left hand turn in left hand lane

[mercman]

Driving in Montreal was one of the scariest things I have ever done. Whose idea was it to let cars traveling in opposite directions share a lane????

 

 

i KNOW !!!

We call it a suicide lane for a reason. AND !!! We have city buses driving against trafic on our most congested bridge, The Champlain bridge

But most here dont even know what a signal lite is.All they know is when the touch it it goes 'CLIC CLIC CLIC CLIC'

[Jer]

It certainly does become habit, sometimes I find myself signalling sharp turns in the road.

[fishing n autograph]

If I'm not mistaken a long while back Dave (our resident cop ) mentioned that it's never "mandatory" to use signals unless other vehicles are in the vicinity. Something along those lines.

 

Perhaps he'll chime in.

 

All turns must be signalled and lane changes have to be signalled if you are impeding traffic...

 

But just signal to be safe, there's no harm in doing it

Edited February 14, 2011 by FishnNAutographs

[solopaddler]

All turns must be signalled and lane changes have to be signalled if you are impeding traffic...

 

But just signal to be safe, there's no harm in doing it

 

 

Hmmmm....really?

 

That's not how this reads:

 

 

142.(1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1).

[HTHM]

Hmmmm....really?

 

That's not how this reads:

 

 

142.(1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1).

Oh, comon Mike you don't need to stir the pot that much do you?

[solopaddler]

Oh, comon Mike you don't need to stir the pot that much do you?

 

Albert, Albert, Albert. Pot stirring?

 

Is there another interpretation to what I highlighted that I'm not getting?

 

I'd just like to know what the highway traffic is saying. To me it seems fairly straightforward. Then suddenly it doesn't when Dave chimes in and disputes it.

 

(For what it's worth I always use my indicator. )

[Dara]

I saw a cop run a red light today trying to beat a yellow. Its becoming rampant around here where it never was before......I honked at him

 

oh yeah...a school bus ran one last week too

Edited February 14, 2011 by Dara

[Dara]

All turns must be signalled and lane changes have to be signalled if you are impeding traffic...

 

But just signal to be safe, there's no harm in doing it

 

 

where does ìmpeding come from...the operative word is affecting....if you are not affecting any other traffic, you don`t have to signal

[toca]

I would have to say yes here in Ontario. Buddy here was telling me he got a ticket for not signaling.He even tried to fight it in court,saying,if Im in a turn lane why should I have to signal.It,s the law,is what his response was.

 

they where talking about this in the news and bashing police officers not complying with this law a couple of months ago.

[fishing n autograph]

Hmmmm....really?

 

That's not how this reads:

 

 

142.(1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1).

 

umm that's what it says...you have to signal your turn and lane changes if you are affecting/impeding traffic....

Edited February 15, 2011 by FishnNAutographs

[solopaddler]

 

i replied half distracted on my blackberry.

 

 

 

Hopefully not while behind the wheel making a left hand turn with no indicator on.

[fishing n autograph]

nope i was in line for chinese food.....it was good

[solopaddler]

nope i was in line for chinese food.....it was good

 

Why'd you edit your post?

 

What if you're not affecting any other vehicles?

[fishing n autograph]

Why'd you edit your post?

 

What if you're not affecting any other vehicles?

 

Then you're alone on the road lol

 

The problem with the HTA is that a lot of sections need to be updated and rewritten. There are a lot of offended in there that everyone commits on a daily basis and they haveno clue

[solopaddler]

Then you're alone on the road lol

 

The problem with the HTA is that a lot of sections need to be updated and rewritten. There are a lot of offended in there that everyone commits on a daily basis and they haveno clue

 

 

You're the king of side speak.

 

I think you've been hanging around too many lawyers.

[smally21]

if a tree falls in the forest.....

 

like FFA says, to not affect traffic would mean no one to affect - including no traffic officer to issue the ticket. at which point you could also talk on your cell phone.

 

so yeah - you dont need to signal when no one is around, but then who would know what you did. if you got a ticket then someone was around. its not really a signal if no one receives it. im gonna stop typing now.

[Bernie]

Just for a side note, when doing a safety inspection on a car in Ontario, signals do not have to be working. I can't fail a car because they don't work. Same as brake lamps.

Law reads one tail lamp and license plate lamp only required on the rear.

 

The reason being is because you can use hand signals. Does anyone know how to do this?

There are several other crazy things pertaining to safety's.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Bernie

[solopaddler]

if a tree falls in the forest.....

 

like FFA says, to not affect traffic would mean no one to affect - including no traffic officer to issue the ticket. at which point you could also talk on your cell phone.

 

so yeah - you dont need to signal when no one is around, but then who would know what you did. if you got a ticket then someone was around. its not really a signal if no one receives it. im gonna stop typing now.

 

 

That my friend is the rub. Exactly what is the literal definition of "not affecting" anyone, at least as far as the HTA is concerned?

 

It seems to me that it's more than a little subjective.

 

Nowhere in the HTA does it say "when the road is devoid of vehicles".

 

Is it "no other vehicles within four car lengths back in both directions"?

 

Is it "no other vehicles within half a km in both directions"?

 

Nothing is spelled out clearly, it's completely ambiguous. The way the HTA reads, it seems as though it's up to the drivers discretion.

 

A good lawyer would have a field day with one of those tickets the way the HTA is written now.

[mercman]

it seems alot of our laws are open to interpertation.When they were written,i dont supose they could ever have thought of half the scenarios that happen on the roads today.They need to be re written, or at least ammended.

Im the mean time, its up to police to interpet the laws as best as possible, and drivers to practice the safest possible defensive driving habits.

That is the best thing to do.Mandatory or not, the safest thing to do, is signal.Thats all.

[BillM]

Traffic laws are merely suggestions

[fishing n autograph]

That my friend is the rub. Exactly what is the literal definition of "not affecting" anyone, at least as far as the HTA is concerned?

 

It seems to me that it's more than a little subjective.

 

Nowhere in the HTA does it say "when the road is devoid of vehicles".

 

Is it "no other vehicles within four car lengths back in both directions"?

 

Is it "no other vehicles within half a km in both directions"?

 

Nothing is spelled out clearly, it's completely ambiguous. The way the HTA reads, it seems as though it's up to the drivers discretion.

 

A good lawyer would have a field day with one of those tickets the way the HTA is written now.

True, however there are no good lawyers when it comes to tickets lol. Real lawyers are in criminal court haha

 

You make a good point. For some things it's not clear like signalling turns. Others are cut and dry, why do you think the media tells people to treat a intersection with the traffic lights out like a four way stop....to avoid chaos because in the hta it doesnt say treat it like a four way lol

Edited February 15, 2011 by FishnNAutographs

[solopaddler]

 

True, however there are no good lawyers when it comes to tickets lol. Real lawyers are in criminal court haha

 

 

 

This is true.

I've fought two traffic violations in court because I truly believed I was right.

 

The first one I had a useless lawyer who did nothing for me.

 

The second one I represented myself.

Thought I was doing pretty well until the judge interupted me with a lecture.

 

I interupted the judge and asked "what gives you the right to be so judgemental?".

 

Never ask a judge why he's so judgemental! Very bad things happen.

 

[Dara]

I got pulled over for not signaling. There was no traffic to affect.

The cop that pulled me over was in a parking lot so I wasn't affecting him. He saw my point and let me go. The only reason I knew this is because another cop had told me about the signaling law previously.

 

If you are in a left turn lane and turning and there are vehicles coming toward you, they gotta know you plan on turning in front of them. They don't know you aren't from out of town and don't know what lane to be in.

 

Laws are written ambiguously so that its easier to charge and convict.

 

Read a few tax laws and see how easy it is for them to stick it to you

[HTHM]

Albert, Albert, Albert. Pot stirring?

 

Is there another interpretation to what I highlighted that I'm not getting?

 

I'd just like to know what the highway traffic is saying. To me it seems fairly straightforward. Then suddenly it doesn't when Dave chimes in and disputes it.

 

(For what it's worth I always use my indicator. )

You're right I made a mistake.

[fishing n autograph]

This is true.

I've fought two traffic violations in court because I truly believed I was right.

 

The first one I had a useless lawyer who did nothing for me.

 

The second one I represented myself.

Thought I was doing pretty well until the judge interupted me with a lecture.

 

I interupted the judge and asked "what gives you the right to be so judgemental?".

 

Never ask a judge why he's so judgemental! Very bad things happen.

 

 

Oh to be a fly on the wall of that court room! I've heard some funny stuff in court though...it usually comes when people try to defend themselves.

 

I remember one time I was sitting watching a guy defend a 15over speeding ticket, reduced from 30+ over and he starts "your honour I think you should cancel the ticket. I believe the officer was completely wrong. In the officers notes it says that there was a parade at 600hrs. The officer wrote me a ticket at 630. How could I be speeding at the very spot a parade was taking place?

 

The court room was silent...crickets lol...

 

Then everyone tried hard not to laugh. The JP just shook his head and said sir, parade means the officers preshift meeting.

 

Needless to say his defence was shot down and he paid the full ticket not the 15 over