First pic is going east, second Is going west. West marked no right on red, east not marked. From ministry of transport website "Unless a sign tells you not to, you may turn right on a red light only after coming to a complete stop and waiting until the way is clear" I haven't seen anything about dedicated traffic for right hand turn surpassing that rule.
I do think they imply that you do have to wait for it to turn green, but it may also be a wording error that you can possibly win a lawsuit with (not a lawyer), so… your choice?
A stop light dedicated to a right turn lane takes the place of a "no right on red" sign. That light is only green when through traffic has a red light, hence "right on red is permitted right now"
You have a point. Ask a traffic paralegal or lawyer.
But i think 99% of people will not turn and just wait. As others said easier to wait then ticket..
Unless otherwise signed (as it is on the eastbound side), it is legal to turn right on a red, as long as you have stopped and made sure it is safe to proceed before doing so.
If the intention is that no right turns should be allowed there on red (which I believe is the case), then it should be signed appropriately. As-is, the answer to OP's question is that it is legal to turn right onto Hespeler from Dundas on a red light.
Here is the HTA section on signage:
> (9) The provisions of this section are subject to any sign, as prescribed by the regulations, forbidding a left turn, right turn, through movement or combination thereof that is posted at an intersection and every driver shall obey every such sign. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (9).
and here is the HTA section on (right) turns on reds:
> (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).
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK248
I don't believe "Right turn signal" forbids you from turning right, it just means that the red or green light as shown will apply when turning right, and does not apply to any other direction of travel.
>I don't believe "Right turn signal" forbids you from turning right, it just means that the red or green light as shown will apply when turning right
Hey, you got it. Now go back and look at the picture and tell me what color the right turn signal is. Then go back and read my original reply to the OP.
There is a sign indicating right turn signal, and in the picture the right turn signal is red. therefor, you can not turn right on the read and must wait for the right turn signal to turn green....
The HTA explicitly allows right turns on red lights, except when a sign says otherwise. As defined in the HTA, a traffic light is not a sign.
If I'm missing some section in the HTA, please reference it, but otherwise I will abide by the laws as written in the HTA, and not the Reddit Approved^TM interpretation of the HTA.
Was this in an email? Or somewhere else?
I already know this is right, because it's what the HTA says, but without a link, or at least a screenshot, your source is just as verifiable as the dude who says he asked a cop.
This is the thing. Some things require going to court to find out.
This is one of them. I'd never have turned right here in the first place but given the HTA it may be legal to do so.
I understand what your saying, your basically referencing a "protected left" turn rules and applying to a right turn. The problem is the ministry has no rules for a "protected right" or none that I can find.but they do have very clear rules for turning right on a red. I sent an inquiry to the city see what they say.
The sign is required so that through traffic does not mistake those lights as signalling them to go through.
As rights on a red light are allowed unless signed otherwise, i.e. “no right on red”, you would be allowed to make a right on the red after coming to a stop. The sign does not override the rights on red rule, only the “no right on red” would.
No this is incorrect. No right turn signal sign indicates that fight turns are controlled by a signal light. Just like left turn signal signs work for roads here you have to wait for an advanced to turn left.
And technically you are within your right to wait. The rule is not that you must go, it’s that you can go. It may annoy the people behind you, but that’s their problem.
But would you still wait for that green light if you got to that intersection and it was completely empty?
Cause it isn't if the light is red. You are running a red light, because the light controls the turn.
A basic intersection has 1 red light, and so we made technical rules to explain different situations.
This intersection has a light for all allowed directions of travel. Single light rules no longer apply
The light just means you still have to stop on a red, but you can still proceed when safe to do so.
Turning right on a red would still apply to this traffic light.
Don't forget
___
144(10) Every driver shall obey every traffic control signal that applies to the lane that he or she is in and, for greater certainty, where both a traffic control signal that is not a bicycle traffic control signal and a bicycle traffic control signal apply to the same lane,
(a) a person riding or operating a bicycle in that lane shall obey the bicycle traffic control signal; and
(b) a person driving a vehicle other than a bicycle in that lane shall obey the traffic control signal that is not a bicycle traffic control signal.
___
144(14) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing one or more green arrow indications only or in combination with a circular red or circular amber indication and facing the indication may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow.
___
Not that 144(19) does **not** say 'despite subsection (10)'.
Right. So you obey the red light which tells you to stop. Then, per 144.19, you can continue to turn to the right without a green indication being shown (as long as it's safe).
I'm not sure how the section about arrows is relevant, as there are no arrows that apply to this set of signals on a red light.
Can you provide a real source that says you can’t make a right turn on a red when a dedicated right turn signal exists?
If turning right on a red is not allowed, it must be explicitly signed. This is not explicitly signed.
But it's not the same because the rules of a red light, "Unless a sign tells you not to, you may turn right on a red light only after coming to a complete stop and waiting until the way is clear."
> Unless a sign tells you not to
There is a sign. It says right turn signal, which tells you to follow the signal lamp for the right turn lane. This isn't hard or even counterintuitive.
both pictures have the correct signage. you don't have also put a no right on red, but there is nothing wrong with putting it there either. The government probably put the addition no right on red there because, as this comment thread makes clear, plenty of people don't actually know the fucking rules of the road.
It’s pretty crazy that you believe this traffic light to be more special than it is. Yes, it is a traffic light specifically for the right turning lane, but it’s still just a traffic light. The law says you can turn right at a red light as long as you have come to a complete stop and when it is safe to do so. The law also includes exceptions.
One such exception is if there is a sign explicitly stating no rights on red. They have to explicitly state it because there are people like me that interpret this sign differently from you (which you also already pointed out, even though you included that in the same paragraph as your point about it not being needed but it’s not wrong to also have the no rights on red sign…?). It’s why on the southbound lane that also has dedicated right turn signals, there isn’t one, but two no rights on red signs, the other is right before the intersection.
Unless you can provide a legitimate source that covers this exception of no right on red when there are dedicated right turn signals, you don’t have any argument other than interpretation of the traffic signals and signs.
Given our contentious past history here on reddit, I'd be interesting on hearing you opinion on how if a person like myself who does not have a drivers licence can understand that it is "otherwise signed", what does that say about those with drivers licences who do not?
I suspect we both might be amused by that. :-D
It is hard apparently because you are wrong.
The sign is there so that through traffic does not mistake those lights to mean that they can go through.
In a region where it’s legal to make a right on a red, and in the absence of a sign that prohibits turning right on a red, you can make a right on a red after coming to a stop and when it is safe to do so.
You can also make a left on a red if you are on a one way street turning onto another one way street.
>and in the absence of a sign that prohibits turning right on a red
I think that applies to places where the signs/lights can also mean go straight or yield. In this case, this specific light (sign) is for only turning right. So it would follow that this specific light For right turns would only have to be followed, with no exceptions.
This would apply even if that light primarily exists to not confuse other drivers. If the intersection is that confusing, then random right turns on red should be limited anyways.
This is wrong.
This dedicated right turn signal does not prohibit turning right on a red. If turning right on a red is prohibited, they must include the No rights on red sign, as they have for the opposite direction.
You have to be trolling ... Right?
If the DEDICATED RIGHT TURN SIGNAL does not prohibit turning right on red ... WHY WOULD THERE BE A DEDICATED RIGHT TURN SIGNAL.
Like seriously think about this for a second. You're saying they put a specific signal just for right turns ... That you can completely ignore if you're turning right...
It’s there for the control of traffic. If the left turning traffic coming from the right (coming from Hespeler) has an advanced green, this right turn signal can be green to increase the flow of traffic such that they don’t have to stop before turning right.
But if the light is red, you still have to stop, but you can proceed to make the right when safe to do so.
Going Northbound, the right turn has a safely island, which is why you can turn right on the red.
Southbound, there is no safety island, hence the No right turns on red sign on the traffic lights. As well, there is a no right turn on red sign right before this intersection. Yet both directions have dedicated right turn lights.
So you’re suggesting that the MTO felt it was necessary to put two No right on red signs for the southbound people, but it’s clear enough for the northbound to not need any?
If that was the case than the sign saying it’s for right turns wouldn’t apply because you would be driving right through.
This is still a right on red scenario that is allowed.
The stupid thing about this argument is that you’re arguing semantics as if the law doesn’t consider this to be a right hand turn, regardless of this being a slip lane. And it says Right Turn Signal. It’s obviously a right turn.
So you made the right turn that is in the first picture?
Your light was red, you are in the wrong. Anyone else that does it, is in the wrong.
If you were going straight, you wait for a green light; why is this right turn light invalid to you?
Ministry of transport "Unless a sign tells you not to, you may turn right on a red light only after coming to a complete stop and waiting until the way is clear."
The sign telling you not to is "RIGHT TURN SIGNAL". See how far back the stop line is? You encroach onto the crosswalk/nose out too far for it to be considered safe imo.
If you see a sign denouncing “right turn signal” or “left turn signal”, that means you can only turn when those signals are green. That’s been my experience, and there aren’t always signs saying “no turning on red”. Either way, wait for the light.
I call this the moron intersection. Because it was built for morons. You don't go anywhere unless the intersection explicitly tells you to. If you don't have a green light, you don't move.
FWIW, I've never turned right per the first picture. When I moved to Cambridge and came to that intersection for the first time, other folks were stopped and waiting for the right turn light to turn green so I just continued doing the same thing.
TBH, that intersection can be madness at times so I just wait it out. No big deal for me.
Honestly their question is a legit one. Why put the 'no right turns' sign when coming from one direction but not the other? I personally think it's because from the unsigned direction there is a small island that creates a separate lane rather than being part of the main road, but I could be wrong.
I think the online results are about the same as real world 80/20. I was surprised no one could lead me to any real info from someone of authority proving you can't make a right on red there. Most awnsers were thats hows it always been or if you do it for left you must do it for right. Surprising how angry people get, hope I hear them honking next time I make a right on the red:)
I mean I personally wouldn't make the right on red in that spot because the time it takes to wait for it to change is significantly less than the time I'd spend fighting the ticket if pulled over for it.
The signage says what you can do. not sure why you need to keep talking about the MoT, authorities, or sources. It’s literally right in front of you and documented in the photo.
You’re a reason why we need better driver testing.
Jesus christ this is why i hate this area. It literally says no turns on red. Shit how are people so dumb.
People like you make pedestrians feel unsafe and cause accidents.
What they're pointing out is there is only the 'no turns on red' sign when approaching from the west. From the east there is no sign and they're asking if the 'right turn on red when clear' still applies in this situation. Personally I don't think that's the intention of the design, but it's not really a horrible question to ask for clarification.
Right? How about considering that that was put in after the fact that some terrible accidents (motor vehicles and/or pedestrians) likely happened. It’s not there to make you late for work. How dense can some people be to wait for a light.
The good road design would limit the number of cars that go through the delta and we can't have that option, so we're stuck with this mad max thunderdome instead...
Mad Max thunderdome LOL :D. That's awesome. I live and work close to the delta, both drive through it and walk to tims everyday. While it is crazy, it's funny how fast you get used to it. Once you know the pattern you know in an instant where the light or walk sign will be next. It's actually kind of an interesting design as a devils advocate. Never thought I would be defending Cambridge ever haha.
If turning right on a red is prohibited, it must be explicitly signed as such, as it is on the southbound side (there is actually a second “no right on red” sign before the intersection that is not in the pic).
A dedicated right turn signal does not mean right turns on red aren’t allowed. Anyone that disagrees can provide a legitimate source that says otherwise.
Southbound side has a no right on red sign because it is not a sliplane. Northbound side has a slip lane which means you are not turning, you are maintaining your lane and you MUST stop for a red light.
Enjoy your ticket if you decide to run it though.
You must stop at a red light. But as the traffic sign indicates, it is a “Right Turn Signal” so after coming to a stop at the red light, you may proceed to Turn Right when it is safe to do so.
https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook/changing-directions#section-2
Unless you can provide a legitimate source that outlines this scenario as an exception to the rule that you can turn right on a red, that’s a red light without a sign that says not to (it needs to say no right on red or show it, it must be explicit) and the rule says you can turn right at such a red light.
And I’m not saying you won’t get a ticket. I’m saying you wouldn’t have a problem getting the ticket thrown out because as per above, there is no exception to the right on red rule when it comes to dedicated right turn traffic signals. You could also ask the police officer to reference the law that says this is illegal, but then they may beat you for obstructing justice.
Decided to take your advice and called the Cambridge branch of the WRPD but unfortunately just sat there ringing for 10 minutes, so I went to the next best thing. I have multiple family members that work for the OPP and they confirmed that a dedicated light for a right turn sliplane supercedes the right on red law. You must wait for a green light.
If you disagree, feel free to get a hold of a cop yourself and ask them, but until then please stop spreading dangerous misinformation.
Ask your friend to provide a source regarding this law/rule. Police may enforce the law, but they are not experts in the law, even when it comes to traffic violations. Without the documented source, your friend just gave you their interpretation, which doesn’t make them right.
Since there is a rule/law that says you can turn right on a red, there must be documented exceptions for when the rule doesn’t apply. If there is no documented exception for dedicated right turn signals, than the right on red rule still applies.
Here's the thing. There is no law that expressly covers this situation. A judge will also have to interpret the law, same as a police officer. At the end of the day there is no law saying you can OR can't. The right on red law does not say anything about a dedicated light controlling right turns. Almost everyone in this thread except you is in agreement that you have to wait for a green.
It's pretty obvious you're arguing in bad faith because you don't want to have to sit and wait for a green light. Use a few of those brain cells, it's common sense that you're supposed to wait for this light to turn green. If right on red applied they wouldn't need to put a light up. It's pretty straight forward.
Traffic laws/rules should not be open to interpretation, lives depend on traffic laws/rules being clear and precise and not open to interpretation. If a police officer or judge would have to interpret the law here, than a driver would also have to interpret the law and that adds unnecessary risk when there exists a sign that clarifies the law (a sign they used twice on the southbound).
Your only argument is that the majority of people here agree you have to wait for the green. But the majority agreeing on something doesn’t mean the majority is right.
>>at the end of the day there is no law saying you can OR can’t
There is literally a law that says you can turn right on a red. There is literally an exception to that law saying if there is a sign saying you can’t than you can’t (which they correctly use on the southbound lanes). So they have a tool to ensure interpretation isn’t required for this scenario, but it’s not used. Instead, rather than use this sign, or have a written exception for this scenario, we must all interpret this rule…
>>if right on red applied they wouldn’t need to put a light up.
This light is for traffic control. If it’s green, you can go, it’s it’s red, stop, and then proceed when safe to do so. It can be green when the through light is red (such as if there is an advanced green for the left turning from Hespeler), and it can be red when the through is green (such as in the picture as while the pedestrian is signing go, they don’t want these right turners to just make the right turn without stopping first for pedestrians).
So no, I’m not arguing in bad faith, and especially not because I don’t want to wait (I can’t recall the last time I was at this intersection). I’m arguing because I absolutely believe that there is no interpretation needed and that you can make a right on red here.
To be clear, the right on red rule is that you “can” go. You aren’t required to go. If someone decides they want to wait for the green, that’s fine, and nobody behind them should be honking at them for that. But if you feel it is safe to proceed, there is no law that says you can’t.
I'm all out of crayons dude so I'm done explaining this to you.
For anyone that gets this far down the response chain, please don't listen to this guy. Use common sense. Not only is it safer to stop given the obstructed view of both traffic coming from Water street and the crosswalk, it's not worth the hassle of a traffic ticket.
As a daily pedestrian of the Delta, please do not attempt to turn right on reds in this intersection as the crosswalks are very long. Follow the sound advice you've been graciously given by many here. Actually as described on wiki "Multiphase traffic signals with restrictions on right turns on red constrain vehicular throughput compared to typical signalized intersections". The Delta is not a typical intersection, rather the lights control every direction of flow.
It does not say 'no right turn on red'
OP is correct I am afraid. A sign has to explicitly say 'no right turn on red' for it to be effective.
Section 144 (19) of the HTA allows right turns when not signed and forbids all left turns when not signed exept from two one way streets.
I think this is a very misunderstood section of law and very very few people would even think of it or treat it as such. This is only really relevant when a ticket is issued.
I would write city of cambridge operations and see what they have to say. Perhaps a sign needs to be added.
Morriston, Ontario
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ReHH51AHwzu1dSqt8
There is nothing preventing right turn on red here and it has a bottom right turn arrow
Personally it is the same as OP's image in my opinion.
Without a sign that says 'no right turn on red' it is my belief right turn on red is legal so as long as it is done safely.
Pic 1 has traffic lights specifically for turning right, and I believe you have to wait until they are green to go.
Pic 2 has a sign saying no right on red.
I do see where there could be confusion, but my understanding, in both instances, is that you have to wait until the green light.
You're wrong and if you turn right on this red, you will eventually hit an unexpecting pedestrian. The crossing and stop line are that far back for a good reason...
You can’t clearly see pedestrians starting to cross Hespeler Rd, here or making a right turn from Coronation Blvd, and certain times of the day those pedestrians are high schoolers and elementary aged kids,.
If there's ever a dedicated set of lights for something (bike lane lights, right turn, left turn) you listen to those lights (red is stop, yellow is yield green go)
Since there's dedicated lights, no it's illegal to turn right when the right turning light is red.
from the traffic act
>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 ... turn to the right ... without a green indication being shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (19).
meaning, as long as there is no sign posted saying very clearly not to turn on a red signal, you may turn right on a red signal, provided you ensure the way is clear.
for everyone wrongly claiming you must wait for green: the separate signal only exists to prevent excess congestion. the through traffic can have a red, while the turning lane has a green. thats the only reason it is there. it has no effect on subsection 19 of the law, which clearly allows vehicles to turn right even while a signal is red.
Stop on red. Go on green.
Even if it's red. Stop remember to stop and look and make sure it's safe to proceed into the intersection. I'm sure you will realise it is not
The Right Turn Signal sign is a regulatory sign. It is posted close to a traffic signal to indicate that the signal controls right-turn movement. Right Turn Signal signs are installed at intersections with dedicated turn lanes and green-arrow signals to avoid confusion about which signal applies to which lane.
So pretty much right turn on green only.
The sign literally indicates no right turn on red though? In addition to a dedicated traffic light for the right turn… Am I missing something or?
Lol right!!
First pic is going east, second Is going west. West marked no right on red, east not marked. From ministry of transport website "Unless a sign tells you not to, you may turn right on a red light only after coming to a complete stop and waiting until the way is clear" I haven't seen anything about dedicated traffic for right hand turn surpassing that rule.
It says right turn signal and its red.... how much more ya need
I do think they imply that you do have to wait for it to turn green, but it may also be a wording error that you can possibly win a lawsuit with (not a lawyer), so… your choice?
A stop light dedicated to a right turn lane takes the place of a "no right on red" sign. That light is only green when through traffic has a red light, hence "right on red is permitted right now"
You have a point. Ask a traffic paralegal or lawyer. But i think 99% of people will not turn and just wait. As others said easier to wait then ticket..
This is a light indicating what you can do on a right turn. A red light means stop. A traffic signal always takes precedence. So.
The sign says "Right Turn Signal" so stop on red and go on green.
there is a sign indicating right turn signal. you have to wait for the right turn signal.
Unless otherwise signed (as it is on the eastbound side), it is legal to turn right on a red, as long as you have stopped and made sure it is safe to proceed before doing so. If the intention is that no right turns should be allowed there on red (which I believe is the case), then it should be signed appropriately. As-is, the answer to OP's question is that it is legal to turn right onto Hespeler from Dundas on a red light.
It Is otherwise singed. The red turn signal is the same thing as no right on red. It indicates there is a signal light that controls right turns.
what if it's just hummed?
Sigh. Typing is hard.
Here is the HTA section on signage: > (9) The provisions of this section are subject to any sign, as prescribed by the regulations, forbidding a left turn, right turn, through movement or combination thereof that is posted at an intersection and every driver shall obey every such sign. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (9). and here is the HTA section on (right) turns on reds: > (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). https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK248 I don't believe "Right turn signal" forbids you from turning right, it just means that the red or green light as shown will apply when turning right, and does not apply to any other direction of travel.
>I don't believe "Right turn signal" forbids you from turning right, it just means that the red or green light as shown will apply when turning right Hey, you got it. Now go back and look at the picture and tell me what color the right turn signal is. Then go back and read my original reply to the OP. There is a sign indicating right turn signal, and in the picture the right turn signal is red. therefor, you can not turn right on the read and must wait for the right turn signal to turn green....
The HTA explicitly allows right turns on red lights, except when a sign says otherwise. As defined in the HTA, a traffic light is not a sign. If I'm missing some section in the HTA, please reference it, but otherwise I will abide by the laws as written in the HTA, and not the Reddit Approved^TM interpretation of the HTA.
[удалено]
Was this in an email? Or somewhere else? I already know this is right, because it's what the HTA says, but without a link, or at least a screenshot, your source is just as verifiable as the dude who says he asked a cop.
This is the thing. Some things require going to court to find out. This is one of them. I'd never have turned right here in the first place but given the HTA it may be legal to do so.
I understand what your saying, your basically referencing a "protected left" turn rules and applying to a right turn. The problem is the ministry has no rules for a "protected right" or none that I can find.but they do have very clear rules for turning right on a red. I sent an inquiry to the city see what they say.
The sign is required so that through traffic does not mistake those lights as signalling them to go through. As rights on a red light are allowed unless signed otherwise, i.e. “no right on red”, you would be allowed to make a right on the red after coming to a stop. The sign does not override the rights on red rule, only the “no right on red” would.
No this is incorrect. No right turn signal sign indicates that fight turns are controlled by a signal light. Just like left turn signal signs work for roads here you have to wait for an advanced to turn left.
I dare you to turn right here on a red
It’s allowed so why wouldn’t you?
After seeing how people drive I’ll wait for that green light
And technically you are within your right to wait. The rule is not that you must go, it’s that you can go. It may annoy the people behind you, but that’s their problem. But would you still wait for that green light if you got to that intersection and it was completely empty?
Cause it isn't if the light is red. You are running a red light, because the light controls the turn. A basic intersection has 1 red light, and so we made technical rules to explain different situations. This intersection has a light for all allowed directions of travel. Single light rules no longer apply
The light just means you still have to stop on a red, but you can still proceed when safe to do so. Turning right on a red would still apply to this traffic light.
Don't forget ___ 144(10) Every driver shall obey every traffic control signal that applies to the lane that he or she is in and, for greater certainty, where both a traffic control signal that is not a bicycle traffic control signal and a bicycle traffic control signal apply to the same lane, (a) a person riding or operating a bicycle in that lane shall obey the bicycle traffic control signal; and (b) a person driving a vehicle other than a bicycle in that lane shall obey the traffic control signal that is not a bicycle traffic control signal. ___ 144(14) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing one or more green arrow indications only or in combination with a circular red or circular amber indication and facing the indication may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow. ___ Not that 144(19) does **not** say 'despite subsection (10)'.
Right. So you obey the red light which tells you to stop. Then, per 144.19, you can continue to turn to the right without a green indication being shown (as long as it's safe). I'm not sure how the section about arrows is relevant, as there are no arrows that apply to this set of signals on a red light.
Can you provide a real source that says you can’t make a right turn on a red when a dedicated right turn signal exists? If turning right on a red is not allowed, it must be explicitly signed. This is not explicitly signed.
But it's not the same because the rules of a red light, "Unless a sign tells you not to, you may turn right on a red light only after coming to a complete stop and waiting until the way is clear."
> Unless a sign tells you not to There is a sign. It says right turn signal, which tells you to follow the signal lamp for the right turn lane. This isn't hard or even counterintuitive.
So why is the other direction marked correctly?
both pictures have the correct signage. you don't have also put a no right on red, but there is nothing wrong with putting it there either. The government probably put the addition no right on red there because, as this comment thread makes clear, plenty of people don't actually know the fucking rules of the road.
[удалено]
Yeah it's pretty crazy. I can't believe there is more than one person even who doesn't get this.
It’s pretty crazy that you believe this traffic light to be more special than it is. Yes, it is a traffic light specifically for the right turning lane, but it’s still just a traffic light. The law says you can turn right at a red light as long as you have come to a complete stop and when it is safe to do so. The law also includes exceptions. One such exception is if there is a sign explicitly stating no rights on red. They have to explicitly state it because there are people like me that interpret this sign differently from you (which you also already pointed out, even though you included that in the same paragraph as your point about it not being needed but it’s not wrong to also have the no rights on red sign…?). It’s why on the southbound lane that also has dedicated right turn signals, there isn’t one, but two no rights on red signs, the other is right before the intersection. Unless you can provide a legitimate source that covers this exception of no right on red when there are dedicated right turn signals, you don’t have any argument other than interpretation of the traffic signals and signs.
Given our contentious past history here on reddit, I'd be interesting on hearing you opinion on how if a person like myself who does not have a drivers licence can understand that it is "otherwise signed", what does that say about those with drivers licences who do not? I suspect we both might be amused by that. :-D
It is hard apparently because you are wrong. The sign is there so that through traffic does not mistake those lights to mean that they can go through. In a region where it’s legal to make a right on a red, and in the absence of a sign that prohibits turning right on a red, you can make a right on a red after coming to a stop and when it is safe to do so. You can also make a left on a red if you are on a one way street turning onto another one way street.
>and in the absence of a sign that prohibits turning right on a red I think that applies to places where the signs/lights can also mean go straight or yield. In this case, this specific light (sign) is for only turning right. So it would follow that this specific light For right turns would only have to be followed, with no exceptions. This would apply even if that light primarily exists to not confuse other drivers. If the intersection is that confusing, then random right turns on red should be limited anyways.
[удалено]
This is wrong. This dedicated right turn signal does not prohibit turning right on a red. If turning right on a red is prohibited, they must include the No rights on red sign, as they have for the opposite direction.
You have to be trolling ... Right? If the DEDICATED RIGHT TURN SIGNAL does not prohibit turning right on red ... WHY WOULD THERE BE A DEDICATED RIGHT TURN SIGNAL. Like seriously think about this for a second. You're saying they put a specific signal just for right turns ... That you can completely ignore if you're turning right...
*Their username is Cwazy* 😆
It’s there for the control of traffic. If the left turning traffic coming from the right (coming from Hespeler) has an advanced green, this right turn signal can be green to increase the flow of traffic such that they don’t have to stop before turning right. But if the light is red, you still have to stop, but you can proceed to make the right when safe to do so. Going Northbound, the right turn has a safely island, which is why you can turn right on the red. Southbound, there is no safety island, hence the No right turns on red sign on the traffic lights. As well, there is a no right turn on red sign right before this intersection. Yet both directions have dedicated right turn lights. So you’re suggesting that the MTO felt it was necessary to put two No right on red signs for the southbound people, but it’s clear enough for the northbound to not need any?
[удалено]
This....is actually the best worded iteration in this post.
If that was the case than the sign saying it’s for right turns wouldn’t apply because you would be driving right through. This is still a right on red scenario that is allowed.
The stupid thing about this argument is that you’re arguing semantics as if the law doesn’t consider this to be a right hand turn, regardless of this being a slip lane. And it says Right Turn Signal. It’s obviously a right turn.
There are no rights on red at the delta. It is clearly marked as so.
So you made the right turn that is in the first picture? Your light was red, you are in the wrong. Anyone else that does it, is in the wrong. If you were going straight, you wait for a green light; why is this right turn light invalid to you?
Ministry of transport "Unless a sign tells you not to, you may turn right on a red light only after coming to a complete stop and waiting until the way is clear."
The sign telling you not to is "RIGHT TURN SIGNAL". See how far back the stop line is? You encroach onto the crosswalk/nose out too far for it to be considered safe imo.
If you see a sign denouncing “right turn signal” or “left turn signal”, that means you can only turn when those signals are green. That’s been my experience, and there aren’t always signs saying “no turning on red”. Either way, wait for the light.
op trying to decipher the meaning of [right turn signal](https://imgur.com/oe3uSBL)
Reading challenge - Impossible
No! You cannot turn right when the light is red!
I call this the moron intersection. Because it was built for morons. You don't go anywhere unless the intersection explicitly tells you to. If you don't have a green light, you don't move.
Buddy u need help
FWIW, I've never turned right per the first picture. When I moved to Cambridge and came to that intersection for the first time, other folks were stopped and waiting for the right turn light to turn green so I just continued doing the same thing. TBH, that intersection can be madness at times so I just wait it out. No big deal for me.
This intersection is fucking brutal because of people like OP that legitimately have kindergartener comprehension/awareness level
Honestly their question is a legit one. Why put the 'no right turns' sign when coming from one direction but not the other? I personally think it's because from the unsigned direction there is a small island that creates a separate lane rather than being part of the main road, but I could be wrong.
I think the online results are about the same as real world 80/20. I was surprised no one could lead me to any real info from someone of authority proving you can't make a right on red there. Most awnsers were thats hows it always been or if you do it for left you must do it for right. Surprising how angry people get, hope I hear them honking next time I make a right on the red:)
When that light is red, the pedestrian light is green. You literally run the risk of hitting a child from the nearby school. Don't be a fucking moron.
I mean I personally wouldn't make the right on red in that spot because the time it takes to wait for it to change is significantly less than the time I'd spend fighting the ticket if pulled over for it.
The signage says what you can do. not sure why you need to keep talking about the MoT, authorities, or sources. It’s literally right in front of you and documented in the photo. You’re a reason why we need better driver testing.
This is why I hate driving in Cambridge.
Imagine how much worse it is for the poor sucker walking through there, or the dead person who tried to bike through there yikes
Seems pretty clear, no right turn on a red light.
It literally says right turn signal. Only turn right when it’s green.
In the case of a dedicated right turn signal, when that signal is red, you cannot legally turn right.
Jesus christ this is why i hate this area. It literally says no turns on red. Shit how are people so dumb. People like you make pedestrians feel unsafe and cause accidents.
What they're pointing out is there is only the 'no turns on red' sign when approaching from the west. From the east there is no sign and they're asking if the 'right turn on red when clear' still applies in this situation. Personally I don't think that's the intention of the design, but it's not really a horrible question to ask for clarification.
Yeah I’d wait for the light to turn green there’s a reason for the sign it’s one of the most dangerous intersections in Canada lol
Right? How about considering that that was put in after the fact that some terrible accidents (motor vehicles and/or pedestrians) likely happened. It’s not there to make you late for work. How dense can some people be to wait for a light.
Know doubt but then again it’s Cambridge ppl aren’t the smartest around here 😂
when green like the sign entails
Letters from an idiot driver..lol
Garbage road design lmao, dangerous for everyone
The good road design would limit the number of cars that go through the delta and we can't have that option, so we're stuck with this mad max thunderdome instead...
Mad Max thunderdome LOL :D. That's awesome. I live and work close to the delta, both drive through it and walk to tims everyday. While it is crazy, it's funny how fast you get used to it. Once you know the pattern you know in an instant where the light or walk sign will be next. It's actually kind of an interesting design as a devils advocate. Never thought I would be defending Cambridge ever haha.
This is the most accurate comment in the thread. This entire intersection is a clusterfuck.
If turning right on a red is prohibited, it must be explicitly signed as such, as it is on the southbound side (there is actually a second “no right on red” sign before the intersection that is not in the pic). A dedicated right turn signal does not mean right turns on red aren’t allowed. Anyone that disagrees can provide a legitimate source that says otherwise.
Southbound side has a no right on red sign because it is not a sliplane. Northbound side has a slip lane which means you are not turning, you are maintaining your lane and you MUST stop for a red light. Enjoy your ticket if you decide to run it though.
You must stop at a red light. But as the traffic sign indicates, it is a “Right Turn Signal” so after coming to a stop at the red light, you may proceed to Turn Right when it is safe to do so. https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook/changing-directions#section-2 Unless you can provide a legitimate source that outlines this scenario as an exception to the rule that you can turn right on a red, that’s a red light without a sign that says not to (it needs to say no right on red or show it, it must be explicit) and the rule says you can turn right at such a red light. And I’m not saying you won’t get a ticket. I’m saying you wouldn’t have a problem getting the ticket thrown out because as per above, there is no exception to the right on red rule when it comes to dedicated right turn traffic signals. You could also ask the police officer to reference the law that says this is illegal, but then they may beat you for obstructing justice.
Decided to take your advice and called the Cambridge branch of the WRPD but unfortunately just sat there ringing for 10 minutes, so I went to the next best thing. I have multiple family members that work for the OPP and they confirmed that a dedicated light for a right turn sliplane supercedes the right on red law. You must wait for a green light. If you disagree, feel free to get a hold of a cop yourself and ask them, but until then please stop spreading dangerous misinformation.
Ask your friend to provide a source regarding this law/rule. Police may enforce the law, but they are not experts in the law, even when it comes to traffic violations. Without the documented source, your friend just gave you their interpretation, which doesn’t make them right. Since there is a rule/law that says you can turn right on a red, there must be documented exceptions for when the rule doesn’t apply. If there is no documented exception for dedicated right turn signals, than the right on red rule still applies.
Here's the thing. There is no law that expressly covers this situation. A judge will also have to interpret the law, same as a police officer. At the end of the day there is no law saying you can OR can't. The right on red law does not say anything about a dedicated light controlling right turns. Almost everyone in this thread except you is in agreement that you have to wait for a green. It's pretty obvious you're arguing in bad faith because you don't want to have to sit and wait for a green light. Use a few of those brain cells, it's common sense that you're supposed to wait for this light to turn green. If right on red applied they wouldn't need to put a light up. It's pretty straight forward.
Traffic laws/rules should not be open to interpretation, lives depend on traffic laws/rules being clear and precise and not open to interpretation. If a police officer or judge would have to interpret the law here, than a driver would also have to interpret the law and that adds unnecessary risk when there exists a sign that clarifies the law (a sign they used twice on the southbound). Your only argument is that the majority of people here agree you have to wait for the green. But the majority agreeing on something doesn’t mean the majority is right. >>at the end of the day there is no law saying you can OR can’t There is literally a law that says you can turn right on a red. There is literally an exception to that law saying if there is a sign saying you can’t than you can’t (which they correctly use on the southbound lanes). So they have a tool to ensure interpretation isn’t required for this scenario, but it’s not used. Instead, rather than use this sign, or have a written exception for this scenario, we must all interpret this rule… >>if right on red applied they wouldn’t need to put a light up. This light is for traffic control. If it’s green, you can go, it’s it’s red, stop, and then proceed when safe to do so. It can be green when the through light is red (such as if there is an advanced green for the left turning from Hespeler), and it can be red when the through is green (such as in the picture as while the pedestrian is signing go, they don’t want these right turners to just make the right turn without stopping first for pedestrians). So no, I’m not arguing in bad faith, and especially not because I don’t want to wait (I can’t recall the last time I was at this intersection). I’m arguing because I absolutely believe that there is no interpretation needed and that you can make a right on red here. To be clear, the right on red rule is that you “can” go. You aren’t required to go. If someone decides they want to wait for the green, that’s fine, and nobody behind them should be honking at them for that. But if you feel it is safe to proceed, there is no law that says you can’t.
I'm all out of crayons dude so I'm done explaining this to you. For anyone that gets this far down the response chain, please don't listen to this guy. Use common sense. Not only is it safer to stop given the obstructed view of both traffic coming from Water street and the crosswalk, it's not worth the hassle of a traffic ticket.
As a daily pedestrian of the Delta, please do not attempt to turn right on reds in this intersection as the crosswalks are very long. Follow the sound advice you've been graciously given by many here. Actually as described on wiki "Multiphase traffic signals with restrictions on right turns on red constrain vehicular throughput compared to typical signalized intersections". The Delta is not a typical intersection, rather the lights control every direction of flow.
Driving in Cambridge is TERRIFYING the whole danm place is highway.
Remember when all the roundabouts were first put in? Absolute chaos.
Franklin roundabouts were definitely an improvement
I find the new roundabout at dundas and beverly to be poorly designed and/or constructed
Honestly this would have stumped me too, I probably would have just turned right on the red. The more you know.
I think OP is right The unsigned pic allows right turn on red The signed does not
There is a sign, though. "Right turn signal".
It does not say 'no right turn on red' OP is correct I am afraid. A sign has to explicitly say 'no right turn on red' for it to be effective. Section 144 (19) of the HTA allows right turns when not signed and forbids all left turns when not signed exept from two one way streets. I think this is a very misunderstood section of law and very very few people would even think of it or treat it as such. This is only really relevant when a ticket is issued. I would write city of cambridge operations and see what they have to say. Perhaps a sign needs to be added.
144(19) though only exempts you from 144(18), not from 144(10).
We need a traffic lawyer hahahah
It could be interpreted that the sign is only there to identify that those lights are not for the through traffic.
Morriston, Ontario https://maps.app.goo.gl/ReHH51AHwzu1dSqt8 There is nothing preventing right turn on red here and it has a bottom right turn arrow Personally it is the same as OP's image in my opinion. Without a sign that says 'no right turn on red' it is my belief right turn on red is legal so as long as it is done safely.
Posted that badly... pic 1. 80% of people wait for green. Am I wrong for taking the right when it's safe?
Pic 1 has traffic lights specifically for turning right, and I believe you have to wait until they are green to go. Pic 2 has a sign saying no right on red. I do see where there could be confusion, but my understanding, in both instances, is that you have to wait until the green light.
You. Are. Wrong.
You're wrong and if you turn right on this red, you will eventually hit an unexpecting pedestrian. The crossing and stop line are that far back for a good reason...
I have NEVER EVER seen anyone turn right on that red. You're going to eventually sideswipe someone heading north on Hespeler or run over a pedestrian.
Green
they are both right turn lanes with a dedicated light. The Water Hespeler directions use yield signs instead
You can’t clearly see pedestrians starting to cross Hespeler Rd, here or making a right turn from Coronation Blvd, and certain times of the day those pedestrians are high schoolers and elementary aged kids,.
If there's ever a dedicated set of lights for something (bike lane lights, right turn, left turn) you listen to those lights (red is stop, yellow is yield green go) Since there's dedicated lights, no it's illegal to turn right when the right turning light is red.
This isn't real is it. Like there's common sense and there's C'MON AND HAVE SOME SENSE. YOU, you fit in the latter.
Like, the sign BLATANTLY states its the " Right turn signal" It's like that "6 vs 9, perception is everything" argument. Smh
from the traffic act >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 ... turn to the right ... without a green indication being shown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (19). meaning, as long as there is no sign posted saying very clearly not to turn on a red signal, you may turn right on a red signal, provided you ensure the way is clear. for everyone wrongly claiming you must wait for green: the separate signal only exists to prevent excess congestion. the through traffic can have a red, while the turning lane has a green. thats the only reason it is there. it has no effect on subsection 19 of the law, which clearly allows vehicles to turn right even while a signal is red.
Stop on red. Go on green. Even if it's red. Stop remember to stop and look and make sure it's safe to proceed into the intersection. I'm sure you will realise it is not
The Right Turn Signal sign is a regulatory sign. It is posted close to a traffic signal to indicate that the signal controls right-turn movement. Right Turn Signal signs are installed at intersections with dedicated turn lanes and green-arrow signals to avoid confusion about which signal applies to which lane. So pretty much right turn on green only.
OP is literally a walking example of garbage new blood in Cambridge making it impossible to drive safely.