Is it illegal not to have brakes depressed at red light?

[Sohjonn]

as the title states?

[VorteC]

i don't see a reason why it would be illegal...

as long as your car doesnt pass the line then its fine.

you're prob asking the question for the case of a crash and your car rolls down the road because you didnt have your brakes depressed?

they can't really do anything to you, it is still the person who crash you's fault.

[akt921]

I guess YES if your car is moving/passing the intersection.
NO if your car is still behind the line(or your engine is off:D ).

[Sohjonn]

just a normal dead stop waiting for the light to turn.

[Spliffy]

Why do you ask?

[Sohjonn]

Why do you ask?

don't wanna use brakes, just wanna sit and relax

[rob187jj]

don't wanna use brakes, just wanna sit and relax

if ur cars not rolling into the intersection/someone, u can do that exactly

[Sohjonn]

one thing i fear are the cops, will they pick on me for that kind of stuff

[ZxExN]

You mean put it in neutral? It might be illegal at night cause it's harder for others coming to see that you're stopped.

[philp37]

Its no. But maybe it should be.

[rchong]

Another thing to worry about is the driver behind you. Brake light off = GO GO GO!!! ;)

[Sohjonn]

You mean put it in neutral? It might be illegal at night cause it's harder for others coming to see that you're stopped.

your night lights are still on so there shouldn't be a visibility issue there

[Sohjonn]

Another thing to worry about is the driver behind you. Brake light off = GO GO GO!!! ;)

unlike them i pay attention to the light signal

[EH100501AC]

Yeah but there are still dumbasses who have their foot off the brake on a green light yet they aren't moving.

[kon_kat]

Assuming you're the first one at the light, if you get rear-ended and have the car in neutral with no brakes applied, you will be more likely to get tossed further into the intersection and onto the path of oncoming traffic. It's not worth the risk. Keep your foot firmly on the brake at a stop.

[Taiphun]

More of a safety thing than anything else, imo..

Say you're sitting there relaxing with your feet off the brake pedal. There's traffic going in front of you, left-right or right-left.

Get tapped gently from the guy behind you and the next thing you know you get t-boned, or even roll into the guy in front of you.

Then you've got issues.. guy in front decides to sue you for a minor whiplash, neck problems, etc. Or you get bumped into traffic. Or into a pedestrian crossing in front of your car.

It's just common sense.. if you're gonna take your foot off the brake while you're at a stop light, might as well pull the hand brake - that's what I do.

[bobbings]

it really depends on the cop. i always thought it would be considered to be a rolling stop if you move your car when it's red light. again, the law is always open to interpretations.

[mudmojo]

If no one is approaching from behind, then it doesn't matter however if there's a cop from 3 to 9, then tap your brakes if you want to ensure that that portion of your ride does not raise suspicion or attract attention. I'd say make sure no cop has a clear line of sight for at least 500 meters to be sure. I think at that point, the typical human would not be able to discern that for sure you did not have your brakes depressed while under the light and a court would dismiss the charges if indeed it is illegal. What province are you licensed in?

From a safety perspective, always have your parking brake on everytime you stop in case one gets rear ended. MT's can be dangerous as it will tend to roll forward (ie. into an intersection) but AT's are even worse since the foot comes off the brake pedal and the target car accelerates into the intersection until the driver gets back onto the brake pedal. This is also why it's not a bad idea to pull up shy of the white line when stopping for lights... not to mention those consumer car idiots who cut corners, not to be confused with the commercial carrier drivers who cut corners either purposely or unwittingly.

[Atomic Chip]

Keeping your foot on the brake is not legally required, but there is no valid reason not to do so. You have been given some very good reasons why it is prudent.

don't wanna use brakes, just wanna sit and relax

This makes no sense. If you just want to sit and relax, stay at home in a La-Z-Boy with a case of beer. :rolleyes:

[bobbings]

This makes no sense. If you just want to sit and relax, stay at home in a La-Z-Boy with a case of beer. :rolleyes:

maybe he wants to drive to the store to get a case of beer!

[BD006]

I still don't understand the point of not just putting your foot on the brake. :confused:

[Slippery_Pete]

I still don't understand why this thread has a poll. Its not an opiniated questions, its a factual one. It is either illegal or it isn't. Just because people are going to answer more one way or the other isn't going to change the fact...

Anyways just keep your foot on the brake....are you so lazy that keeping your foot on the brake is tedious?

[Spliffy]

one thing i fear are the cops...

Why you so paranoid? You got a bag of coke or hookers in the car which you are trying to avoid attention?

If the cop ever put on his lights for that, I'm sure you could argue it. If you got a ticket, you could argue it in court ("I only took my foot off for a second" or "the light was ready to change so I had my foot off the brake" etc etc).

[ZxExN]

your night lights are still on so there shouldn't be a visibility issue there

Foot off breaks means no bright breaking lights in the back = people might think you're still moving and not slow down. There's a big difference between the two. It's a safety thing.

[Atomic Chip]

I still don't understand why this thread has a poll. Its not an opiniated questions, its a factual one. It is either illegal or it isn't. Just because people are going to answer more one way or the other isn't going to change the fact...

Haven't you heard of postmodernism? Everything is subjective (http://winona.edu/winonan/f2006/11-15/truth.htm) ... there are no 'facts' anymore. :razz:

Anyways just keep your foot on the brake....are you so lazy that keeping your foot on the brake is tedious?

That sort of ennui is oh-so-consistent with his general approach (see above).

[ES_Revenge]

I still don't understand the point of not just putting your foot on the brake. :confused:
In autos if you release the brake and have the car in neutral, it's arguably better for the torque converter.

If you've just braked with moderate to hard force to stop at that light, relasing the brake will let the brakes cool better and reduce rotor hotspots.

I often do this, particularly if my car isn't going to roll (sometimes I just apply the parking brake though). But, if there isn't a car already stopped behind me, I always watch my mirror as well. As soon as I see a car coming up behind me, I'll use the brake to be sure they can see the brake lights.

Keeping your foot on the brake is not legally required, but there is no valid reason not to do so. You have been given some very good reasons why it is prudent.
And you've been given some very good reasons why it's prudent not to, LOL. Don't just assume "no valid reason" when that is certainly not the case. If I just braked hard to stop at a light you better be sure I'm off those brakes once my car has stopped. I have drilled rotors, performance pads, and ATE fluid all of which are pretty fade resistant (in fact I've never had this combination fade really); but despite that, I'm not stupid enough to keep heat in my brakes more than I need to.

Foot off breaks means no bright breaking lights in the back = people might think you're still moving and not slow down. There's a big difference between the two. It's a safety thing.
Well I mean what's a better safety thing is if the potential clown coming behind you is paying attention to the traffic signals (and the rest of the road for that matter). If there's a red light and like 4-5 cars stopped in a row with you at the end with your brake lights off, what kind of moron would "not slow down" and just keep driving at full speed, despite the red light, despite the cars stopped?

Nevertheless there are indeed a lot of idiots on the road today... So I usually use my brake lights as mentioned above, just to be sure.

[beerbaron105]

less rear end damage to your car without the brake depressed since the car behind you will simply push you ..... unless there is a car in front of you, id keep the brake depressed

[ES_Revenge]

less rear end damage to your car without the brake depressed since the car behind you will simply push you ..... unless there is a car in front of you, id keep the brake depressed

And less damage to you. The energy will be transferred to moving the car forward as you say, rather than to your body. Of course if you go by the logic that with your brake lights off and dead stopped people are just going to plow into you regardless of the traffic situation (e.g. red light), then with your brakes on you might not get rear ended.

However if someone is stupid enough to plow into a stationary vehicle, brake lights or not, they probably weren't paying enough attention to the road and would have hit you regardless. Brake lights are there to indicate deceleration, not to indicate the car is stopped necessarily. Otherwise why wouldn't cars have to have their brake lights on when parked? That as well would be preposterous... If brake lights are oh-so important to prevent getting rear ended why don't we see people smashing into the back of parked/unattended cars all the time? That's right, we don't. Again there are idiots out there and it could and does happen at times, but they are idiots regardless of your brake lights.

[Sohjonn]

thanks for all the input fellas. i personally find it quite comfortable to take my foot off the pedals and relax while waiting for the green. i am completely aware of the safety issues and i do apply the brakes when i see someone approaching from behind. but if someones is already is behind me or the approaching vehicle has come to a rest, i'll just release the brakes again.

[dealguy2]

My car manual says this will cause AT damage. If you have AT then don't do this.

[AzN_RiverdaleCI]

My car manual says this will cause AT damage. If you have AT then don't do this.

lol i didnt believe you, so I checked my manual, and it said that too, if its AT then plz try not to hold brake a lot.

[Sohjonn]

lol i didnt believe you, so I checked my manual, and it said that too, if its AT then plz try not to hold brake a lot.

really?

[mrlooneytoon]

lol i didnt believe you, so I checked my manual, and it said that too, if its AT then plz try not to hold brake a lot.

Well that's a first. Can't hold the brake? Makes absolutely no sense.

[aquariaguy]

My car manual says this will cause AT damage. If you have AT then don't do this.


Yea, thats what I thought too. It's not good to release the brake and let the car hang there. Like if it's a slight uphill and you release the brake, the car won't move, but that's bad for the engine.

[tkyoshi]

Yea, thats what I thought too. It's not good to release the brake and let the car hang there. Like if it's a slight uphill and you release the brake, the car won't move, but that's bad for the engine.

Well if it's AT using the engine/transmission to hold the vehicle is not a good idea as it will generate a lot of excess heat in the transmission contributing to possible failiure (if done regularly).

[Colargo]

If you don't have your foot on the brakes at a stop light, why the heck would you want to put it in neutral??? :confused:

For me, I usually keep my foot on the brake at a redlight unless I feel its going to be a somewhat long red. Then I put my car into PARK, let go of the brake and relax. Then I keep my eyes on the pedestrian signal or the lights starting to change and then I put my car back in drive just before it hits green and off I go. Simple.

[gman]

If you don't have your foot on the brakes at a stop light, why the heck would you want to put it in neutral??? :confused:

For me, I usually keep my foot on the brake at a redlight unless I feel its going to be a somewhat long red. Then I put my car into PARK, let go of the brake and relax. Then I keep my eyes on the pedestrian signal or the lights starting to change and then I put my car back in drive just before it hits green and off I go. Simple.

Because you don't need to step on the brake if your car does not move when it is in neutral. If one can't notice his car is moving, one would have different problem. For auto transmission, it is easier to flip between N and D. You don't need to press the button.

[Colargo]

Because you don't need to step on the brake if your car does not move when it is in neutral. If one can't notice his car is moving, one would have different problem. For auto transmission, it is easier to flip between N and D. You don't need to press the button.

Well depressing a button for a second to move it from park to drive ain't all that much more difficult is it? Plus putting it in park just feels abit more secure.

[onecoolloser]

Assuming you're the first one at the light, if you get rear-ended and have the car in neutral with no brakes applied, you will be more likely to get tossed further into the intersection and onto the path of oncoming traffic. It's not worth the risk. Keep your foot firmly on the brake at a stop.

+1. I think we need a police officer on this server to answer legal-related questions =)

[gman]

Well depressing a button for a second to move it from park to drive ain't all that much more difficult is it? Plus putting it in park just feels abit more secure.

Difficult? No.
Do I want to do that? No.
More secure? Not really.

Also, pressing the button means you need to make sure you switch to the right gear. Without pressing the button, you will always move to the right gear because you have only 2 choices. It is either D or N.

If I move my gear to park (to park), I will always apply emergency brake. That is secure.

[gman]

Assuming you're the first one at the light, if you get rear-ended and have the car in neutral with no brakes applied, you will be more likely to get tossed further into the intersection and onto the path of oncoming traffic. It's not worth the risk. Keep your foot firmly on the brake at a stop.

If you are not watching your rear end in all times, you have different problem. I hurt my neck when I was young because I was rear end by my own friend. Yes, it was mainly because I applied the brake and I did not watch my back.

[cipher]

OT...Why is this a poll? A poll is for opinions. It's like putting up a poll asking if it's illegal to run a red light.

[Capt.]

If it's AT then you can just put it in park at the light, killing all the safety arguments brought up in this thread about being nudged into the intersection in neutral. Of course, if you get slammed from behind by a guy going 80 km/h it probably won't matter much if you were in neutral or park.

[Sohjonn]

If it's AT then you can just put it in park at the light, killing all the safety arguments brought up in this thread about being nudged into the intersection in neutral. Of course, if you get slammed from behind by a guy going 80 km/h it probably won't matter much if you were in neutral or park.

...or even if you have the brakes applied.

[ES_Revenge]

Well if it's AT using the engine/transmission to hold the vehicle is not a good idea as it will generate a lot of excess heat in the transmission contributing to possible failiure (if done regularly).

Huh? :confused: If the car is held back by the brakes or the force of an incline pulling the car downwards, the torque converter doesn't care. It's what stops the engine from stalling and lets you sit with the brakes applied and the car in gear. If the hill provides the same counter force from moving the car forward as the brakes would, there's no difference to the converter--both brakes with car in D or incline with car in D will do the same thing for the trans. Now if the incline is steep enough to overcome the engine output and have the car actually travel backwards without the brakes applied then that's slightly different, but comparing the above, there's no difference.

If you don't have your foot on the brakes at a stop light, why the heck would you want to put it in neutral??? :confused:

If the car is an auto, if you take your foot off the brakes with it not in neutral but rather in D, the car is going to move forwards, therefore if you don't have your foot on the brakes you will probably want the vehicle in N (perhaps with the parking brake applied) or in P.

+1. I think we need a police officer on this server to answer legal-related questions =)
:rolleyes: -1. Also many police officers probably can't even spell legal nevermind tell you everything that is and isn't.

[tkyoshi]

Huh? :confused: If the car is held back by the brakes or the force of an incline pulling the car downwards, the torque converter doesn't care. It's what stops the engine from stalling and lets you sit with the brakes applied and the car in gear. If the hill provides the same counter force from moving the car forward as the brakes would, there's no difference to the converter--both brakes with car in D or incline with car in D will do the same thing for the trans. Now if the incline is steep enough to overcome the engine output and have the car actually travel backwards without the brakes applied then that's slightly different, but comparing the above, there's no difference.,

Sorry my post wasn't that clear. I was referring to people who depress the accelerator slightly to hold their car on a hill instead of using the brake.

This causes extra heat from the torque convertor and should be avoided.

For Example this is from an owners manual:

To save gasoline and prevent overheating of the transmission, never accelerate while the brake is being held on. By the same token, never use the accelerator for holding the vehicle on a hill, e.g. while waiting for a light to change; use your brake.

[ES_Revenge]

Sorry my post wasn't that clear. I was referring to people who depress the accelerator slightly to hold their car on a hill instead of using the brake.

This causes extra heat from the torque convertor and should be avoided.

Oh yes, indeed. That would be the equivalent to brake-torquing which should be done for no more than a few seconds in most cars, and not often at that.

[radeonboy]

Mixed messages in here.

Anyway I'd like to say that I sometimes @ a red light with no one around will put my car in N and let go of the brakes. My car won't move and vibration is reduced. I like it that way because I don't feel any vibrations as opposed to if I just had my brakes held down with the car still in D4.

But if the situation changes with another person coming behind me, then I hold the brakes lightly so they know that I am stopped.

I know some people who put the car in N when going down a hill. I don't do this because I'm not sure it's safe. Is it?

[rchong]

Mixed messages in here.
I know some people who put the car in N when going down a hill. I don't do this because I'm not sure it's safe. Is it?

It's not safe and it's illegal.

[gman]

It's not safe and it's illegal.

Which section of Highway Traffic Act says so? For people who drive standard, the car can be in neutral often.

[tkyoshi]

Which section of Highway Traffic Act says so? For people who drive standard, the car can be in neutral often.

As far as I know, it IS Illegal in BC and in many US States. I do not know about Ontario. But based on the information I have read, it wouldn't be surprising if it is illegal in most Canadian provinces as well.

This is from a post I made on this topic about a year ago:


http://members.shaw.ca/TonyK/Neutral.JPG
================================================== ===
From Cartalk (It's illegal in the States too):
In most states, it IS illegal to COAST in Neutral when the car is moving. THEN the car could be considered out of control. For one thing, the car could stall (causing you to lose your power steering and power brakes) and you'd never even know it.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1994/May/07.html

And more importantly, taking the car out of gear when going down hill is dangerous. Not only can you not accelerate to avoid a sudden obstacle, if need be, but you also lose the natural braking action of the engine, and you can easily build up excessive speed and overheat the brakes.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1995/November/09.html
================================================== ===

[ES_Revenge]

It's not safe and it's illegal.

I agree, about moving down a hill anyway. If anything you should be in a relatively low gear (numerically high) going down a hill, not neutral.

I'm pretty sure that in a manual trans car (or an auto for that matter) you will fail a driver's test in ON if you put the car in neutral with significant forward vehicle speed.

[radeonboy]

I'm pretty sure that in a manual trans car (or an auto for that matter) you will fail a driver's test in ON if you put the car in neutral with significant forward vehicle speed.

this probably is obvious. they dont teach you this in their books. so you would 100% fail.

[Sohjonn]

Which section of Highway Traffic Act says so? For people who drive standard, the car can be in neutral often.

only when stopped. but you should always be in gear, whether you brake in gear or downshift.