Railway Police ticket at Braid & Brunette railway crossing - "signal stop line"

[EatDog]

Travelling west on United Blvd, get to red light, stop at "signal stop line" before tracks. Look both ways and proceed to the red light - $167 TICKET! Railway police were sitting watching this railway crossing. I didn't know it was illegal to do this (no signs say you must STAY, only STOP) since I see people doing this all day.

For those unfamiliar, it's like the Alderbridge & Shell Road intersection. Even if you want to turn right, you cannot, apparently. I don't know why they don't improve the signage otherwise these crossings are honey pot entrapment for railway police. Especially since people will HONK at you if you stay stopped on the line. There is even a chance you will miss the green light when it changes, since it is so far away.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Energy]

I know what you mean. I always stop and then crawl forward too. Hmm guess I shouldn't do that anymore if its illegal.

[asdfpic]

thats kinda ridiculous, staying where would cause so much road rage at alderbridge and shell

[EatDog]

I always thought the "signal stop line" was for the flashing railway signal and not the red light, which is >20m away. Will try to contest ticket.
Posted via RS Mobile

[bcedhk]

i got caught there too. I used to work around that area and tons of cars gets caught there. popular spot for railway police to make some easy $

[EatDog]

Originally Posted by eddy89

popular spot for railway police to make some easy $

So it's a honey pot then. Put the stop light a city block away from the tracks and then make the signage ambiguous. Sick and pedantic.
Posted via RS Mobile

[sho_bc]

I wish there was a FAIL button here sometimes.

1. There is little way to "miss the green light" if you are stopped at the first stop line unless you're not paying attention to the lights and don't leave for a while.

2. A sign indicating where to stop when the light is red means that is where you stop for the red light. The red light means you stay.

3. There is no entrapment in this situation, just poor driving choices.

4. This intersection, like many others, is designed to ensure that there are no cars on the tracks in case a train comes. When a train comes, the east/west lights stay red and the arms come down. You don't want to be stuck there because the cars in front of you have nowhere to go.

*EDIT* FAIL for myself, too..... Too much talk of the Shell Rd/Alderbridge Way intersection got me going on that.

[sebberry]

Streetview of this intersection?

[wing_woo]

But can't you argue that it is not an intersection (the first light before the tracks). Cause there is a clause somewhere stating that there is a case where you can treat the red light as a stop sign if it is not an 'intersection'. Example would be on Rupert by the skytrain station. There is a traffic light for pedestrians only and there is no actual intersection there. If it was red and you came to a complete stop, then you are allowed to proceed if it is clear (although I never bother cause you would just end up getting stopped at the red light at Broadway.

However, I don't remember if this rule only applies to pedestrian controlled traffic lights or not. There was a discussion about this way back in this forum about whether it is legal to proceed or not. I usually just stop at the first red cause I remember that part of the law was very ambiguous and I didn't want to risk getting a ticket but I feel nervous there all the time cause I'm just waiting for the person behind to start raging at me for not moving up which happened before.

[Greenstoner]

wow, never knew that... kinda tricky

[baggdis300]

So your saying a light blinking green then red when activated your allowed to treat like a stop sign
If there's no pedi's crossing?
That does not make any sense at all cause a red light is a red light unless blinking red

[wing_woo]

Originally Posted by baggdis300

So your saying a light blinking green then red when activated your allowed to treat like a stop sign
If there's no pedi's crossing?
That does not make any sense at all cause a red light is a red light unless blinking red

Only if it's just a crosswalk and there is no cross streets for cars to travel. The example I used is on Rupert near Broadway. There is a traffic light there, but there is no cross street, ie. not an intersection. It is just a light for people to cross the street.

[Preemo]

Originally Posted by EatDog

Travelling west on United Blvd, get to red light, stop at "signal stop line" before tracks. Look both ways and proceed to the red light - $167 TICKET! Railway police were sitting watching this railway crossing. I didn't know it was illegal to do this (no signs say you must STAY, only STOP) since I see people doing this all day.

For those unfamiliar, it's like the Alderbridge & Shell Road intersection. Even if you want to turn right, you cannot, apparently. I don't know why they don't improve the signage otherwise these crossings are honey pot entrapment for railway police. Especially since people will HONK at you if you stay stopped on the line. There is even a chance you will miss the green light when it changes, since it is so far away.
Posted via RS Mobile

In all honesty, they were right to give you that ticket. Besides, you did disobey a traffic signal. It is also in the training manual that you use to study to get your L. Just because everybody disobeys the signal doesn't mean they are practicing safe driving. And it also doesn't matter if people are honking at you. Fuck them. Your safety and the others around you is more important than the douchebag behind you trying to get to point B 15 seconds faster.

One day, when you are the second or third car at that same stop and the train comes ... you'll understand why you got that ticket.

[wing_woo]

Originally Posted by baggdis300

So your saying a light blinking green then red when activated your allowed to treat like a stop sign
If there's no pedi's crossing?
That does not make any sense at all cause a red light is a red light unless blinking red

I found the thread:
http://www.revscene.net/forums/behin...g+on+red+light

This is what I'm talking about.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by wing_woo

But can't you argue that it is not an intersection (the first light before the tracks). Cause there is a clause somewhere stating that there is a case where you can treat the red light as a stop sign if it is not an 'intersection'. Example would be on Rupert by the skytrain station. There is a traffic light for pedestrians only and there is no actual intersection there. If it was red and you came to a complete stop, then you are allowed to proceed if it is clear (although I never bother cause you would just end up getting stopped at the red light at Broadway.

However, I don't remember if this rule only applies to pedestrian controlled traffic lights or not. There was a discussion about this way back in this forum about whether it is legal to proceed or not. I usually just stop at the first red cause I remember that part of the law was very ambiguous and I didn't want to risk getting a ticket but I feel nervous there all the time cause I'm just waiting for the person behind to start raging at me for not moving up which happened before.

THIS.

Section 129

(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, and

(b) a pedestrian may proceed across the roadway.

The above states that if the red light is NOT at an intersection, you must fully stop before reaching the light, but then you may proceed.

It follows that the definition of "intersection" is required:

"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;

The above states that an intersection is where two highways come together at approximately right angles.

It follows that you need the definition of "highway".

However, I was not able to find the legal definition of "highway" in the MVA.

I don't know about you, but I don't think a set of railroad tracks is considered a highway.

Dispute.

[chris walter]

I found this on google. Definition Of highway is near the bottom.
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/icbc-c...nition-highway
Posted via RS Mobile

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by chris walter

I found this on google. Definition Of highway is near the bottom.
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/icbc-c...nition-highway
Posted via RS Mobile

Excellent.

“highway” includes

(a) every highway within the meaning of the Transportation Act,

(b) every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and

(c) every private place or passageway to which the public, for the purpose of the parking or servicing of vehicles, has access or is invited,

In the Transportation Act:

"highway" means a public street, road, trail, lane, bridge, trestle, tunnel, ferry landing, ferry approach, any other public way or any other land or improvement that becomes or has become a highway by any of the following:

(a) deposit of a subdivision, reference or explanatory plan in a land title office under section 107 of the Land Title Act;

(b) a public expenditure to which section 42 applies;

(c) a common law dedication made by the government or any other person;

(d) declaration, by notice in the Gazette, made before December 24, 1987;

(e) in the case of a road, colouring, outlining or designating the road on a record in such a way that section 13 or 57 of the Land Act applies to that road;

(f) an order under section 56 (2) of this Act;

(g) any other prescribed means;

Does not sound like railroad tracks are included in the definition of highway.

The ticket is bogus.

[InvisibleSoul]

This is the location in question?

StreetView: http://bit.ly/f9qfYu

[Acuracura]

Very interesting. OP may have a valid dispute here.

Either way, Police can still have a field day at these types of intersections because lots of people don't stop, then proceed. They just go straight to the second light (intersection line).

[wing_woo]

I'd like to find out if he disputes and what the outcome is. I believe that what I posted should be a valid defense as long as he came to a complete stop first.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by wing_woo

I'd like to find out if he disputes and what the outcome is. I believe that what I posted should be a valid defense as long as he came to a complete stop first.

Well, he would need to bring copies of the relevant sections of the MVA and Transportation Act, of which I've kindly already supplied... but armed with that, he should be golden.

[wing_woo]

Originally Posted by Acuracura

Very interesting. OP may have a valid dispute here.

Either way, Police can still have a field day at these types of intersections because lots of people don't stop, then proceed. They just go straight to the second light (intersection line).

The thing is that I suspect a lot of police officers might not even know about this rule which is why I don't bother chancing it and just wait.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

This is the location in question?

StreetView: http://bit.ly/f9qfYu

That's the one. If you move forward about six clicks, you'll see there's a SECOND STOP LINE after the tracks, immediately before the intersection: http://goo.gl/maps/Swiy - just like it used to be at Broadway and Arbutus (before they removed the tracks).

I agree, this really sounds like a bogus ticket and I think you have a valid dispute. Cops here have commented on the situation at Broadway and Arbutus before and stated that it's legal to proceed to the second stop line after coming to a full stop at the first one... this situation doesn't appear to be any different.

Edit: overhead view here as well, clearly showing a second set of stop lines before the intersection: http://goo.gl/maps/WJ7t

[BallPeenHammer2]

I see cops do the same thing the OP did ALL THE TIME there.

As a matter of fact, I just saw one do it on the way home today.

[slammer111]

Originally Posted by baggdis300

So your saying a light blinking green then red when activated your allowed to treat like a stop sign
If there's no pedi's crossing?
That does not make any sense at all cause a red light is a red light unless blinking red

Yes, buddy was correct. This applies to crosswalks with full traffic lights in, for example, the middle of a block. The SkyTrain one on Rupert is a perfect example. I remember seeing another one in Surrey, think it was 72nd Avenue.

If it's not an intersection and you see a crosswalk traffic light that's red, stop, make sure it's clear of pedestrians, then proceed even if it's still red.

It's one of those rare rules most people don't know about, just like being able to turn L onto a 1-way street, even on a red.

As to the OP's original question, damn, didn't know that either. This happens all the time along the Arbutus Corridor where people stop on the tracks all the time. But maybe that one's different because the rails are physically chopped up so obviously you won't find any trains running on it. But the stop line is located before you hit the rails.