Is this allowed?

[rideforever]

While on the subject, what about going straight through on a red (after stopping) when there is no street to the right?

For example crossing enterprise when heading south on spall.

Since there's no street on the right, going straight would mean taking the right most exit. It's easier than turning right at a red which of course is legal so I think this should be legal.

[Always Sunny]

How about just adding a sign at those intersections that says: "Left turn on red is allowed"?

Because you just know some numb-nut is going to think that means they have the right of way and turn in front of the thru-traffic who has the green. It's a driver's responsibility to be educated.

While on the subject, what about going straight through on a red (after stopping) when there is no street to the right?

For example crossing enterprise when heading south on spall.

Since there's no street on the right, going straight would mean taking the right most exit. It's easier than turning right at a red which of course is legal so I think this should be legal.

At that particular intersection you'll be facing a red light at Spall when the left-turning traffic on Enterprise has the green to turn left. If you could go straight through on the red you'd be in direct conflict with those left-turning vehicles.

PS - it's not always legal to turn right on a red, particularily when the opposing traffic is facing an advanced left turn.

[kumazatheef]

PS - it's not always legal to turn right on a red, particularily when the opposing traffic is facing an advanced left turn.

Other vehicles signs don't apply to you. In such a scenario you're actually bound to the "yield when making right turn" law ... Unless there's a right turn lane with a yield sign, legally speaking you are supposed to completely stop for the red light, then proceed with the right turn if feasible (because "your" sign is the light). If the cops wanted to get super picky, they could ticket everyone that does a rolling right turn at a red light. If you were not supposed to turn right on a red, there would be a specific right turn red light or a sign stating such, like at KLO & Benvoulin (I think that's where the right red light is).

[my5cents]

While on the subject, what about going straight through on a red (after stopping) when there is no street to the right?

For example crossing enterprise when heading south on spall.

Since there's no street on the right, going straight would mean taking the right most exit. It's easier than turning right at a red which of course is legal so I think this should be legal.

Easy answer : NO.

Basically the red light that you are allowed to go through AFTER YOU HAVE STOPPED is one located where there is no intersection. No street on either side.

There are two parts plus the definition of an intersection that tells the story.

First the section that tells us that we must stop at a red light and remain stopped until the traffic control signal instructs the driver that they are permitted to do so, ie the light goes green.

Second the section that tells us that we can proceed after stopping at a red light other than an intersection does say we must remained stopped, thus we can proceed.

The Motor Vehicle Act reads :

Red light
129 (1) ....when a red light alone is exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal, the driver of a vehicle approaching the intersection and facing the red light must cause it to stop ...... and .... must not cause the vehicle to proceed until a traffic control signal instructs the driver that he or she is permitted to do so.
.................

(5) When a red light is exhibited at a place other than an intersection by a traffic control signal,
(a) the driver of a vehicle approaching the signal must cause it to stop before entering the nearest marked crosswalk in the vicinity of the signal, or if there is no marked crosswalk, before reaching the signal

So the key point is that the only location at which you can stop for a red light and then drive through it, is "other than an intersection".

So we look up the definition of an "intersection" in the Motor Vehicle Act. Section 129(5) :

"intersection" means the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines, or if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of the 2 highways that join one another at or approximately at right angles, or the area within which vehicles travelling on different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict;

That's the law, however be prepared to fight it in court because lots of cops aren't familiar with this.

[rideforever]

While on the subject, what about going straight through on a red (after stopping) when there is no street to the right?

For example crossing enterprise when heading south on spall.

Since there's no street on the right, going straight would mean taking the right most exit. It's easier than turning right at a red which of course is legal so I think this should be legal.

At that particular intersection you'll be facing a red light at Spall when the left-turning traffic on Enterprise has the green to turn left. If you could go straight through on the red you'd be in direct conflict with those left-turning vehicles.

PS - it's not always legal to turn right on a red, particularily when the opposing traffic is facing an advanced left turn.

So... what you're saying is it's similar to turning right at a red, you can do it when safe, aka whenthere's no pedestrians and traffic that has right of way is not in the way?

Technically when you're in the right lane on spall, you shouldn't be in conflict with enterprise vehicals because they should be turning left into the left most lane on spall. I guess 'should' is the important word there, since half of kelowna takes both lanes when they turn... without signalling.

[rideforever]

While on the subject, what about going straight through on a red (after stopping) when there is no street to the right?

For example crossing enterprise when heading south on spall.

Since there's no street on the right, going straight would mean taking the right most exit. It's easier than turning right at a red which of course is legal so I think this should be legal.

Easy answer : NO.

Basically the red light that you are allowed to go through AFTER YOU HAVE STOPPED is one located where there is no intersection. No street on either side.

There are two parts plus the definition of an intersection that tells the story.

First the section that tells us that we must stop at a red light and remain stopped until the traffic control signal instructs the driver that they are permitted to do so, ie the light goes green.

Second the section that tells us that we can proceed after stopping at a red light other than an intersection does say we must remained stopped, thus we can proceed.

The Motor Vehicle Act reads :

Red light
129 (1) ....when a red light alone is exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal, the driver of a vehicle approaching the intersection and facing the red light must cause it to stop ...... and .... must not cause the vehicle to proceed until a traffic control signal instructs the driver that he or she is permitted to do so.
.................

(5) When a red light is exhibited at a place other than an intersection by a traffic control signal,
(a) the driver of a vehicle approaching the signal must cause it to stop before entering the nearest marked crosswalk in the vicinity of the signal, or if there is no marked crosswalk, before reaching the signal

So the key point is that the only location at which you can stop for a red light and then drive through it, is "other than an intersection".

So we look up the definition of an "intersection" in the Motor Vehicle Act. Section 129(5) :

"intersection" means the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines, or if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of the 2 highways that join one another at or approximately at right angles, or the area within which vehicles travelling on different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict;

That's the law, however be prepared to fight it in court because lots of cops aren't familiar with this.

Where's the rule that says you can turn right at a red after stopping and yielding? Does the wording focus on 'right most exit' or 'turning right'?

And ya, I would be looking for cops before I do that. Even if it's legal, they aren't all law abiding.

[dirtybiker]

It really makes me wonder how/why most people even managed to get a licence to drive.

It's very apparant to me by reading these threads that not many
people even have the faintest clue of what they are doing.

I hold the gov't licencing machine to fault.

FAIL!!! should not be so hard to tell someone

For a large percentage of drivers, they can point their butt to the ground as much as they want
and, it won't make them any better at weilding a vehicle!

[Always Sunny]

So... what you're saying is it's similar to turning right at a red, you can do it when safe, aka whenthere's no pedestrians and traffic that has right of way is not in the way?

Technically when you're in the right lane on spall, you shouldn't be in conflict with enterprise vehicals because they should be turning left into the left most lane on spall. I guess 'should' is the important word there, since half of kelowna takes both lanes when they turn... without signalling.

Dang near every intersection with advanced left turns has two lanes in either direction.

So in your example...heading south on Spall there are TWO thru-lanes (plus the left turn onto Enterprise). Imagine trusting that only the outermost lane is allow to "go through a red light" but the inside thru-lane must stop? They face the exact same red as the vehicle in the lane to the right of them, but they're expected to stop while the outside lane can blow through? Of course it would be a world of trouble. People in the inside lane blasting through reds and crushing the vehicles turning left (on a green light too boot) from Enterprise into Spall.

Plus you have vehicles turning left from Enterprise onto Spall, who have a very good chance of wanting to merge onto Highway 97 (towards West Kelowna). How safe would that be having vehicles whipping down that outside lane at full speed when you only have part of a block to make that lane change? Likewise those Spall vehicles going through that red light often make the left turn onto Highway 97...so they'd be cutting in front of those who just turn off of Enterprise.

Bad, bad idea.

[rideforever]

While on the subject, what about going straight through on a red (after stopping) when there is no street to the right?

For example crossing enterprise when heading south on spall.

Since there's no street on the right, going straight would mean taking the right most exit. It's easier than turning right at a red which of course is legal so I think this should be legal.

So... what you're saying is it's similar to turning right at a red, you can do it when safe, aka whenthere's no pedestrians and traffic that has right of way is not in the way?

Technically when you're in the right lane on spall, you shouldn't be in conflict with enterprise vehicals because they should be turning left into the left most lane on spall. I guess 'should' is the important word there, since half of kelowna takes both lanes when they turn... without signalling.

Where's the rule that says you can turn right at a red after stopping and yielding? Does the wording focus on 'right most exit' or 'turning right'?

And ya, I would be looking for cops before I do that. Even if it's legal, they aren't all law abiding.

Dang near every intersection with advanced left turns has two lanes in either direction.

So in your example...heading south on Spall there are TWO thru-lanes (plus the left turn onto Enterprise). Imagine trusting that only the outermost lane is allow to "go through a red light" but the inside thru-lane must stop? They face the exact same red as the vehicle in the lane to the right of them, but they're expected to stop while the outside lane can blow through? Of course it would be a world of trouble. People in the inside lane blasting through reds and crushing the vehicles turning left (on a green light too boot) from Enterprise into Spall.

Plus you have vehicles turning left from Enterprise onto Spall, who have a very good chance of wanting to merge onto Highway 97 (towards West Kelowna). How safe would that be having vehicles whipping down that outside lane at full speed when you only have part of a block to make that lane change? Likewise those Spall vehicles going through that red light often make the left turn onto Highway 97...so they'd be cutting in front of those who just turn off of Enterprise.

Bad, bad idea.

When you assume, you make an *bleep* out of you and me. I almost didn't bother putting disclaimers in every post I figured it'd be pretty clear that I'm not asking if I can blow through reds, now I'm glad I did.

I'm asking about the times when the light on spall heading south turns red for 1 car turning left off enterprise onto spall heading south. After that, any car sitting on spall has no good reason to sit there. There is however a great reason to leave. If you've been rear ended before you should know what I'm talking about.

[dirtybiker]

"shakes head in bewilderment"...

[my5cents]

Where's the rule that says you can turn right at a red after stopping and yielding? Does the wording focus on 'right most exit' or 'turning right'?

And ya, I would be looking for cops before I do that. Even if it's legal, they aren't all law abiding.

The Motor Vehicle Act reads as follows : (unrelated content removed for clarity)

Red light
129 (3) except when a right turn permitted by this subsection is prohibited by a sign at an intersection, the driver of a vehicle facing the red light, and which in obedience to it is stopped as closely as practicable to a marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, as closely as practicable to the intersection, may cause the vehicle to make a right turn, but the driver must yield the right of way to all pedestrians and vehicles lawfully proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection.

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... section129

So... what you're saying is it's similar to turning right at a red, you can do it when safe, aka whenthere's no pedestrians and traffic that has right of way is not in the way?

Technically when you're in the right lane on spall, you shouldn't be in conflict with enterprise vehicals because they should be turning left into the left most lane on spall. I guess 'should' is the important word there, since half of kelowna takes both lanes when they turn... without signalling.

The only time you can proceed on a red traffic light is when the light is situated at a location "other than an intersection". The location you are talking about is AT AN INTERSECTION, so it is ILLEGAL, period.

"they should be turning left into the left most lane on spall"
Turning into the left most lane upon executing a left turn, may be what your driving instructor told you and may be how you are tested by a driver examiner for ICBC when you get your license but the Motor Vehicle Act doesn't care, as long as you are right of the centre line.

The Motor Vehicle Act reads as follows : (unrelated content removed for clarity)

Turning at intersections
165 (2) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn it to the left at an intersection where traffic is permitted to move in both directions on each highway entering the intersection, the driver must

(a) cause the vehicle to approach the intersection in the portion of the right side of the roadway that is nearest the marked centre line, or if there is no marked centre line, then as far as practicable in the portion of the right half of the roadway that is nearest the centre line,

(b) keep the vehicle to the right of the marked centre line or centre line of the roadway, as the case may be, at the place the highway enters the intersection,

(c) after entering the intersection, turn the vehicle to the left so that it leaves the intersection to the right of the marked centre line of the roadway being entered, or if there is no marked centre line then to the right of the centre line of the roadway being entered

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... section165

[rideforever]

Where's the rule that says you can turn right at a red after stopping and yielding? Does the wording focus on 'right most exit' or 'turning right'?

And ya, I would be looking for cops before I do that. Even if it's legal, they aren't all law abiding.

The Motor Vehicle Act reads as follows : (unrelated content removed for clarity)

Red light
129 (3) except when a right turn permitted by this subsection is prohibited by a sign at an intersection, the driver of a vehicle facing the red light, and which in obedience to it is stopped as closely as practicable to a marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, as closely as practicable to the intersection, may cause the vehicle to make a right turn, but the driver must yield the right of way to all pedestrians and vehicles lawfully proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection.

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... section129

Hey, someone actually answered my question. Good job. And also, damn, the MVA worded it wrong. Should say 'take the right most exit', not 'right turn'. Oh well, so much for that idea.

So... what you're saying is it's similar to turning right at a red, you can do it when safe, aka whenthere's no pedestrians and traffic that has right of way is not in the way?

Technically when you're in the right lane on spall, you shouldn't be in conflict with enterprise vehicals because they should be turning left into the left most lane on spall. I guess 'should' is the important word there, since half of kelowna takes both lanes when they turn... without signalling.

The only time you can proceed on a red traffic light is when the light is situated at a location "other than an intersection". The location you are talking about is AT AN INTERSECTION, so it is ILLEGAL, period.

"they should be turning left into the left most lane on spall"
Turning into the left most lane upon executing a left turn, may be what your driving instructor told you and may be how you are tested by a driver examiner for ICBC when you get your license but the Motor Vehicle Act doesn't care, as long as you are right of the centre line.

The Motor Vehicle Act reads as follows : (unrelated content removed for clarity)

Turning at intersections
165 (2) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn it to the left at an intersection where traffic is permitted to move in both directions on each highway entering the intersection, the driver must

(a) cause the vehicle to approach the intersection in the portion of the right side of the roadway that is nearest the marked centre line, or if there is no marked centre line, then as far as practicable in the portion of the right half of the roadway that is nearest the centre line,

(b) keep the vehicle to the right of the marked centre line or centre line of the roadway, as the case may be, at the place the highway enters the intersection,

(c) after entering the intersection, turn the vehicle to the left so that it leaves the intersection to the right of the marked centre line of the roadway being entered, or if there is no marked centre line then to the right of the centre line of the roadway being entered

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... section165

I think this would fall under the rules about lane changes. Must signal and yield.

When turning left off enterprise, all vehicals enter the left southbound lane on spall first. If they take an extra wide turn and end up in the right southbound lane on spall I thinik that'd count as a lane change.

[my5cents]

I think this would fall under the rules about lane changes. Must signal and yield.

When turning left off enterprise, all vehicals enter the left southbound lane on spall first. If they take an extra wide turn and end up in the right southbound lane on spall I thinik that'd count as a lane change.

I see what you are saying, but, one could proceed further into the intersection so that as you complete the left turn you are in the second lane from the centre line and are not crossing the lane dividing lines.

There are a lot of misconceptions. I think the most frequently misunderstood law is passing on the right.

As for stopping and then driving through a red light, one of the better examples is the railway tracks on Clement.

[Always Sunny]

When you assume, you make an *bleep* out of you and me. I almost didn't bother putting disclaimers in every post I figured it'd be pretty clear that I'm not asking if I can blow through reds, now I'm glad I did.

I'm asking about the times when the light on spall heading south turns red for 1 car turning left off enterprise onto spall heading south. After that, any car sitting on spall has no good reason to sit there. There is however a great reason to leave. If you've been rear ended before you should know what I'm talking about.

That's real neat how you highlighted everything in red there...

Turns red for one car turning left off of Enterprise? So what about when two...or god forbid three vehicles turn left onto Enterprise? Does your plan still stand?

"No good reason to sit there"?...it's a red light. That's a pretty good reason. Imagine the havoc it would cause if a driver could take it upon themselves to proceed through a red light every time there was "no good reason to sit there"?

There are many, many instances where an advanced green/arrow will continue to be green a few seconds longer than is absolutely required to get the cars through.

As for stopping and then driving through a red light, one of the better examples is the railway tracks on Clement.

You can proceed through a red light when it is not at any sort of intersection. Spall and Enterprise IS an intersection of course.

[rideforever]

I think this would fall under the rules about lane changes. Must signal and yield.

When turning left off enterprise, all vehicals enter the left southbound lane on spall first. If they take an extra wide turn and end up in the right southbound lane on spall I thinik that'd count as a lane change.

I see what you are saying, but, one could proceed further into the intersection so that as you complete the left turn you are in the second lane from the centre line and are not crossing the lane dividing lines.

hahaha, ok this is getting silly. Lanes don't cease to exist as they go through intersections just because there's no lines. If that was the case then people travelling straight through the intersection also wouldn't have to signal or yield as long as they change lanes in the middle of the intersection.

Speaking of chaning lanes in an intersection, is that legal even with signalling and yielding? I'm pretty sure my driving instructor said no ;) but that was a while ago.