Left Turn Surprise!

Left Turn SignalA signal light does not provide you with any protection when you make a left turn. This simple fact was discovered by a lady who slowed as she approached her driveway, signalled for a left turn, saw a truck approaching in her rearview mirror and started to make the turn. To her complete surprise, the truck passed by her on the left and they collided corner to corner.

The woman driving the truck said that she did not see the signal light and there were no witnesses to confirm whether it was in use or not.

As there were no lines painted on the highway to prevent the truck from passing ICBC divided the liability for the collision 75/25 with the highest portion bourne by the driver of the turning vehicle.

This collision should not have come as a complete surprise to the lady for a number of reasons. The first might be that she hadn't actually checked to see if her signal lights were working. The second is that she may not have signalled for a sufficient time to give the driver of the truck notice of her intended left turn. Finally, she could have taken human nature into account. My experience with many drivers is that they will tend to remain in motion rather than slowing or stopping if there is sufficient room to pass by.

When is the last time that you walked completely around your vehicle and checked to insure that all of the lights were working? Unless you are required by law to do pre- and post-trip inspections I suspect that it could be a long time, if ever. We rely on systems that can fail to protect us far more than we should because for the most part they keep working. Until they don't. It's up to the driver to make sure that the vehicle is in proper working order in all respects before leaving the driveway.

How long should we leave our signal light on before we do what it indicates? Certainly long enough that other drivers can see it, recognize what it is telling them and then react as necessary to insure safety. I might suggest that at least 4 seconds of signalling should be the minimum time before we take the advertised action. Failing to give sufficient warning is as bad as not giving any warning at all.

The Slow Down, Move Over law has resulted from the drivers tendency to remain in motion without taking action when presented with a sudden situation that does not require slamming on the brakes. Chances are good that you have watched many fail to slow down or move over in your travels. This lady's left turn indication, if she made it properly, is another example of the same circumstances.

ICBC assesses liability for collisions based on guidance imposed by civil law. The case of Carmichael v Mayhew is an example of similar circumstances that I wrote about in the article Who's Responsible?

There may be a witness to the operation of the signal lamp after the fact. If it was on when the force of the collision was applied to it, the signal filament could show indications of hot shock stress that could be discovered in post crash lamp examination. This kind of determination would require a trained collision investigator to provide ICBC or the courts with an expert opinion, but it is possible.

What about the driver of the truck who was found to be 25% at fault? The onus was on her not to pass on the left if it was unsafe to do so.

Comments

Surprise??

Good ole ICBC,serving the best interests of all it employs.Why scuttle one safe driver discount,when you can get 2.This is what drives me nuts,ICBC cannot represent an individual driver, when it also represents all other drivers in BC.It is always a conflict of interest.The only result, is always in the best interest of ICBC.

I think you have left out a more likely cause for the collision.The following vehicle was probably too close to begin with,and put themselves in a bad position regardless of whether a turn was being made, or if the lead vehicle had to slow or stop.I find people are real bad about charging up on you when are making at turn ,especially right hand, and leaving zero room for any error.Botom line is someone is probably lying regarding the crash,my money is on the following vehicle from what you describe.

Perhaps read the judgement before you make yours

"Good old ICBC" ??????

If you care to read the case, the ruling of 50/50 was determined by Mr. Justice Shaw of the Supreme Court of BC, not ICBC.

It's more or less suggested that IF, the vehicle turning left DID have it's signal on and that could be proven, the liability would have shifted.  Wrong.  There would still be liability on the turning vehicle.

It is your responsibility to shoulder check before turning left, even with your signal on for a length period.

Police are not experts in civil law and it is very common for this type of scenario to result in a ticket to the passing vehicle for "Unsafe Passing".  You can imagine the outrage when the turning vehicle driver goes to ICBC and finds that they are partly to blame, and usually as much as 75%.

Generally, and as the judge said in his ruling, the liability on this type of collison goes from 100% turning vehicle to 100% passing vehicle, is 75% turning vehicle 25% passing vehicle.

Unfair accusation

 

ICBC,serving the best interests of all it employs.Why scuttle one safe driver discount,when you can get 2.

That didn't happen, though. With ICBC, if the judgment goes only 25% (or less) against one driver, that driver does NOT lose their safe driver discount. However, the message to them is that they were still partially to blame.

 

Who signalled and who didn't?

Is it material whether the following driver signalled before changing lanes?  The driver ahead did take notice of the vehicle behind, according to the write-up, after the ahead vehicle driver said she activated her left turn signal. 

Say what?

Is it material whether the following driver signalled before changing lanes?

But nobody changed lanes in the scenario described; this was a residential street without even a centre line, never mind lane markings.

And while it might have been wise for the driver overtaking to signal (both visibly and audibly) that isn't required by law in this situation.

 

Left Turn Surprise

I'm going to take the position the person turning left was in the wrong.

First she claims she saw the truck behind her, she is turning left common sense tells you to watch what that driver is going to do. And the very last thing she should have done is check where that truck was again. Who knows if it was traveling fast and not paying attention she could have been rear ended and the last thing you want is that to happen when you have your wheels turned for a turn. What if someone started to cross your driveway while walking on the sidewalk. Who would have been at fault there?

It was not indicated which corners met. If it was front corner to front corner the truck was passing her before she even started her turn. Which to me indicates she put her signal on after starting her turn and never checked where the vehicle she knew was behind her was. And no matter what if someone is passing you when you are going to turn would you continue to do so knowing you were being passed.

What I have found whether driving in the city or on the open highway newer drivers have the habit of slowing first and then as they start to turn they put on their signal lights. You even see this at a stop light they will be sitting there with no signals activated and then after the light turns green then they put on their turn signal.

On the other hand recognizing the above problem I do not pass any vehicle that is slowing whether they are braking or not. Stay behind them as you do not know what they are going to do.

How long should we have a signal on? On the open highway I put my signal lights on before I start to slow. If there is traffic close to me I will maintain highway speed then brake hard and make my turn. I am a firm believe in doing everything to not slow the movement of traffic. There is no reason to slow down several meters before you turn. Keep it to a minimum. As for 4 seconds even in the city seems a little on the short side. Will try it out the next time I am in a city.

The comment about the light filament does this apply to vehicles with LED lights? There is no filament so what is there to check. On the other hand what does the black box collect? Could that be downloaded?

My truck driving days were 50 years ago although I have kept up my Class 1. I check tire pressure twice a week. As for signal and other lights my turn signals are bright enough that I can see them flashing. Brake lights and taillights can see when I back into the garage. DRL see them as the garage door closes and my DRL also activate the taillights. High beams probably should check them more often but if I am heading out of town make sure I check and I always have a headlight bulb with me. Replacing a bulb takes less than 5 minutes and when one burns out replace immediately. Side markers are part of the lights so no need to check.

As for pull over and slow down. If there was a spare lane have always moved over. Single lane If there is traffic approaching turn on 4 way flashers and slowed so that I could give more room. One thing that is an irritant to me is the cop that insists with stopping behind the car he has pulled over with his vehicle sticking out into the lane of traffic. Most roads have enough room past the fog line that they can get completely out of the lane of traffic. I really do wonder if these guys have a death wish?

I only partially agree with this law. I was heading east out of Van on highway 1 around Port Kells just after this law was brought in. There was a car pulled over by a cop in the west bound lane and as usual the cop car was sticking out into the traffic everyone was juggling to pull over and slow down. As I continued east I could watch the west bound traffic backing up and commented to my passenger that this law was going to cause an accident which we both agreed on. Eventually it looked like the right most lane had come to a complete stop and sure enough we watched as a B train tail-ended the last car. To me this law just puts more peoples lives at risk. Is the risk it is trying to eliminate worth the added risk to other users of the road?

Now a few comments regarding the new site. Had to change my password to sign in. Could it not be set up that one can cut and paste? I do believe B.C. is a province of Canada so why is the spell check not set to default to Canadian English?

 

Truck ?

The accident involved a motorcycle passing her, not a truck.  The truck was following her and not passing, as were several other vehicles, I believe heading to the same destination.  (all coming back from decorating something for a wedding).

The liability may change with proof of signalling but doesn't absolve the turning vehicle from liability.  The key is checking to see if someone is passing when the left turn is executed.

 

Post by my5cents

If you are commenting on what I posted I was replying to the anonymous letter received at the top of this string. It involved a person driving a truck that collided with a car turning left. The accident involving the motorcycle was a Court Case that involved a motorcycle accident a few years back. It was cited in our moderators comments regarding the truck and car.

Hope that clarifies my post if that was what you are replying to.

Different case

Carmichael vs Mayhew was provided as an analogical example, it's not the collision described at the beginning of this Thread.

Incidentally, whoever wrote up that case (the one with the motorcycle and pickup truck) may be colour-blind, here's a quote from the evidence:

Highway 97 is a through highway with a speed limit of 80 kph in the vicinity of Basalt Road. There is one driving lane in each direction, divided by a broken white line which allows passing when it can be done in safety.

The fact is, centre line (whether broken, solid, or double-solid) on a divided 2-way highway has been yellow throughout Canada and the US for more than 60 years now. Not white.

Different case

Carmichael vs Mayhew was provided as an analogical example, it's not the collision described at the beginning of this Thread.

Incidentally, whoever wrote up that case (the one with the motorcycle and pickup truck) may be colour-blind, here's a quote from the evidence:

Highway 97 is a through highway with a speed limit of 80 kph in the vicinity of Basalt Road. There is one driving lane in each direction, divided by a broken white line which allows passing when it can be done in safety.

The fact is, centre line (whether broken, solid, or double-solid) on a divided 2-way highway has been yellow throughout Canada and the US for more than 60 years now. Not white.

So what you are saying is the

So what you are saying is the following vehicle has priority to pass in the on coming lane of traffic?If so, are they 75% entitled to pass.What if there are 10 cars behind the vehicle making a the left turn.Should the person turning wait for all 10 vehicles to pass on his left in order to make the turn?What if the 4th vehicle decides to pass prior to the 2nd and 3rd vehicle,which are waiting for the turning vehicle to turn and then proceed without passing?In effect you are placing the responsability completely on the vehicle turning,and not considering the turn signal as a factor.The Judge seems to have given consideration as to whether the turning vehicle had properly indicated her intentions.Maybe the moderator can please clarify what the law states regarding this issue.By giving the following vehicles any portion of right of way,creates a major problem.

It's All In The Article

There are links to the laws and a link to case law covering exactly the situation you describe in the article itself.

Who is responsible

Ok, so I read that part,but it seems odd that the law rubs out that way,because if the owness was solely on the following vehicles to not pass a vehicle that is turning left regardless of the centerline markings it would make sense.Most times people will pass on the right if there is room,but my understanding is that is illegal, unless the roadway has 2 lanes in that direction.Still don't see how then you can make the left hand turn described, and be 100% free of any liability to cars that are behind you.It does not make sense that the following cars can have priority.

Passing on the right is not illegal in certain circumstances

The key to passing on the right when there is only one lane is that the vehicle in front of you is turning left and is signalling so.

If you approach a situation where the first vehicle is turning left and a second vehicle is waiting for the turning vehicle to turn so it can proceed straight, (ie not turning) you CANNOT pass, you have to be the first vehicle behind the turning vehicle.

Section 158(1) The driver of a vehicle must not cause or permit the vehicle to overtake and pass on the right another vehicle, except
(a) when the vehicle overtaken is making a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn.

I might not seem clear that it is illegal to pass the turning vehicle and a vehicle behind it waiting to go straight, but you will note "must not....pass on the right another vehicle, except....the vehicle overtaken is making a left turn".

Now the situation comes to mind where two vehicle are stopped, both clearly signalling to turn left, can you pass both ?   From reading 158, it sounds like you can.  Each vehicle being passed qualifies as an exception to Sec 158(1)

I'm just trying to explain what the courts say...

The key is that the passing vehicle has established itself, passing.  It is out there.  The left turning vehicle is the one executing the second maneuver.

"In effect you are placing the responsibility completely on the vehicle turning...."  Not me, the courts establish liability, and they haven't said the total responsibility is on the turning vehicle, they have said 75/25 on the turning vehicle, but with extenuating circumstances that can vary.

I know it doesn't sound right, but that is what the CIVIL courts have ruled.

 

No priority using the ...

... other side of the road to pass!

Section 159 has that covered.

 

More Questions

I also asked about the "Black Box" that is in new vehicles, what does it record?

Finally a question on what you think on the new monitoring equipment. Would "blind spot monitoring" done any good in this case or is it back that nothing works if you don't pay attention to it?

In my mind there was a center inside mirror, a left door mirror and supposedly a shoulder check, 3 safety items and still the accident happened, having a "blind spot monitoring", would it have done any good?

Answer

Crash Data Recorders must record the following on post 2014 vehicles:

  • The forward and lateral crash force.
  • The crash event duration.
  • Indicated vehicle speed.
  • Accelerator position.
  • Engine rpm.
  • Brake application and antilock brake activation.
  • Steering wheel angle.
  • Stability control engagement.
  • Vehicle roll angle, in case of a rollover.
  • Number of times the vehicle has been started.
  • Driver and front-passenger safety belt engagement, and pretensioner or force limiter engagement.
  • Air bag deployment, speed, and faults for all air bags.
  • Front seat positions.
  • Occupant size.
  • Number of crashes (one or more impacts during the final crash event).

Vehicles prior to model year 2014 will only record some of these items, depending on the age and manufacturer.

Blind spot monitoring only sounds a warning if the driver is going to encroach on another vehicle's space. It will not prevent that driver from making the move.

Crash Data Recorders

Thanks very much for the replies. Wasn't sure if you had seen them.

Will write Transport Canada and suggest that turn signal activation and duration of use so that one can determine whether there was sufficient time given so that both motorist following and approaching are given sufficient time to react. Steering wheel angle is already recorded so that would make it easy to tell if the turn was started before the indicators. I would like to see Daytime Running Lights included in what is recorded and if they are functioning.

Nothing to do with Canadian vehicles but for American vehicles they should add in if headlights on or not.

Blind spot monitoring is redundant. If one follows proper driving procedures have it covered.

You will write Transport Canada ... why?

Will write Transport Canada and suggest that turn signal activation and duration of use so that one can determine whether there was sufficient time given so that both motorist following and approaching are given sufficient time to react. Steering wheel angle is already recorded so that would make it easy to tell if the turn was started before the indicators. I would like to see Daytime Running Lights included in what is recorded and if they are functioning.

Nothing to do with Canadian vehicles but for American vehicles they should add in if headlights on or not.

James, no disrespect intended, but to what useful purpose?

To the best of my knowledge and understanding, almost all of the regulations applicable to Canadian vehicles more or less duplicate US regulations.

And while those 'black boxes' may reveal some information post-collision, that's a serendipitous outcome, perhaps useful to some lawyer in determining blame where insufficient obvious evidence is lacking.

Items such as DRL's, metric speedometers, and so on may be specific to Canada (so if a vehicle was being imported from the US or another country, they would have to be modified, whilst a thorough Governement Inspection was carried out on it) but I very much doubt that information recorded by these black boxes is, or would be, Federally proscribed.

All of the regulations they put into effect are, surely, for the purpose of collision prevention and/or occupant damage reduction? That's why we have lights, turn signals, horns, mirrors, seatbelts, airbags, etc.

Collision investigations, along with causative factors, are already advanced and thorough; extensive data already exists. So advancing techniques for determining precise blame is pretty much redundant, in my opinion. (Of course, I'm not a lawyer ... )

In the case described - which lacked witnesses, didn't involve the police, and wasn't taken to trial - the determination of fault was made by ICBC personnel, simply on the evidence presented by the two parties iinvolved.

A signal light does not provide you with any protection when you make a left turn. This simple fact was discovered by a lady who slowed as she approached her driveway, signalled for a left turn, saw a truck approaching in her rearview mirror and started to make the turn. To her complete surprise, the truck passed by her on the left and they collided corner to corner.

The woman driving the truck said that she did not see the signal light and there were no witnesses to confirm whether it was in use or not.

What bothers me, in a way, is the deduction from our site host that 'a signal light does not provide you ... etc' because this presumes that she really did signal (as she claimed to the ICBC Adjuster).

There is no information provided regarding her vehicle placement on the road, whether she was braking or not, (did she move right, before turning left?), which rearview mirror she says she saw the truck approaching in ... but it's probably important to realize that 'approaching' is different from 'following' so she would logically have known that it would either slow down or pass her.

Meanwhile, the woman driving the truck did not by an means claim that the turning vehicle failed to signal, only that she did not see a signal (important, that, because logically she would have braked and given way rather than drive into a collision).

Those are my thoughts, for what it's worth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting that dash cameras are not considered.Vehicle manufactures seem reluctant to provide as factory equipment.I have them in all vehicles,and wouldnt be without them now.

Krusty, I have a dashcam these days and wouldn't be without it. An excellent silent witness, hopefully I'll never need it to defend myself.

Thing is, there are a lot of regulations in different jurisdictions about screens visible to the driver (we used to have one in BC which somehow got silently removed in the legislature) and so it's a dodgy area for manufacturers to ensure compliance without liability.

I installed mine on the inside of the windshield, in front of the rear-view mirror; that way I can't see it or be distracted by it. Hell, it has a useable WiFi connection to my mobile phone, but I don't use that either when I'm driving (except Google Maps, for audible directions sometimes).

If I was a fleet operator, I would definitely want cameras in the vehicles, so that I could see how they were driven!

But I doubt that manufacturers are feeling any pressure to install them in every vehicle, any more than to install black boxes whose information is easily downloadable, and erasable, by the owner.

In my opinion

Finally a question on what you think on the new monitoring equipment. Would "blind spot monitoring" done any good in this case or is it back that nothing works if you don't pay attention to it?

My observations of, and experience with, blind spot monitoring is that it wouldn't have helped; the warning light on the left mirror of the car turning left into the driveway would probably have turned on pretty much simultaneously to the driver initiating the turn. Crunch time.

Blind spot monitoring is probably most useful when vehicles are traveling in the same direction, at more-or-less the same speed, to prevent lane-change collisions.

Proper use of the mirrors along with shoulder checks makes blind spot monitoring devices unnecessary ... but some of those systems are pretty cool, and probably increase safety; take a loaded Honda Odyssey minivan for a test drive some time and you'll see a good example.

Interesting that dash cameras

Interesting that dash cameras are not considered.Vehicle manufactures seem reluctant to provide as factory equipment.I have them in all vehicles,and wouldnt be without them now.

Onus on signaling ?

I'm going to mess up the "well since the turning vehicle was signalling, the liability should be 100% against the passing vehicle, crowd".

IF, signalling a left turn, should be so important that it absolves most if not all the liability from the turning vehicle, then it would be important for the BC government to change the law that requires signalling.

Scenario.... vehicle driving along, the driver has no idea that there is a vehicle approaching from behind, perhaps the driver is very involved in looking for the street address of the driveway they desire to turn left into.

So, seeing the address and THINKING there are no vehicles anywhere around, the driver turns left without signalling, as is allowed.

Obviously a recipe for disaster.  But complies with the law.  The error in this case is not seeing the vehicle approaching that ultimately attempts to pass.  In virtually all cases of "left turn vehicle hit by passing vehicle", the driver of the left turn vehicle says, they didn't see the vehicle passing.  The difference in this scenario is the driver of the left turning vehicle wasn't even aware there was a vehicle approaching from the rear.

So first we need the government to change the law, "a turning vehicle MUST give the approapriate signal".

(Tim: Love the new software)

Sorry, but I think you're misinterpreting compliance!

For sure, the way the law is written in BC, signalling every turn is not mandatory (unlike signalling lane-changes) but that doesn't mean that because a driver THINKS there isn't any other traffic around then it's OK for them to turn without signalling!

Let's see how things are actually worded in the mighty Motor Vehicle Act Section 170.

Indeed, the preamble says:

170  (1) If traffic may be affected by turning a vehicle

But it doesn't say 'If the driver sees other traffic that may be affected'. Does it?

On the surface, it seems a little dopey that signalling turns isn't mandatory; but it's my guess that the law was written back in the dawn of time when many vehicles didn't even have turn signals, or power steering, or automatic transmissions ... so would it be reasonable to demand that some farmer in the middle of nowhere, turning onto a side road without another vehicle or road user in sight, busily double clutching his downshifts, braking, and commencing to pull on the steering wheel, also stick his arm out to tell the crow sitting on the fence post that he's about to turn?

And obviously, if a driver turns, and a passing vehicle hits his car as a consequence, well that there passing vehicle was undeniably 'affected'.

Why is it that signalling all lane-changes is mandatory, per Section 151(C), even if you're the only vehicle within miles? My guess is that by the time road engineers had started creating traffic lanes, all vehicles were already fitted with some kind of easily operable electronic turn signal device; so no sweat for the driver to activate it (though you would never guess, the way some people drive).

And of course, they keep refining things; around 1967 legislation came in that turn signal levers were required to have a 'lane change' position, where a soft push wouldn't leave the signal on once released. Most recently, many car manufacturers have introduced a lane change signal that will blink three or four times once pressed, then switch off again.

Me? I signal everything, it's an ingrained habit. Hasn't ever hurt, I reckon.

And what I've always taught my students, in terms of timing, is that they should signal as early as possible - without misleading; that makes them think about signalling as a communication device. I've always taught them to think who may affected by their pending maneuver, who needs to see that there signal?

Communication is one of the 5 Global Skills now required for drivers in BC to pass their Class 7 Road Test. As far as ICBC - both as a Licensing Authority and Insurer - is concerned, it's essential.

Our police forces apparently don't get this. According to the most recent statistics I've seen, only 0.403% of tickets issued are for failing to signal lane-changes, and only a ludicrous 0.157% for failing to signal turns.

 

 

Signalling should be mandatory

Well put together, CompetentDrivingBC.  I expected someone would disagree with me that signalling wasn't required.  You are of course 100% correct.

I'm sure if there was a situation where, while taking a driving test, if the testee (is that a word ?  if not it should be) didn't signal, even though there were no vehicles that could be affected, it would result in a demerit (not sure if it would cause a fail or not).

Just like busses with passengers must stop at uncontrolled railway crossings.  Where the reason for forcing bus driver's to stop is in the event that they for some reason didn't see the train.  Perhaps by coming to a full stop the driver might see something they missed.  It would certainly be stupid to include "if a train is in the vicinity".

If someone is driving along intending to turn and doesn't see another vehicle the lack of the requirement to signal exacerbates the problem.  Generally the Motor Vehicle Act tends to require excessive safety, not reduced.  Fortunately, I guess, most drivers don't know that signalling is not required in that situation.

Now if only people wouldn't turn on their turn signals as they turn the wheel to make the turn !

Yes, there certainly is a hierarchy of violations among police, as well police are given certain offences to prioritize and generally they are the more extreme violations. 

I wouldn't doubt that a large percentage of the .403% and .157% were tickets written as a result of a traffic collisions.

Road Test Results

I'm sure if there was a situation where, while taking a driving test, if the testee (is that a word ?  if not it should be) didn't signal, even though there were no vehicles that could be affected, it would result in a demerit (not sure if it would cause a fail or not).

Testee - yeah, I like that one but the Driver Examiners will use the term 'Applicant'.

When it comes to Road Test criteria, the way that errors, or lack of necessary skills, will be marked is not precisely dependent on the Motor Vehicle Act & Regulations. All turns and lane-changes must be signalled properly.

In the case of a Class 5 or 7 Test - where key Global Skills must be demonstrated - any failure to signal (or a timing error with signalling) will be marked, and so far as I know once two errors have been made the Applicant has reached the limit; a third mistake and they have reached the Error Cutoff so they will not pass that day.

Going back to something you said earlier:

Scenario.... vehicle driving along, the driver has no idea that there is a vehicle approaching from behind, perhaps the driver is very involved in looking for the street address of the driveway they desire to turn left into.

So, seeing the address and THINKING there are no vehicles anywhere around, the driver turns left without signalling ... Obviously a recipe for disaster.

I'm not sure of the source - perhaps Sue McNeil - but I remember reading one time that in more than 90% of 2-vehicle collisions, either one or both of the drivers is unaware of the pending crash until around 15 milliseconds before impact. In other words, they simply didn't see it coming until it was far too late to do anything about it.

Or as I've often put it to students: drivers don't usually collide with something they have seen, but with something they didn't see until it was no longer preventable.

Submitted by E-Mail

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out Section 166 of the MVA:

Turning left other than at intersection

166 A driver of a vehicle must not turn the vehicle to the left from a highway at a place other than an intersection unless

(c) the driver has ascertained that the movement can be made in safety, having regard to the nature, condition and use of the highway and the traffic that actually is at the time or might reasonably be expected to be on the highway.

The reason is ...

... we wanted to leave you with that one, Tim!

My assumption would be that

My assumption would be that if I was turning left, after slowing down, others behind would also slow down, as there would be a reason for slowing down. I have done the slowing down and turning left, and haven't had anyone pass on my left. Maybe on the right. I have also stopped in the left lane and had people zip right on by me in the right lane and just about kill the pedestrian that I stopped for to cross. In my opinion, there is no legitimate reason for a driver to pass another in the left lane while that person is slowing down or stopping, until the other driver's intentions are clear.

'Assume' can make an ass out of you and me ....

 

My assumption would be that if I was turning left, after slowing down, others behind would also slow down, as there would be a reason for slowing down. I have done the slowing down and turning left, and haven't had anyone pass on my left.

Irrelevant to the case in point, where the driver did do the slowing down and did do the turning left, and did have some attempt to pass on their left.

 I have also stopped in the left lane and had people zip right on by me in the right lane and just about kill the pedestrian that I stopped for to cross. In my opinion, there is no legitimate reason for a driver to pass another in the left lane while that person is slowing down or stopping, until the other driver's intentions are clear.

Also irrelevant - read the first post, will you?

This situation took place in a residential neighbourhood, no pedestrians, no marked lanes, not  even a centre-line!

I think we can reasonably assume that the driver who went to pass the other vehicle simply had no idea, no clue, that the driver ahead was about to turn left into a driveway. Otherwise, why would they drive straight into a collision?

It wasn't the act of passing that caused the crash - it was the act of turning unsafely.

 

Google Ads