Automotive

Do people even understand what red light means?

  • Last Updated:
  • May 24th, 2018 1:56 am
[OP]
Sr. Member
Aug 13, 2006
523 posts
209 upvotes
Ottawa

Do people even understand what red light means?

Inspired but this post and discussion that follows (it should have been a thread on its own. Mods can fix if they want). The amount of people thinking that blue car is not at fault because it stopped just baffles me and they are all drivers on our roads. I was in exact same situation couple of years ago: I was in a car doing a U-Turn on green and the other driver making right turn on red didn't give me the right of way. I honked at him and the guy chased me 3 intersections down the road trying to engage me in some sort of road rage. I simply ignored him.
62 replies
Jr. Member
Sep 8, 2017
185 posts
107 upvotes
Just got up to speed on that discussion. I think red's at fault.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jan 27, 2004
38083 posts
3036 upvotes
Toronto
eugene_2005 wrote:
May 18th, 2018 9:11 am
Inspired but this post and discussion that follows (it should have been a thread on its own. Mods can fix if they want). The amount of people thinking that blue car is not at fault because it stopped just baffles me and they are all drivers on our roads. I was in exact same situation couple of years ago: I was in a car doing a U-Turn on green and the other driver making right turn on red didn't give me the right of way. I honked at him and the guy chased me 3 intersections down the road trying to engage me in some sort of road rage. I simply ignored him.
Its bc its commonly unknown that youre allowed to u-turn like that in an intersection.
It really throws people off. But yes... Aside from all the indepth discussion... Simply put they teach in driving school

When doing a Right turn on red.
Stop! Check both ways, check for pedestrians.
Proceed only when safe to do so.
Deal Addict
Sep 30, 2011
1068 posts
227 upvotes
MISSISSAUGA
It is their fault, but you invited trouble by making a u-turn at intersection. Even it is allowed, but it is so awkward to do in a busy intersection.

So time an arrow green is given on the left turn and u turn use the left lane, but arrow green is also given on the right turn lane from the other side, very curious to find out who's at fault, when both is given green arrow.
Dump Liberal ! June 2018 !!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 4, 2008
5307 posts
2846 upvotes
Richmond Hill
napoleonbot wrote:
May 18th, 2018 10:12 am
It is their fault, but you invited trouble by making a u-turn at intersection. Even it is allowed, but it is so awkward to do in a busy intersection.

So time an arrow green is given on the left turn and u turn use the left lane, but arrow green is also given on the right turn lane from the other side, very curious to find out who's at fault, when both is given green arrow.
You mean intersections that have an advanced left AND an advanced right? I've seen those before but I can't remember a specific intersection; I certainly hope there's a no u-turn sign for those intersections.
When given enough time, all threads on RFD can and will go off on a tangent.
Deal Addict
Sep 30, 2011
1068 posts
227 upvotes
MISSISSAUGA
aeba7 wrote:
May 18th, 2018 10:28 am
You mean intersections that have an advanced left AND an advanced right? I've seen those before but I can't remember a specific intersection; I certainly hope there's a no u-turn sign for those intersections.
yes, eglinton + kennedy in mississauga, for example, u turned car using left arrow on eglinton heading east will merge into right turn car from kennedy heading south.
Dump Liberal ! June 2018 !!
[OP]
Sr. Member
Aug 13, 2006
523 posts
209 upvotes
Ottawa
napoleonbot wrote:
May 18th, 2018 10:12 am
So time an arrow green is given on the left turn and u turn use the left lane, but arrow green is also given on the right turn lane from the other side, very curious to find out who's at fault, when both is given green arrow.
Car doing U-Turn will be at fault. Since both cars lawfully use the intersection(both have green light) HTA 141 (5) applies:

Left turn, across path of approaching vehicle
(5) No driver or operator of a vehicle in an intersection shall turn left across the path of a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction unless he or she has afforded a reasonable opportunity to the driver or operator of the approaching vehicle to avoid a collision.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 24, 2012
2137 posts
790 upvotes
MARKHAM
Haha, op is ridiculous. Green light mean you have right of way going straight. Assume the blue arrow car has made their full stop, they can turn right. What make you think crossing 3 lanes making a u-turn give you 100% right even if you have green. You still need to look for safety before making your u-turn and you are blocking traffic while you stopped before you u-turn. And if you didn't stop before you u-turn, you are 100% wrong.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Aug 13, 2006
523 posts
209 upvotes
Ottawa
JasonCao wrote:
May 18th, 2018 11:37 am
Assume the blue arrow car has made their full stop, they can turn right.
Wrong. Read HTA.
144 (18)
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. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (18).

There is an exception from this rule

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. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (19).

See the bold?

JasonCao wrote:
May 18th, 2018 11:37 am
Green light mean you have right of way going straight
Wrong again. HTA 144 (12)

Green light
(12) A driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular green indication and facing the indication may proceed forward or turn left or right unless otherwise directed. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (12).
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
5944 posts
3185 upvotes
Edmonton
eugene_2005 wrote:
May 18th, 2018 9:11 am
Inspired but this post and discussion that follows (it should have been a thread on its own. Mods can fix if they want). The amount of people thinking that blue car is not at fault because it stopped just baffles me and they are all drivers on our roads. I was in exact same situation couple of years ago: I was in a car doing a U-Turn on green and the other driver making right turn on red didn't give me the right of way. I honked at him and the guy chased me 3 intersections down the road trying to engage me in some sort of road rage. I simply ignored him.
You're allowed to make a U-turn, but it's your responsibility to make it safely. The person approaching the intersection and turning right can see you in the left turning lane. They should be safe assuming you're turning left, not making a U-turn. So after they stop (they still need to do that), they can continue their right turn. You're on your own.

In the link you posted, the person doing the U-turn is doing that, plus sliding across multiple lanes of traffic. It's their responsibility to make not only the U-turn safely, but the lane changes safely as well.

IMHO

C
[OP]
Sr. Member
Aug 13, 2006
523 posts
209 upvotes
Ottawa
CNeufeld wrote:
May 18th, 2018 11:59 am
You're allowed to make a U-turn, but it's your responsibility to make it safely. The person approaching the intersection and turning right can see you in the left turning lane. They should be safe assuming you're turning left, not making a U-turn. So after they stop (they still need to do that), they can continue their right turn. You're on your own.
The car doing U-Turn lawfully using intersection. The car doing right turn cannot go until it faces green light or made a complete stop AND given the right of way to cars lawfully approaching intersection. I have already quoted HTA numerios times on that. What 's in there so hard to understand? Assumptions are not good buddies when it comes to the law. Following your logic someone couldn't be deemed at fault hitting a pedestrian on a crosswalk just because someone has assumed that pedestrian was not going to cross the road so it was safe to go.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Feb 23, 2008
9997 posts
390 upvotes
Brampton
How can the car turning right know that the car making a U-turn is not turning left?
Lets Go Blue Jays!!!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 23, 2008
6275 posts
2007 upvotes
Toronto (Markham)
napoleonbot wrote:
May 18th, 2018 10:51 am
yes, eglinton + kennedy in mississauga, for example, u turned car using left arrow on eglinton heading east will merge into right turn car from kennedy heading south.
Same as intersection of Kennedy & Hwy 7 in Markham.

WB Hwy 7 gets advanced left turn for SB Kennedy, but NB Kennedy also gets advanced right turn for EB Hwy 7. If a car does a uturn they'd definitely hit the person turning right onto Hwy 7.
Tis banana is IRIE :razz:

10% off is cold, 50% off is warm, 75% off is hot, but FREE IS RFD!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
5944 posts
3185 upvotes
Edmonton
eugene_2005 wrote:
May 18th, 2018 12:15 pm
The car doing U-Turn lawfully using intersection. The car doing right turn cannot go until it faces green light or made a complete stop AND given the right of way to cars lawfully approaching intersection. I have already quoted HTA numerios times on that. What 's in there so hard to understand? Assumptions are not good buddies when it comes to the law. Following your logic someone couldn't be deemed at fault hitting a pedestrian on a crosswalk just because someone has assumed that pedestrian was not going to cross the road so it was safe to go.
When you're doing the u-turn, you're no longer "approaching" the intersection. And the other car is lawfully in the intersection just like the person doing the u-turn. What's so hard to understand that?

Your "assumption" example makes no sense, as any assumptions made have to be supported somewhat by observation. Otherwise, if called to court, saying you assumed a pedestrian wasn't going to cross even when you can see them approaching or standing by the intersection would get you a slap-down by a prosecutor and/or JP.

Assumptions do happen all the time in life. When we approach an intersection and there's a car in the on-coming left turn lane, we assume that car is turning left, even if they've neglected to turn on their signal or their light is broken. This means that we assume that we can also turn left without fear of that car suddenly deciding to go change their mind straight through.

Feel free to test your u-turn theory and crash into someone. See who gets nailed. I'll await the results. If the person with the red light stops as they should before turning right, I'd bet $50 that the person doing the u-turn is at fault or it's at worst a 50/50 fault by insurance standards.

BTW... From the Fault Determination Rules:
19. The driver of automobile “A” is 100 per cent at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is not at fault for an incident that occurs,

(a) when automobile “A” is backing up;

(b) when automobile “A” is making a U-turn; or

(c) when the driver of, or a passenger in, automobile “A” opens the automobile door or leaves the door open. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 19.
C

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)