Automotive

Merging onto expressway question (in Guelph)

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 11th, 2013 6:25 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
Jan 19, 2011
2155 posts
408 upvotes
OP, I used to drive the Hanlon all the time as a KW based courier.

At that intersection, the right turning traffic is on a seperate ramp which IS NOT controlled by the light signal. So you only have to slow down sufficiently to negotiate the ramp curve in a safe manner.

Regardless of who has right of way between a pedestrian on the crosswalk and a car on the ramp, I would ABSOLUTELY yield to the pedestrian, as I wouldn't recommend the hassle of killing or catastrophically injuring one simply because someone on RFD suggested you have right of way over a pedestrian.

Then when you finish the curve and ar on the acceleration lane, give it some gas and merge safely into the right hand lane of travel.
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."
Just a guy who dabbles in lots of stuff learning along the way. I do have opinions, and readily share them!
Deal Addict
Jan 18, 2013
1034 posts
157 upvotes
Ottawa
fieldhousehandyman wrote:
Mar 10th, 2013 11:32 pm
Regardless of who has right of way between a pedestrian on the crosswalk and a car on the ramp, I would ABSOLUTELY yield to the pedestrian, as I wouldn't recommend the hassle of killing or catastrophically injuring one simply because someone on RFD suggested you have right of way over a pedestrian.
It's not a suggestion, its the law in Ontario. Quite frankly it's a pretty stupid one too.
Deal Addict
Apr 30, 2002
1726 posts
141 upvotes
North
lennyandcarl wrote:
Mar 10th, 2013 12:40 pm
Well, it was nice of you to even post the name of the source I should use to prove you wrong!

"Where the right-turn channel is free flow, pedestrians crossing to the island must yield right-of-way to motorists because there are no provisions in the Highway Traffic Acti indicating otherwise. For free flow channelized right-turn lanes, crosswalk markings should therefore
not be applied on the channelization curve. The WAIT FOR GAP (Wc-28) sign should be installed if field observations have indicated that pedestrians frequently cross at a location without waiting for the appropriate gaps and/ or where drivers may not expect pedestrians."

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=& ... 7494,d.dmQ
'Free flow' implies no X-walk markers and/or X-walk sign(s). Technically, pedestrians should not cross here at all!


Image

lennyandcarl wrote:
Mar 10th, 2013 8:43 pm
Now, the photo is taken somewhere in the states so it doesn't matter.

As for the HTA it refers to a pedestrian crossover which is the legal definition of this kind of structure: Image

If it doesn't look like that pedestrians are SOL.

Thank you, try again.

If a road is marked for pedestrian X-ing, it's not 'free flow'.

lennyandcarl wrote:
Mar 11th, 2013 12:21 am
It's not a suggestion, its the law in Ontario. Quite frankly it's a pretty stupid one too.

How about using some common sense ?
Deal Addict
Jan 18, 2013
1034 posts
157 upvotes
Ottawa
dealsaddict wrote:
Mar 11th, 2013 4:39 am
'Free flow' implies no X-walk markers and/or X-walk sign(s). Technically, pedestrians should not cross here at all!

If a road is marked for pedestrian X-ing, it's not 'free flow'.
Pedestrians can cross anywhere as long as they don't interfere with traffic.

dealsaddict wrote:
Mar 11th, 2013 4:39 am
How about using some common sense ?
We aren't talking about common sense here, we are talking about the law. The two are completely separate most of the time!
Deal Addict
Feb 26, 2008
1154 posts
291 upvotes
lennyandcarl wrote:
Mar 10th, 2013 8:43 pm
Now, the photo is taken somewhere in the states so it doesn't matter.

As for the HTA it refers to a pedestrian crossover which is the legal definition of this kind of structure: Image

If it doesn't look like that pedestrians are SOL.

Thank you, try again.

Lenny,

Do yourself a favour and stop referring to the driver's handbook as gospel and read the actual legislation instead. If you had done so you would have seen the actual definition of a pedestrian cross-over:


“pedestrian crossover” means any portion of a roadway, designated by by-law of a municipality, at an intersection or elsewhere, distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs on the highway and lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway as prescribed by the regulations; (“passage pour piétons”)
Deal Addict
Jan 18, 2013
1034 posts
157 upvotes
Ottawa
kneevase wrote:
Mar 11th, 2013 6:13 pm
Lenny,

Do yourself a favour and stop referring to the driver's handbook as gospel and read the actual legislation instead. If you had done so you would have seen the actual definition of a pedestrian cross-over:


“pedestrian crossover” means any portion of a roadway, designated by by-law of a municipality, at an intersection or elsewhere, distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs on the highway and lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway as prescribed by the regulations; (“passage pour piétons”)
Yup. I did.

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

OP asks if he need to stop for pedestrians at Hanlon & Woodside. The answer is a big NO since there is no yield sign or crosswalk.

If the intersection had a painted crosswalk it would mean yield to pedestrians, but it doesn't have that.

I don't see how the HTA isn't the gospel, It's the document that will be used to convict you if you have an accident while driving in Ontario.

I hate our crosswalk laws and the way pedestrians are second class citizens in Ontario.
× < >

Top