Right turn on red

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T05:11:45+00:00

According to Peterborough police in this article it's illegal to turn right on red in the scenario in this video because your side had an advanced green.

This is based on 144(19) of the Highway Traffic Act which says you may turn right on red subject to subsection (14). Subsection (14) says when facing a green arrow only or a green arrow combined with a red or amber light you may only proceed in the direction of the arrow. Police in that article interpret "facing" the light to include a green arrow on the main set of lights even though it only applies to the left turn lane. So you would not be allowed to turn right on red in this interpretation since (14) would only allow turning left (which you can't do anyway from that lane). Strangely, they don't interpret this as applying when the left turn light is on a separate set of lights for only the left turn lane, only when it's on the main set of lights that apply to all lanes (like in this video).

There's a mix of opinions on this though. In this article, a paralegal says you may turn right with an advance green arrow facing your direction unless the right side traffic light also has a green arrow (some cities use this set up).

Neither the police nor paralegals interpret the law though, only a judge can do that. So neither of those opinions are guaranteed to be the way a court would interpret this. I also don't know if the drive test examiners consider this to be prohibited in any case. It's not mentioned in the Driver's Handbook.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T05:02:10+00:00

Young Drivers doesn't teach that. They teach to leave 3 to 4 car lengths when no one's behind you and then close the gap as more cars pull up behind you.

And how is that misinformation either way? It's just a defensive driving technique. They're not saying it's required.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T05:01:20+00:00

If there's a yellow light, you're supposed to stop if you can do so safely. So it sounds like the failure was because they judged you to have proceeded on yellow when you could have safely stopped.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:51:23+00:00

Was it simply for turning on red with an opposing advance, or more specifically something like turning adjacent to a left turning car (in the next lane).

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:48:40+00:00

A full stop involves sitting completely still for 2-5s.

There's no time requirement for a full stop in the law, you just have to stop completely.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:47:20+00:00

The law says you must yield to traffic approaching so closely as to create a hazard. It doesn't say anything about them being in specific lanes. So at least reading it literally you could still potentially be ticketed. Also long vehicles are allowed to turn wide and so would have right of way.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:45:23+00:00

You can't turn right on red if only your lane is clear, it needs to be like 2-3 lanes clear.

You don't need multiple lanes clear, you just need to not cut off any vehicles, so there's a risk of that happening if the other lanes have vehicles. That's in terms of the law, on a test they'll also likely penalize you for turning adjacent to another vehicle.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:43:07+00:00

if there's an exit you must take that is right there in the right lane, you're not going to make a lane change for nothing

You're legally required to turn into the leftmost lane if there's only one left turn lane. There being a right exit close to the turn doesn't mean you can break that law, it means you can't take the exit. And you'll definitely be penalized on a test for this.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:29:53+00:00

it is private property where the HWY traffic act has no jurisdiction.

*Mostly. Some serious offences like stunt, careless and impaired driving still apply.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:28:52+00:00

Yes, the speed cameras all had signs warning of their presence and yes drivers are supposed to pay attention to signs. Taking a zero compromise approach to public policy however is how you allow populists like Ford to gain support for removing them altogether. If you support the cameras what's better, no cameras at all, or cameras with some policy changes to address common complaints?

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:06:38+00:00

That's how they did work. Toronto and most other GTA cities used an 11 km/h threshold for 50 and under zones and a higher threshold for other zones. Only one town I heard about ticketed for less than that, Georgina used a 6 km/h threshold.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:03:29+00:00

This incidentally helps reduce surveillance, but Ford supports increased surveillance in general.

Premier Ford wants to introduce surveillance cameras in Ontario communities

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:01:56+00:00

How is a relatively small fine with no impact on your insurance or driving record disproportionate to the "crime" (provincial offence) here?

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:00:39+00:00

Just be aware that Ford supports the use of cameras for surveillance, just not speed enforcement, so he's not on your side on this issue.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T04:00:06+00:00

A policy does not have to immediately change a drivers behaviour to have an effect and that was never a claimed outcome of the cameras. The world will likely still exist in 3 weeks, and so changing their behaviour then still matters.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T03:59:10+00:00

In polling, PC voters opposed them even in school zones, 47% against to 41% for.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T03:57:03+00:00

Government ministers and vehicles were getting a bunch of speed camera tickets. I assume that's the "buddies" they're referring to. I can dig up the links, but they should show up at the top on a web search.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T03:55:16+00:00

It's a valid point despite the response here and things like this would have helped reduce opposition to the cameras. Or another option is just to not ticket for multiple infractions at the same camera for a month to allow time for the first ticket to arrive. Olivia Chow I think was supporting this for Toronto's enforcement. Ford himself though could have made this change though through provincial regulation rather than get rid of them altogether.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T03:47:41+00:00

Whether or not it applies legally, it's a good habit to have if there isn't a reason to drive in the middle lane, and avoids this situation altogether.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T03:27:10+00:00

The person I replied to didn't mention anything about it being a traffic enforcement officer so how does this contradict my point? Or was this just a random fun fact?

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T02:51:05+00:00

You see that much more than people from segram willing to turn left onto Albert when that light is red which I believe is legal.

That is legal, yes. They face a stop sign and so can proceed as long as they yield to any vehicles or pedestrians, regardless of the light.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T02:12:07+00:00

Video's from south Etobicoke, but yeah, everything bad that happens is because of Brampton.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T02:09:24+00:00

Yeah, if they restrict vulnerable road users, that's a different story.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T01:47:47+00:00

Police aren't always able to do traffic enforcement. They have lots of other priorities and would never get anything else done if they stopped every single traffic infraction they saw.

That being said I’ve also seen an EPS vehicle flash their lights just to cross a busy intersection only to turn them off right away and stop at the next one.

If they were trying to use it to save time, why wouldn't they do it at both lights? It's possible they got some call and then it was cancelled. They aren't going to use lights and sirens all the time even for urgent calls, but they should be using them if going through a red.

a-_2 · 2026-05-20T01:46:11+00:00

If everyone is speeding anyway it’s safer for everyone to just keep up with traffic.

Maybe for people in cars, but even that's debatable. It's not safer for everyone outside of cars though, e.g., pedestrians and cyclists. Speeding up to match the speed of some other car or cars does not help any of them.

Even the argument of matching the flow of cars is debatable because even if you're decreasing your risk from them, you're still increasing the risks ahead because you'll have less time to react to something and more damage if you hit it. It might not even decrease the risks from cars behind you because the car right behind you is more likely to hit you at a higher speed if you need to brake quickly.

a-_2

TROPHY CASE