominant, I have never seen someone pulling a left turn into traffic in such a situation. And this town has some pretty bad drivers, considering that my friends from Toronto don't like driving here because of the crazy driving.

I don't think that needing to wait for oncoming traffic is a "technicality", I think that it is just common sense. Now, if the other car was actually 25 seconds down the road, they have no complaint because it is more than enough time. Also, it is generally ruled that the person making the left hand turn is at fault simply because doing straight down the road has precedence.

Swinging into the inner lane while traffic is proceeding is dangerous, because the person proceeding straight is entirely allowed to make a lane change while crossing the intersection, added to the chance of the driver swinging a left turn too wide (which happens pretty much all of the time since most people do not know how to steer around a correct pivot point, and end up cutting to corner too much).

But this case is curious because it does not make sense. If the driver was 25 seconds away, why would they be doing evasive manouvers? If they were actually driving at 50km/h, that would be a gap of almost a quarter mile, which is more than sufficient. And what was with the tailgating for like, 20kms, and the odd report and fine from the police?

There is much more to this story, and one may not actually discover the real truth. Just like when my cousin couldn't recall how she drove the family car into a combine harvester...



> So yes I agree, you are supposed to wait until traffic is clear and I believe they still practice this with young drivers? Not sure these days....


Well, you should be sure because such driving stunts quite often result in collisions, and perhaps injury or death. In The Hammer, such driving is generally associated with driving while drunk or while on drugs...


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I hope this young driver learns at least two things:


Making the turn the way he did scared the crap out of some old coot.
If he keeps making turns like this, sooner or later he'll be paying more for insurance because somebody is going to make it stick.
Other people are often wrong - it was wrong for the other driver to follow and tailgate him - but that doesn't excuse is own behavior (see #1)

Margaret


----------



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

My son had his day in court today.

The other driver & his wife were summoned to appear today & they didn't show up. The summons to court were hand delivered by the RCMP so they knew it was going forward today. The judge granted the Crown an adjournment & issued witness warrants for the other driver & his wife. The judge gave the impression that she was not impressed with the no show. I thought that maybe she was going to toss the ticket.

My son was ready to proceede today. His witness was there & he had everything prepared & ready to go. The judge said that she would be willing to give both sides an adjournment.

So now this is being put off for yet another two months.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

hockeymom said:


> My son had his day in court today.
> 
> The other driver & his wife were summoned to appear today & they didn't show up. The summons to court were hand delivered by the RCMP so they knew it was going forward today. The judge granted the Crown an adjournment & issued witness warrants for the other driver & his wife. The judge gave the impression that she was not impressed with the no show. I thought that maybe she was going to toss the ticket.
> 
> ...


Did you have a lawyer or paralegal with you?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

hockeymom said:


> Hi Again Everyone,
> I have read through all of the posts & I will try to answer all the points made.
> I do appreciate everyone's advice, which is the reason that I posted here in the first place.
> 
> ...


Unless your son drove into the ditch and back out again, the other guy was not following your son. Sounds like a mild case of road rage and he was trying his darndest to harass your son, likely since the other fellow thought he was young and easier to intimidate.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

hockeymom said:


> My son had his day in court today.
> 
> The other driver & his wife were summoned to appear today & they didn't show up. The summons to court were hand delivered by the RCMP so they knew it was going forward today. The judge granted the Crown an adjournment & issued witness warrants for the other driver & his wife. The judge gave the impression that she was not impressed with the no show. I thought that maybe she was going to toss the ticket.
> 
> ...


Do not worry. Your son's attendance and the complainant's lack thereof stands very well in your son's favor. He's too lazy to go to the station to file a report and he's too lazy to show up in court. How serious could he be?


----------



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

guytoronto:
No he did not have a lawyer. However, a guy that has been his hockey coach & a very good friend for a number of years was with him. This person has represented a few kids in court & really knows how to talk. We've always said that he should be a lawyer or politician.

fjnmusic:
My son did not drive into the ditch. It was the other guy who said that he had to drive in the ditch. I tend to agree with you that this was a case of road rage. I hate to think of what may have happened if my son wouldn't have met up with the RCMP that night & if the other guy would have got to him first.
The point that you made about him being serious...that's exactly what our friend said today as well. He made the point that this person probably didn't think that it was going to go this far. Well, he now has a witness warrant so we will see what happens in October.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> Do not worry. Your son's attendance and the complainant's lack thereof stands very well in your son's favor. He's too lazy to go to the station to file a report and he's too lazy to show up in court. How serious could he be?


I'm not so sure. Usually in traffic cases, if part of the prosecutions side doesn't show, the case gets tossed. The judge sees something here that makes him/her want to proceed.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

rgray said:


> I'm not so sure. Usually in traffic cases, if part of the prosecutions side doesn't show, the case gets tossed. The judge sees something here that makes him/her want to proceed.



She said it was the Crown who asked for the adjournment, which the JP granted. Sounds like an overzealous crown council or it's he/she who sees something there.

That, or slow day in the courts. You're right, in Ontario it would have been tossed...hell it probably would not have even ended in the courts to begin with.

hokeymom, can you tell us what part of the country you're in?


----------



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

Yes it was the Crown that asked for the adjournment. The Judge said since it was a trial, if my son would of asked for the adjournment she would of granted it as well. She said she was willing to give each side 1 adjournment.

I believe that your are correct kps, anywhere else it probably wouldn't have gone this far. Here in Southern Saskatchewan there's just nothing better to do. 
In Court today there were 5 cases including ours. Out of those 5 people I knew 4 of them. One of them happened to be my nephew who also pleaded not guilty. His case adjourned by the Crown for lack of witnesses. The RCMP officer who issued his ticket didn't show, go figure.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Southern Saskatchewan sounds more like Southern Alabama...rings of "Deliverance".


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Evan Pitts, I can't believe you live in a big city like Hamilton. That turn definitely is not illegal as long as the person stopped. Risky sure, but in alot of big cities you won't get anywhere without doing it. I think that my mom's finding that out, now that she's moved back to the big city from the country.

And like a few here have said, somthing is definitely fishy here. Either the kids provoked the person (which it doesn't sound like), the old couple thought they were going to be hit (they aren't acustomed to driving on busy city streets), or it was road rage. Reminds me of a story from my driver training school where the instructor said one of the older students used to drive towards the ditch everytime the student met oncoming traffic on the other side of the road (even though both vehicles were in their proper lanes).

Yeah, and normally in Ontario, if the other party didn't show like that, it would have been thrown out of court. The court is too busy.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Kosh said:


> Evan Pitts, I can't believe you live in a big city like Hamilton. That turn definitely is not illegal as long as the person stopped. Risky sure, but in alot of big cities you won't get anywhere without doing it.


Perhaps I am picturing the situation incorrectly. The person that has the stop sign does not have the right of way, and must wait for traffic to clear. Stop means to come to a complete stop, then proceed when the way is clear.

Such a move can be particularly acute in Hamilton, because drivers are forced in a number of places to make lane changes in or near the intersection, especially on Main and King Streets. I have noticed that people from out of town have been taking liberties coming off one street in the west end, then cutting over four lanes in order to get onto the 403 (people in town would take the better route to the 403 which avoids most of the traffic and frustration). In fact, there was a big accident there this morning because people were doing such moves in rush hour.

Now, if there was a 25 second gap, and the other driver was going 50km/h, that is a different story because there is adequate room to pull out and accelerate, except perhaps in icy weather.



> And like a few here have said, somthing is definitely fishy here. Either the kids provoked the person (which it doesn't sound like), the old couple thought they were going to be hit (they aren't acustomed to driving on busy city streets), or it was road rage.


It was also very odd that the people did not show up as witnesses, and the court should have thrown the case out. If they didn't show up, that means that they were, in fact, guilty as sin; well, unless they didn't show up because they drove their car into the ditch or into a pole or something. There are very few reasons not to show up to court, and that nonsense shouldn't be tolerated by the courts or the ratepayers.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Evan Pitts, I can't believe you live in a big city like Hamilton. That turn definitely is not illegal as long as the person stopped. Risky sure, but in alot of big cities you won't get anywhere without doing it.


I don't know where you get your Higway Traffic Act information from, but in Ontario that kind of turn is definitely *illegal*.



> Stop at through highway
> 
> 136. (1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,
> 
> ...


Or is there another section in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act which says that the turn is allowed if the traffic approaching the intersection is in a different lane that one intends to turn into?
As someone already pointed out, the driver on the highway has every right to change lanes at any time.

I think the key piece of information is where the driver on the through highway actually was when the turn was made. That's not clear to me from the earlier detailed description:



> That type of turn is made countless times a day. I have done it myself oodles of times. Whether it is legal or not I have no idea & am trying to find info on the exact law. Everybody does the same thing countless times a day. There was no one in the inside lane. It was my son was taking the inside lane & the other guy on the outside lane. He says that he did see the other guy coming in the outside lane.
> 
> I went to the scene of this last night just to place in my mind the distances involved. I tried travelling at different speeds just to see how much time there would of been to make the turn. From where my son could see the other guy (ontop of an overpass bridge) it is a 25 second count to the intersection. That 25 second count was my car travelling at 70 km/hr (yes I broke the law by speeding). The guy says he was going 50 km/hr.


In the first paragraph it says that the son simply did not see the other guy in the outside lane - in the next paragraph it states that the son did see the other guy on top of an overpass bridge "25 seconds at 70 klicks" (or almost 1/2 km, away.

So where exactly was the other driver when the turn was made? CanadaRam's diagram places the driver on the highway directly in front of the intersection when the turn was made - making the turn under these circumstances is definitely illegal regardless what people do countless times each day. If that turn creates an accident, the person turning from the stop sign is definitely at fault.

But as people also mentioned, in Ontario a situation like that would have never resulted in a ticket.
I myself had pretty much that situation a few years ago - I was coming along a main highway, over an overpass. A transport trailer was sitting at the stop sign of a cross street and when I was less than 50 meters from him, he pulled out!
I slammed on the brakes, the van went sideways and came to a stop just before hitting the tractor trailer - the tractor trailer pulled across the highway into a service station as if nothing had happened.
I followed him blowing my horn to get his attention - he finally stopped, I explained waht happened mad as hell - his only comment: "Sorry, I didn't see you"...and I had a big maroon Chrysler minivan.
But I also know the mind sometimes plays tricks and even huge objects are sometimes not recognized.
I spoke to an Ontario police officer about this later, his comment was essentially that there was nothing he could or would do - 1. - there was no actual accident and 2. - he didn't personally witness the situation.

Another part of this episode I don't quite understand is how the driver on the highway claimed he drove into the ditch - what happened then? Did he drive right out again?
I was forced to drive into the ditch a few times during my time behind the wheel and if it was really a ditch one doesn't usually just drive out of it again - depends of course how deep the ditch is.

PS: I'm glad that ehMac has recovered from the crash; the server ehMac runs on is having more and more problems every day - hope they get fixed soon!


----------



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

What is at issue is that my kid was ticketed because the other driver said that he made the infraction. It's a he said/she said thing. It is up to the Crown to prove that it happened like reported & my son forced the other car off of the road. How will they do that? I guess we will find out in October. The distances & such are all part of the defense that has been prepared. 

I could understand the police pulling my son over and saying so & so said such & such. But to give him a ticket for something that they have no proof of is absurd. Were they counting on my kid to pay the ticket & not fight it? Probably. 

krs:
From the drivers statment to police: "I swerved off the road to the east, went over the embankment & into the grass. I came back onto the pavement and followed the car to ___ . And that's when you showed up."
The area that he is talking about is fairly steep so I can't figure out how he would of gotten out of there as fast as he did.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

krs said:


> I don't know where you get your Higway Traffic Act information from, but in Ontario that kind of turn is definitely *illegal*.


Well there are places where you'll sit there to the cows come home if you wait for all 2 or 3 lanes to clear. The ONLY way to make the turn is to wait for the 1 lane to clear and go. Hell, I've heard my Mom complain at these type of stops that they really should have 4-way or 3-way lights there, and I agree. But right now it's a two-way or one-way stop, and you can't wait there till rush hour is over or you'll have a lineup of angry drivers behind you.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Well there are places where you'll sit there to the cows come home if you wait for all 2 or 3 lanes to clear. The ONLY way to make the turn is to wait for the 1 lane to clear and go.


I don't doubt that, but that still doesn't make it legal.
If nothing happens when you do that which is 99.9% of the time, nobody is going to complain, but if you cause an accident when you make that turn, you're on the hook - no question in my mind.

Getting back to the specific issue at hand - I think the key issue is where the other driver was when the son made the turn.
The judge has to follow the law the way it's written, she can't just say...oh, people make these turns all the time so I'm going to rule it's OK.
I assume the prosecutor is going to argue that the car approaching on the highway was right at the intersection when the turn was made whereas the defendant will claim the car was just at the overpass almost 1/2 km away.
I would think if there is no independant, trust-worthy witness to contradict either of these statements, the case would have to be dismissed.
But if I were the OP, I would spend the couple of hundert dollars and hire a professional for the defense.
And then, assuming the case is dismissed, try to recover these fees through small claims court.
I don't know if it's possible to appeal a judgement like that if it goes against the defendant.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I was always taught that if you are driving along you should not change lanes as you approach an intersection as the other drivers may not see you and you could cause an accident. As long as everyone in this scenario remains in their own lanes I don't really see why the other fellow feels he needed to drive into the ditch. His overcompensation could have caused a serious collision. The OP's son did absolutely nothing illegal, as long as he stayed between the lines and obeyed speed limits and traffic control devices.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Changing lanes approaching an intersection, or even in an intersection, of any kind, including one with traffic lights, is perfectly legal (at least in Ontario).




fjnmusic said:


> I was always taught that if you are driving along you should not change lanes as you approach an intersection as the other drivers may not see you and you could cause an accident. As long as everyone in this scenario remains in their own lanes I don't really see why the other fellow feels he needed to drive into the ditch. His overcompensation could have caused a serious collision. The OP's son did absolutely nothing illegal, as long as he stayed between the lines and obeyed speed limits and traffic control devices.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> I was always taught that if you are driving along you should not change lanes as you approach an intersection as the other drivers may not see you and you could cause an accident. As long as everyone in this scenario remains in their own lanes I don't really see why the other fellow feels he needed to drive into the ditch. His overcompensation could have caused a serious collision. The OP's son did absolutely nothing illegal, as long as he stayed between the lines and obeyed speed limits and traffic control devices.


Interesting, the different ideas people have about the "Rules of the Road", but changing lanes in an intersection is not illegal in Ontario and I just looked at the Saskatchewan Driver's Handbook, it doesn't look like it's illegal there either.
At least I couldn't find anything to that effect.
Maybe Hockeymom can point out the section since she claimed it was illegal as well.

In any case, from what I have read so far as to the actual situation, this section in the Sask. Driver's handbook seems to cover that. There is no option which says you can make the turn and enter the highway if the lane you are turning into has no traffic.


----------



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

krs said:


> Interesting, the different ideas people have about the "Rules of the Road", but changing lanes in an intersection is not illegal in Ontario and I just looked at the Saskatchewan Driver's Handbook, it doesn't look like it's illegal there either.
> At least I couldn't find anything to that effect.
> Maybe Hockeymom can point out the section since she claimed it was illegal as well.
> 
> In any case, from what I have read so far as to the actual situation, this section in the Sask. Driver's handbook seems to cover that. There is no option which says you can make the turn and enter the highway if the lane you are turning into has no traffic.


This is taken from the Sask. Traffic Safety Act:
Rules re traffic lanes
228(1) If a highway is divided into traffic lanes, the following rules apply:
(a) no driver of a vehicle shall fail to drive as nearly as is practicable entirely
within one lane or shall drive from that lane to another unless it is safe to do
so;
(b) no driver of a vehicle shall drive from one traffic lane to another if a solid
line exists between lanes except:
(i) if solid and broken lines exist together, in which case the driver may
cross the solid line from a lane in which the broken line exists; or
(ii) if the lane is designated by signs as a two-way left turn lane

There is a solid line immediately before & after the intersection. I don't recall ever seeing any interesction where there are lines on the pavement, other than crosswalks of course. I remember when I took driver training the instructor saying never to change lanes in an intersection. I asked my daughter about it today since she just took driver training in May. She said that the instructor said the same thing. Maybe that is why I was thinking that it is illegal.



Turning
49(1) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn right at an intersection, he shall
approach the intersection and make the turn as closely as possible to the righthand
curb or edge of the highway.
(2) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn left at an intersection, he shall
approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane that is lawfully available to
traffic moving in the direction he is travelling and, after entering the intersection,
shall make the left turn so as to leave the intersection, as nearly as possible, in the
extreme left-hand lane that is lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction
he is travelling on the highway that he is entering.
(3) Where more than one lane of a highway has been designated, using signs or
pavement markings, as a right or left turn lane, a driver intending to turn right or
left into an intersecting highway shall:
(a) approach the intersection in one of the designated lanes; and
(b) leave the intersection in the lane of the intersecting highway that
corresponds to the lane from which the turn was commenced.

Yielding right of way
50(1) If two vehicles arrive at an intersection at approximately the same time, the
driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the
vehicle on the right.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the operation of vehicles at an intersection
where a peace officer is on duty, traffic lights are in operation or a stop sign is
erected.
(3) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn left across the path of any vehicle
approaching from the opposite direction, he shall yield the right of way and shall
not make the turn until he has afforded a reasonable opportunity to the driver of
the approaching vehicle to avoid a collision.

These points could be argued all day long about what exactly they mean. It still doesn't explain why the driver in this situation left the road some 495 feet from the intersection in question.


----------



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

krs said:


> Interesting, the different ideas people have about the "Rules of the Road", but changing lanes in an intersection is not illegal in Ontario and I just looked at the Saskatchewan Driver's Handbook, it doesn't look like it's illegal there either.
> At least I couldn't find anything to that effect.
> Maybe Hockeymom can point out the section since she claimed it was illegal as well.
> 
> In any case, from what I have read so far as to the actual situation, this section in the Sask. Driver's handbook seems to cover that. There is no option which says you can make the turn and enter the highway if the lane you are turning into has no traffic.


This is taken from the Sask. Traffic Safety Act:
Rules re traffic lanes
228(1) If a highway is divided into traffic lanes, the following rules apply:
(a) no driver of a vehicle shall fail to drive as nearly as is practicable entirely
within one lane or shall drive from that lane to another unless it is safe to do
so;
(b) no driver of a vehicle shall drive from one traffic lane to another if a solid
line exists between lanes except:
(i) if solid and broken lines exist together, in which case the driver may
cross the solid line from a lane in which the broken line exists; or
(ii) if the lane is designated by signs as a two-way left turn lane

There is a solid line immediately before & after the intersection. I don't recall ever seeing any interesction where there are lines on the pavement, other than crosswalks of course. I remember when I took driver training the instructor saying never to change lanes in an intersection. I asked my daughter about it today since she just took driver training in May. She said that the instructor said the same thing. Maybe that is why I was thinking that it is illegal.



Turning
49(1) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn right at an intersection, he shall
approach the intersection and make the turn as closely as possible to the righthand
curb or edge of the highway.
(2) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn left at an intersection, he shall
approach the intersection in the extreme left-hand lane that is lawfully available to
traffic moving in the direction he is travelling and, after entering the intersection,
shall make the left turn so as to leave the intersection, as nearly as possible, in the
extreme left-hand lane that is lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction
he is travelling on the highway that he is entering.
(3) Where more than one lane of a highway has been designated, using signs or
pavement markings, as a right or left turn lane, a driver intending to turn right or
left into an intersecting highway shall:
(a) approach the intersection in one of the designated lanes; and
(b) leave the intersection in the lane of the intersecting highway that
corresponds to the lane from which the turn was commenced.

Yielding right of way
50(1) If two vehicles arrive at an intersection at approximately the same time, the
driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the driver of the
vehicle on the right.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the operation of vehicles at an intersection
where a peace officer is on duty, traffic lights are in operation or a stop sign is
erected.
(3) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn left across the path of any vehicle
approaching from the opposite direction, he shall yield the right of way and shall
not make the turn until he has afforded a reasonable opportunity to the driver of
the approaching vehicle to avoid a collision.

These points could be argued all day long about what exactly they mean. It still doesn't explain why the driver in this situation left the road some 495 feet from the intersection in question.


----------



## hockeymom (Aug 15, 2008)

oops sorry about the double post


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

You said "a stop sign is erected" (heh-heh, heh-heh, heh-heh).


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

> These points could be argued all day long about what exactly they mean. It still doesn't explain why the driver in this situation left the road some 495 feet from the intersection in question.


Ah.......I must have missed that point in the thread.
From what was posted I was under the impression that the other driver left the road right at the intersection or very close to it, I never saw the 495 ft number before, only the distance to the overpass which was roughly 1/2 km or 2600 ft.

One thing I found really interesting (and almost unbelievable) is how the traffic laws change (somewhat subtly) from province to province and also in the US from state to state.
Changing lanes in an intersection for instance seems to be prohibited in many states but not all; not sure about Canada but Ontario and Saskatchewan at least seems to legally allow that.
Crossing a solid line seems to be illegal in Saskatchewan, but I know that either in Ontario or Quebec, it's only illegal if there is also a road sign - pavement markings as such are just markings and thus recommendations.
I think "turning right" at a red light is the one traffic rule that most people recognize varies from province to province or state to state.
Quebec has outdone everyone else in that regard - it's now legal in Quebec but illegal on the Island of Montreal. bet ya no other province or state can top that.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I was searching for an answer just to satisfy myself and as added information so I don't run afoul of the law and came across this









I've never been to Michigan, so I don't know it it's a joke, but here's the site I found it on.

Margaret


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I don't think this is a joke.
I have seen this type of set up elsewhere but it's not very common.
Probably too expensive to build everywhere - from a traffic flow point of view it makes a lot of sense.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Same concept as a traffic circle...except that it's rectangular. lol

Most North Americans have a hard time even grasping the concept of a traffic circle. Mind you, our "grid" laid out cities are ill suited for it.

On ST-17 in New Jersey you make a right in order to make a left. You loop and wait for the light to change and just go straight.


----------



## arfenarf (May 1, 2008)

winwintoo said:


> I've never been to Michigan, so I don't know it it's a joke, but here's the site I found it on.


<LearnedToDriveInMichigan>

Absolutely classic example of the Michigan Left Turn. It works better than you might think....

</LearnedToDriveInMichigan>


----------

