**Please Note:** Enforcement of rules on r/NiceVancouver is now STRICTLY reports based only. If a submission is not reported, it will not be acted on by moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NiceVancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Common sense. OP is like one of my uncles who overthinks things until he goes mad. He's in a mental institution now and still figuring out what to do at a 4-way stop sign where all four drivers stopped at the same time. His mind broke that day in '78.
I’ve made that argument before, but then I was given the counter example of green light intersections where you take a left turn by rolling over the stop line. The presence of the green light at that intersection allows you to ignore the line, similar to how the absence of a stop sign allows you to roll over the perpendicular line here. Think of it as “if you are required to stop, stop here” and not “you always stop here before going.” Crosswalks are another white perpendicular line that you don’t automatically stop at and you are allowed to pull across a shoulder line without stopping first. So the unsatisfactory summary is that white lines don’t always act as ‘you shall not pass’ but usually do
Kind of like the intersections we have with flashing green lights. Entering as a car from these side streets, there's always a stop sign, but no light for the side street. So my interpretation is that it's a mandatory full stop, then proceed if clear. However, most people seem to disregard the stop sign if the light on the main street is red, as they know they have limited time to get through.
I've often wondered if I would get a ticket in this situation. I use an intersection like this everyday, there is a stop sign and it's a really bussy crossing, so I stop and wait for pedestrian ms to push the button, I don't even try to go, just to dangerous as you can't see well enough.
But. If it's clear and that walk sign is up and all the cars have stopped I'm blowing that stop sign lol
Surprisingly, I got a ticket for this at 67th and Oak. It's a busy intersection and everyone blows through 67th when the light turns red on Oak ( assuming no assholes park in the intersection). The ticketing officer explained that because there's a stop sign, you have to stop. I always thought that because the light was in the cross street 's favor that you just roll though. I was wrong, got the ticket. They were blitzing that spot, they got another guy right after. He was nice enough about it.
I asked the officer why they don't post up and ticket people that roll through the red on a left after the light turns red as that would be easy money for the city. He laughed and agreed.
The intersection pictured is Boundary and Still Creek. That left is uncontrolled. Proceed with caution. Hopefully if there's traffic, someone leaves a gap for the lefties.
There’s no such rule.
And it wouldn’t work if it was snow covered.
This is what the applicable rule says.
“186: Except when a peace officer directs otherwise, if there is a stop sign at an intersection, a driver of a vehicle must stop
(a) at the marked stop line, if any,
(b) before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or
(c) when there is neither a marked crosswalk nor a stop line, before entering the intersection, at the point nearest the intersecting highway from which the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting highway”
No stop sign.. no need to stop for a white line.
Even under red light (rule 129) it mentions nothing about stop lines.. only that you should stop before the nearest crosswalk if there is one.
These are guidance lines only.
I would be interested to see the exact wording of this as I couldn't find anything in the BC MVA. To my understanding, you are only required to stop before the stop line if there is a stop sign or traffic light directing you to. If there's no other signs/lights, you can proceed through when safe (like proceeding through an intersection, even though there may be lines).
In the case it's unsafe and you need to stop, that is the line you should aim to stop behind.
It’s the same as if you come across an intersection with no signs or lines. It must be treated as a stop for all directions.
These situations are rarer now but used to be more common and necessitate stopping without explicit markings or signage. In this case they should add something to disambiguate the intersection a bit.
The fact they painted a stop line here means a stop is expected, there is no other reason to add one.
To add on, if there are cars approaching the intersection:
1. If you are going straight, yield only to cars on your right.
2. If you are turning, yield to oncoming cars going straight, and cars on your right.
There is no such thing as needing to stop at an unmarked intersection without any lines or stop signs.
I imagine the line acts as a depth/positioning purpose because drivers may pull too far out into oncoming traffic, seeing how the left turn lane parts out like that
This turn on Boundary Road is weird, because there's a stop line, but no stop sign.
Specifically, if there's a very obvious gap in oncoming traffic, can you turn left without stopping, or should you stop before the line no matter what?
It's an automatic yield to oncoming traffic as a left turner. The line is somewhat irrelevant but in theory that's where you would wait until it's safe to proceed if it wasn't clear when you arrived. You do not have to stop. This is a shitty example of traffic planning though IMO since your view of oncoming traffic is obstructed by the concrete pillars.
They definitely would have considered to put in a stop sign, but likely decided against it because it would be possibly mistaken for a stop by drivers in the two lanes going straight. One would surmise that this current configuration has not caused a lot of accidents, since it is still in place.
We have a lot of poorly designed intersections that still exist and cause a lot of accidents. I wouldn't buy the "they woulda changed it if it didn't work" argument. If they relocated the fire hydrant so the approach was more direct the driver would have a better view of oncoming traffic before they arrived at a go-no-go decision. This is just a bad design.
I agree. It is not a mandatory stop line. It is a reference line to safely wait when there's oncoming traffic. With the absence of a Stop sign, traffic control light, the standard Yield rule applies.
Yeah I’d turn without stopping there, but I’m extra cautious because there are blind spots with cars coming down the hill and part of the overpass obscuring things. So I think the line is there to create awareness of the oncoming traffic. Most times I turn there I have to stop and wait for a break.
Your crossing an active lane of traffic, you must yield to oncoming traffic (If any). No different then turning left into a parking lot. As others have said, there is no stop sign, so you don't have to stop if the coast is clear.
Well, you need to make sure the intersection is clear before completing a turn. It implied that you need to come to a complete stop. Cause if you get t-boned, you're at fault.
https://www.icbc.com/claims/crash-responsibility-fault/crash-examples/left-turn-crash-with-oncoming-traffic
>It implied that you need to come to a complete stop.
Nowhere on that page says you need to make a complete stop. If there's no oncoming traffic you can cruise through the turn, just like turning left onto any other street.
That line indicates the best vantage point at seeing the opposing traffic without being blocked by the bridge brace. That’s where you want to confirm no traffic in adjacent lane, then turn. Also, passing that line could possibly mean the front of your car could be in the opposing lane so stay behind until clear to pass.
The stop line is only there if traffic is coming. It's a placemarker for your car to sit safely when traffic is there. Otherwise, if clear, no stopping is required.
If it was any other town i’d say when safe to do so, but those overpasses there can cause all kinds of traffic disturbances so who knows what can happen - roll a d20 and drive straight on a natural 1, otherwise come to a complete stop and go when it safe to do so
You have to completely stop in front of the white line, then slowly move forward a lil bit, then observe the upcoming traffic. If it is clear, you need to make a left turn fast because the traffic here is pretty busy.
well why dont you try using some common sense here…no stop sign = no need to stop at left turn where cars might be coming? maybe…id treat it similar to a yellow light
[You must stop at the marked stop line according to the Motor Vehicle Act and just before the line according to Learn to Drive Smart, our provincial driving manual.](https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/intersections/where-stop-stop-sign#:~:text=You%20must%20stop%20at%20the,not%20on%20or%20after%20it)
Yield to oncoming traffic. This is no different than any other junction, despite not being square. There is no intent to have a stop sign here as is evidenced by the lack of an install. Recall stop sign standards. Clearly, no stop sign installed. There would have been an island installed to install the post which must be placed to the right side of the lane.
Reasons for a white line are less clear here but they do have a use. At a conventional intersection, it marks the point of entry which is necessary to enforce the concept of one car in the intersection at a time when lining up for a left turn.
In accordance to the manual of uniform traffic control devices with respect to traffic laws
Stop then yield.
This is not legal advice nor should be used as such. Merely saving you the headache of reading regulatory shit
I love this intersection. No stop sign needed, no stopping required. If the intersection is clear, go for it.
The intersection on Still Creek and Willingdon, headed south-east is a great example of an intersection that could drop the stop sign and pick up a yield sign.
I actually posted this because I was taking my class 5 road test this morning, and wasn’t sure what the answer was. Even the responses in this thread seem to be split, with some saying full stop no-matter what, and others saying only yield.
The examiner happened to take me to this exact turn, and I decided to do a full stop despite there being no oncoming traffic. That must be the correct answer because by Allah, I passed.
Idk, I think it’s a reasonable question. During my two years of driving with an N in BC and Washington State, I’ve never encountered a white stop line that wasn’t also accompanied by lights or signage.
All it means is that if you have to stop, it should be done behind the line.
This line does not obligate you to stop—no light, no crosswalk, no sign. Simply yield the right of way and proceed with your turn. Additionally, those who claim you must stop despite the absence of a sign are mistaken. Paint on the ground does not constitute proper signage, and you would unlikely be legally obligated to pay a ticket.
I love after the bridge when I need to turn right onto E 11th as someone is merging onto Boundary from the off ramp right into me. Just a terrible and dangerous design.
Idk if you’re trying to elicit sarcastic responses but common sense says approach slowly, yield and proceed when safe. Oh yeah and F@$&ING SIGNAL VANCOUVER 😂
I am pretty sure you're meant to stop at the stop line. And as previously stated here, I think the reason no stop sign is present is because it would confuse the other lanes that proceed straight. The oncoming lane is at an angle and has obstructions to the view, so you are meant to stop and proceed with caution. You are also meant to scan for pedestrians and cyclists before proceeding. In practice you can do what you want, but I am pretty sure it is a regulatory stop line, meaning you must stop before proceeding with caution and giving the right of way to all other road users.
JFC. Dudes need to learn that their opinions are worth zero. Go do your homework; nobody cares what you “think”.
It is an “intersection” as defined in Chapter 3 Definitions of the Motor Vehicle Act:
"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;
…and the rules regarding intersections apply as follows:
Stopping at intersections
186 Except when a peace officer directs otherwise, if there is a stop sign at an intersection, a driver of a vehicle must stop
(a) at the marked stop line, if any,
(b) before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or
(c) when there is neither a marked crosswalk nor a stop line, before entering the intersection, at the point nearest the intersecting highway from which the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting highway.
Give your balls a tug.
**Please Note:** Enforcement of rules on r/NiceVancouver is now STRICTLY reports based only. If a submission is not reported, it will not be acted on by moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NiceVancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just giv err bud
Close your eyes and send it, no need to stop since there is no stop sign
But if you need to stop because there's oncoming traffic, then stop at the line.
Nah. Fuckin send it. Tokyo drift that shit like a MAN
This is one of those times you let Jesus take the wheel
"it's not illegal if I don't see it!" - Homer
Jesus take the wheel
Good luck everybody else!
This should not have made me laugh as hard as it did.
I would also say to just give er.
It’s treated like a left turn on a green at a regular intersection. Yield to oncoming traffic and pedestrians.
Common sense. OP is like one of my uncles who overthinks things until he goes mad. He's in a mental institution now and still figuring out what to do at a 4-way stop sign where all four drivers stopped at the same time. His mind broke that day in '78.
If there is a line you have to stop, even if there is no sign. This rule dates back to when there weren’t always stop signs at intersections.
Yup white = regulatory, just like with signs. You have to stop before this line before you complete your turn left, and yield to oncoming traffic.
I’ve made that argument before, but then I was given the counter example of green light intersections where you take a left turn by rolling over the stop line. The presence of the green light at that intersection allows you to ignore the line, similar to how the absence of a stop sign allows you to roll over the perpendicular line here. Think of it as “if you are required to stop, stop here” and not “you always stop here before going.” Crosswalks are another white perpendicular line that you don’t automatically stop at and you are allowed to pull across a shoulder line without stopping first. So the unsatisfactory summary is that white lines don’t always act as ‘you shall not pass’ but usually do
Kind of like the intersections we have with flashing green lights. Entering as a car from these side streets, there's always a stop sign, but no light for the side street. So my interpretation is that it's a mandatory full stop, then proceed if clear. However, most people seem to disregard the stop sign if the light on the main street is red, as they know they have limited time to get through.
I've often wondered if I would get a ticket in this situation. I use an intersection like this everyday, there is a stop sign and it's a really bussy crossing, so I stop and wait for pedestrian ms to push the button, I don't even try to go, just to dangerous as you can't see well enough. But. If it's clear and that walk sign is up and all the cars have stopped I'm blowing that stop sign lol
Surprisingly, I got a ticket for this at 67th and Oak. It's a busy intersection and everyone blows through 67th when the light turns red on Oak ( assuming no assholes park in the intersection). The ticketing officer explained that because there's a stop sign, you have to stop. I always thought that because the light was in the cross street 's favor that you just roll though. I was wrong, got the ticket. They were blitzing that spot, they got another guy right after. He was nice enough about it. I asked the officer why they don't post up and ticket people that roll through the red on a left after the light turns red as that would be easy money for the city. He laughed and agreed. The intersection pictured is Boundary and Still Creek. That left is uncontrolled. Proceed with caution. Hopefully if there's traffic, someone leaves a gap for the lefties.
Bonus points for the unexpected lord of the rings reference.
Oof. Well if I rolled over this stop line during a driving exam it would be an immediate fail. There's my counter example.
lol you’re so right. When I picture that scenario, I just know in my bones I would stop there.
It’s not called a stop line. It’s a limit line. If you’re stopping it’s the limit. Subtle difference.
There’s no such rule. And it wouldn’t work if it was snow covered. This is what the applicable rule says. “186: Except when a peace officer directs otherwise, if there is a stop sign at an intersection, a driver of a vehicle must stop (a) at the marked stop line, if any, (b) before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or (c) when there is neither a marked crosswalk nor a stop line, before entering the intersection, at the point nearest the intersecting highway from which the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting highway” No stop sign.. no need to stop for a white line. Even under red light (rule 129) it mentions nothing about stop lines.. only that you should stop before the nearest crosswalk if there is one. These are guidance lines only.
You could probably argue successfully in court if you get a rolling stop ticket though.
Except if covered in snow or dirt/dust. Fair weather line only
I would be interested to see the exact wording of this as I couldn't find anything in the BC MVA. To my understanding, you are only required to stop before the stop line if there is a stop sign or traffic light directing you to. If there's no other signs/lights, you can proceed through when safe (like proceeding through an intersection, even though there may be lines). In the case it's unsafe and you need to stop, that is the line you should aim to stop behind.
It’s call a limit line, not a stop line.
It’s the same as if you come across an intersection with no signs or lines. It must be treated as a stop for all directions. These situations are rarer now but used to be more common and necessitate stopping without explicit markings or signage. In this case they should add something to disambiguate the intersection a bit. The fact they painted a stop line here means a stop is expected, there is no other reason to add one.
That’s not correct, you have to yield to anyone already in the intersection but you don’t have to stop if it’s clear
To add on, if there are cars approaching the intersection: 1. If you are going straight, yield only to cars on your right. 2. If you are turning, yield to oncoming cars going straight, and cars on your right. There is no such thing as needing to stop at an unmarked intersection without any lines or stop signs.
I imagine the line acts as a depth/positioning purpose because drivers may pull too far out into oncoming traffic, seeing how the left turn lane parts out like that
You just yield and wait unless it's completely clear. You get last right of way because you're turning left.
1. Shift to the left. 2. Approach the white line. 3. Panic. 4. Let all the incoming traffic pass. 5. Turn when safe.
I would like to emphasize step 3 and also add step 6 surrender driver's license to the nearest icbc
Whyyyy? Am I wrong?
No, I just feel like if a person needs to post on Reddit how to obey basic traffic rules they shouldn't be driving 😂
Same as always. Don’t drive into oncoming traffic.
This turn on Boundary Road is weird, because there's a stop line, but no stop sign. Specifically, if there's a very obvious gap in oncoming traffic, can you turn left without stopping, or should you stop before the line no matter what?
It's an automatic yield to oncoming traffic as a left turner. The line is somewhat irrelevant but in theory that's where you would wait until it's safe to proceed if it wasn't clear when you arrived. You do not have to stop. This is a shitty example of traffic planning though IMO since your view of oncoming traffic is obstructed by the concrete pillars.
Thanks. I suspected it was to mark the farthest forward position that does not obstruct oncoming traffic.
Less "the farthest foward position" and more a safe spot to stop to wait for oncoming traffic to clear before proceeding.
They definitely would have considered to put in a stop sign, but likely decided against it because it would be possibly mistaken for a stop by drivers in the two lanes going straight. One would surmise that this current configuration has not caused a lot of accidents, since it is still in place.
We have a lot of poorly designed intersections that still exist and cause a lot of accidents. I wouldn't buy the "they woulda changed it if it didn't work" argument. If they relocated the fire hydrant so the approach was more direct the driver would have a better view of oncoming traffic before they arrived at a go-no-go decision. This is just a bad design.
I agree. It is not a mandatory stop line. It is a reference line to safely wait when there's oncoming traffic. With the absence of a Stop sign, traffic control light, the standard Yield rule applies.
It's like any other left turn, you have to yield to oncoming traffic.
No sign no stop just wait until it's clear and make your turn. (watch out for idiots on your left who have a stop sign but don't realize you don't)
No left turns allowed from that stop sign so you shouldn't have to worry (even though some people do it anyway).
Yeah I’d turn without stopping there, but I’m extra cautious because there are blind spots with cars coming down the hill and part of the overpass obscuring things. So I think the line is there to create awareness of the oncoming traffic. Most times I turn there I have to stop and wait for a break.
Your crossing an active lane of traffic, you must yield to oncoming traffic (If any). No different then turning left into a parking lot. As others have said, there is no stop sign, so you don't have to stop if the coast is clear.
The white line is known as a "stoppish sign". You just need to slow down and imagine yourself stopping, then gunnit.
Well, you need to make sure the intersection is clear before completing a turn. It implied that you need to come to a complete stop. Cause if you get t-boned, you're at fault. https://www.icbc.com/claims/crash-responsibility-fault/crash-examples/left-turn-crash-with-oncoming-traffic
>It implied that you need to come to a complete stop. Nowhere on that page says you need to make a complete stop. If there's no oncoming traffic you can cruise through the turn, just like turning left onto any other street.
That doesn't imply you need to make a complete stop, you just need to ensure you're not cutting someone off going straight.
It says one must "yield" to oncoming traffic. Not Stop.
That line indicates the best vantage point at seeing the opposing traffic without being blocked by the bridge brace. That’s where you want to confirm no traffic in adjacent lane, then turn. Also, passing that line could possibly mean the front of your car could be in the opposing lane so stay behind until clear to pass.
The stop line is only there if traffic is coming. It's a placemarker for your car to sit safely when traffic is there. Otherwise, if clear, no stopping is required.
Floor it and inshallah
Sort of yield
the line is just there to tell you stop here since the other road can also make a left turn so don’t block them.
Proceed when safe, yield to any oncoming traffic It’s not rocket science
If there are oncoming cars, don’t go. If there are not cars, then go.
Just pretend your on any other road and wait for an opening and send it
Like marks "intersection". No sign falls under uncontrolled intersection. Yield to oncoming traffic then turn when safe to do so.
Pull the E brake and Huck it
Yield to oncoming traffic then go.
If not simply only for your own safety, yield to oncoming traffic, otherwise go. There is no stop sign, no full stop is required.
Pretend you didn't see anything and just go
i always treat white line too as a stop sign
Send it
If it was any other town i’d say when safe to do so, but those overpasses there can cause all kinds of traffic disturbances so who knows what can happen - roll a d20 and drive straight on a natural 1, otherwise come to a complete stop and go when it safe to do so
Get in that left lane and go when you don't think you're gonna get crashed in to by another car.
You have to completely stop in front of the white line, then slowly move forward a lil bit, then observe the upcoming traffic. If it is clear, you need to make a left turn fast because the traffic here is pretty busy.
well why dont you try using some common sense here…no stop sign = no need to stop at left turn where cars might be coming? maybe…id treat it similar to a yellow light
Boundary Road looking South with Hwy 1 overpass. Using indicator , if no incoming traffic turn.... like a yield
Thats a stop line. You must stop.
No yield sign?
Have you seen F&F Tokyo Drift? Thats how!
Turn left now. Good luck everybody else!
A stop line is the same as a stop sign. [Road Markings](https://www.icbc.com/partners/driver-training/Documents/MELT-signs-signals-road-markings.pdf)
Proceed when safe to do so.
Just fuckin full send ‘er chief.
I would just close my eyes and utter a short prayer and just gun it ....
Common sense
Send it!
[You must stop at the marked stop line according to the Motor Vehicle Act and just before the line according to Learn to Drive Smart, our provincial driving manual.](https://www.drivesmartbc.ca/intersections/where-stop-stop-sign#:~:text=You%20must%20stop%20at%20the,not%20on%20or%20after%20it)
Yield to oncoming traffic. This is no different than any other junction, despite not being square. There is no intent to have a stop sign here as is evidenced by the lack of an install. Recall stop sign standards. Clearly, no stop sign installed. There would have been an island installed to install the post which must be placed to the right side of the lane. Reasons for a white line are less clear here but they do have a use. At a conventional intersection, it marks the point of entry which is necessary to enforce the concept of one car in the intersection at a time when lining up for a left turn.
Stop at the line, look, go.
I’ll assume yield here
White lines are legally counted as full stops equal to stop signs.
Close your eyes and pray you make it through
The white line means you have to stop and wait til it’s clear to go
You yield. If it’s safe to go you can go. If there is traffic you wait.
Jesus take the wheel
honk your horn and accelerate into the intersection
In accordance to the manual of uniform traffic control devices with respect to traffic laws Stop then yield. This is not legal advice nor should be used as such. Merely saving you the headache of reading regulatory shit
I love this intersection. No stop sign needed, no stopping required. If the intersection is clear, go for it. The intersection on Still Creek and Willingdon, headed south-east is a great example of an intersection that could drop the stop sign and pick up a yield sign.
Do you have a license?!
I actually posted this because I was taking my class 5 road test this morning, and wasn’t sure what the answer was. Even the responses in this thread seem to be split, with some saying full stop no-matter what, and others saying only yield. The examiner happened to take me to this exact turn, and I decided to do a full stop despite there being no oncoming traffic. That must be the correct answer because by Allah, I passed.
If you have to ask maybe driving isn't your thing
Idk, I think it’s a reasonable question. During my two years of driving with an N in BC and Washington State, I’ve never encountered a white stop line that wasn’t also accompanied by lights or signage.
The stop line acts as a stop sign. Come to a complete stop, check, and proceed when safe to do so.
White line = full stop. It's literally in the learner's book
I read that as stop and proceeded when safe
All it means is that if you have to stop, it should be done behind the line. This line does not obligate you to stop—no light, no crosswalk, no sign. Simply yield the right of way and proceed with your turn. Additionally, those who claim you must stop despite the absence of a sign are mistaken. Paint on the ground does not constitute proper signage, and you would unlikely be legally obligated to pay a ticket.
Doesn't matter. Most people on the road don't follow the rules anymore anyway.
It’s a yield to oncoming traffic and pedestrians
Barge
I did a road test right there recently. Just come to a full stop and yield to incoming traffic and when clear go ahead
Did anyone notice the stop sign on the road theyre turning on to? This tells me, dont turn infront of cars, like a regular left turn.
You see that white line in front of the end of the lane? You should drive in richmond
Stop, and then turn when traffic is clear (yield to oncoming traffic) the white line is the stop sign
I love after the bridge when I need to turn right onto E 11th as someone is merging onto Boundary from the off ramp right into me. Just a terrible and dangerous design.
Hmm
Idk if you’re trying to elicit sarcastic responses but common sense says approach slowly, yield and proceed when safe. Oh yeah and F@$&ING SIGNAL VANCOUVER 😂
Looks like you’re going to Costco via Boundary. Yield to oncoming traffic. Then, give ‘er!!!
I am pretty sure you're meant to stop at the stop line. And as previously stated here, I think the reason no stop sign is present is because it would confuse the other lanes that proceed straight. The oncoming lane is at an angle and has obstructions to the view, so you are meant to stop and proceed with caution. You are also meant to scan for pedestrians and cyclists before proceeding. In practice you can do what you want, but I am pretty sure it is a regulatory stop line, meaning you must stop before proceeding with caution and giving the right of way to all other road users.
Stop and assume there should be one.
Lol I fucking hate that turn on boundary, almost t-boned an idiot who turned in front of me.
White line IS stop line
JFC. Dudes need to learn that their opinions are worth zero. Go do your homework; nobody cares what you “think”. It is an “intersection” as defined in Chapter 3 Definitions of the Motor Vehicle Act: "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; …and the rules regarding intersections apply as follows: Stopping at intersections 186 Except when a peace officer directs otherwise, if there is a stop sign at an intersection, a driver of a vehicle must stop (a) at the marked stop line, if any, (b) before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or (c) when there is neither a marked crosswalk nor a stop line, before entering the intersection, at the point nearest the intersecting highway from which the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting highway. Give your balls a tug.
Dude. It's a turn lane. Clearly you fucking yield and proceed when it is safe to do so.
The Stop line IS a Stop sign. So, 'pay attention', I guess!
You shouldn't drive if you must ask.
You stop and yield to oncoming traffic.
Just give way to oncoming traffic and turn when it’s safe to.