Skip to main content

Yielding on Left Turns

Posted in

Left Turn CrashIt's always dangerous when you turn left in an intersection. You have to cross over opposing lanes of traffic which leaves you vulnerable in a crash. It also exposes you to drivers who would never think that they might have to yield and let you turn left.

The rule in B.C. for turning left at an intersection requires that you yield to any opposing traffic in or approaching the intersection so closely that it would be a hazard. Having yielded as required, opposing traffic must now yield to you and allow you to make your left turn.

Never, ever expect the opposing drivers to follow this rule, even if you are at an intersection controlled by traffic lights that have turned yellow. In fact, this may be one of the more dangerous times to try and turn. Drivers wanting to get through before the red may not be watching for you.

It would be far safer to wait for the lights to turn red and all the opposing traffic to stop and then make your turn. In this situation you have right of way over cross traffic facing the green light to do so. It also assumes that you have properly entered the intersection on the green light to prepare for the turn.

Reference Links:

Submitted by E-Mail

I agree, but in Kelowna we have a large volume of drivers that consider when approaching an amber light means accelerate to go through the intersection. On many occasions I have sat in a left turn late waiting for up to 2 on coming to race through the light when it has already changed to red.

"...properly entered the intersection on the green light to prep

Good point. If I remember my automobile driving lessons correctly, the driver is expected to enter the intersection on the solid green light, proceed to a point at which he (she, wotever) would begin the turn and wait for traffic to clear, with the vehicle's steering wheels not turned into the direction of opposing traffic. Upon having done so, the driver is not to complete the turn until traffic has cleared, stopped, or is coming to a stop for a red light. If the driver cannot completely enter the intersection due to traffic turning ahead of him (her, etc.), he* is expected to wait behind the stop line until the vehicle ahead of him* has cleared.

Moreover, it is considered good form to proceed as far into the intersection as is prudent before stopping to wait , leaving room behind one for other traffic turning.

Did I get that right?

*Ain't this political correctness cumbersome, sometimes?

Not sure that I agree, exactly.

If the driver cannot completely enter the intersection due to traffic turning ahead of him (her, etc.), he* is expected to wait behind the stop line until the vehicle ahead of him* has cleared.

 

I don't believe it's necessary for the driver to be able to place their entire vehicle in the intersection.  Let's keep in mind that this procedure is based on the fact that a driver isn't allowed to enter the intersection on the red, or on the amber if they could have stopped safely beforehand.

To put it another way, traffic lights do not control traffic in intersections, only traffic approaching intersections.

So as long as you can get enough of your vehicle far enough to establish that you're 'there' - let's say, as a general guide, the front wheels past the far side of the crosswalk - then you're in the interesection and just waiting for conflicting traffic to cease.

That said, what we see a lot of drivers doing, where they'll be stopped partially but not completely through the crosswalk area - and then, when the amber light turns on, deliberately proceeding with their maneuver - is totally illegal.

 

Left turns at traffic lights

CompetentDrivingBc has got it mostly correct, if the intersection is wide enought to accomidate more than one vehicle to turn left, and the first car is far enough forward for the second vehicle to enter the intersection as well,,,, the second vehicle must be able to position their vehicle at least 3/4 in front of the crosswalk,,, if there isn't enough room to allow this you must remain behind the white line.

More information, please!

Can you advise whereabouts in the Motor Vehicle Act or Regulations, this '75%' rule is?

It could sure make right turns, or left turns into one-way streets, something of a challenge when there is constant pedestrian activity in the crosswalks while the lights are green.

It's Complicated!

For a red traffic signal:

129 (1) Subject to subsection (2), when a red light alone is exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal, the driver of a vehicle approaching the intersection and facing the red light must cause it to stop before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, before entering the intersection

For intersections without traffic control signals:

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.

Definition of intersection:

"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;

Also to be kept in mind:

189 (1) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with traffic or to comply with the law or the directions of a peace officer or traffic control device, a person must not stop, stand or park a vehicle as follows:

(e) on a crosswalk;

You will note that the marked stop line does not play a part in stopping at a signalized intersection, at least from the Motor Vehicle Act's standpoint. ICBC may differ on a driving test.

No challange

  • I thought this was yeilding on left turns at controlled 4 way intersections though. Where if the intersection is wide enough and the first vehicle could pull forward enough for a second vehicle, the second vehicle can pull into the intersection as long as they can get 3/4 of their vehicle into the intersection. That's how ICBC teaches and passes on road exams. The reason being is then your not stopped on a crosswalk, but if only your front wheels are over the crosswalk when you have to stop, your deemed stopped on a crosswalk. I know it's almost a grey area but that's how ICBC road exams are judged. As far as a one way street is concerned, this should never happen for the simple reason the car waiting to turn right or left onto a one way road on a green light, must finish their turn on the inside lane or first lane, so they shouldn't pull as far into the intersection as to allow enogh room behind them for a second vehicle.

Sorry, but you're mistaken.

I'm referring to this:

Where if the intersection is wide enough and the first vehicle could pull forward enough for a second vehicle, the second vehicle can pull into the intersection as long as they can get 3/4 of their vehicle into the intersection. That's how ICBC teaches and passes on road exams. The reason being is then your not stopped on a crosswalk, but if only your front wheels are over the crosswalk when you have to stop, your deemed stopped on a crosswalk. I know it's almost a grey area but that's how ICBC road exams are judged.

 

If you look at the ICBC publications 'Learn to Drive Smart' (the basic guide to driving in this province) and 'Tuning Up for Drivers' (the guide for parents/co-pilots of Class 7 L drivers, provided free at the time the new driver acquires their Learner License) you'll have found pretty much all that ICBC teaches about left turns at traffic light controlled intersections.  As far as I recall, at no point do they even refer to a second vehicle entering the intersection!

As to how ICBC determine whether an applicant has made an error on a Road Test, there is no such criteria or judgment as this '3/4 of their vehicle' rule.  I know this - I have conducted thousands of tests myself, as an ICBC Driver Examiner (Class 4 & 5), and as a Training Assessment Officer for a major Driving School (Class 4 & Driving Instructor Assessor).  On the chance that their guidelines might have changed, I stopped by the local ICBC License Office today and chatted with their Driver Examiner Supervisor about it, incidentally.  They haven't, so far as this is concerned.  So whoever you got this information from was telling you a story, I'm afraid.

 

 

So you tought & tested wrong?

So as long as you can get enough of your vehicle far enough to establish that you're 'there' - let's say, as a general guide, the front wheels past the far side of the crosswalk - then you're in the interesection and just waiting for conflicting traffic to cease.

No wonder there are so many drivers that stop on crosswalks, they are taught & tested wrong.

Your fellow ICBC instructor & blogger apparently sees it different than you & who you talked to, as well as my class 1 instructors, stopping on a crosswalk is never an acceptable driving practice.

http://drivinginstructorblog.com/q-cars-wait-intersection-left-turns/

So I guess my class 1 professional instructors & Carmen, an ICBC instructor/blogger have been telling me stories.

I'm going to continue teaching my way though, stopping on a crosswalk is never acceptable.

BC Driving Blog

How to Turn Left at Traffic Lights - BC Driving Blog

Scroll down to 5) It clearly states what this ICBC instructor teaches about 3/4 of your vehicle through the crosswalk & what I was taught by my professional Instructors and class 1 examiner.

This way your not going against the MVA and breaking the law by stopping/standing on a crosswalk.

Carmen's Blog - an excellent resource, indeed.

For sure, I hold 'young Carmen' (that's a longstanding joke between us, she refers to me as 'young Paul') in high esteem as an industry colleague and instructor; there are so many average instructors out there in this province who don't seem to do much more than teach the bare minimum skllls necessary to get through a road test.

But, as evidenced by her BC Driving Blog and all of the content - including useful illustrations - that has been put into it, she's dedicated and sincere and speaks from her experiences as a Driving Instructor in BC.  And drivers following the advice given in reference to '3/4' of the car being in the intersection are more likely to be successful on the Road Test with a Driver Examiner than drivers who almost unthinkingly follow behind the car ahead, as they queue to turn left at a traffic light.  What so often happens, is that the second driver will move into the crosswalk area behind the car ahead, then at this point the light will turn amber.  So the first driver now exits the intersection (having ensured there are no further conflicts) but the second driver, having probably not gotten far enough forward to be reconizably in the intersection, is in a conundrum!

  • If they proceed, that's a Violation of the Amber light.
  • If they reverse, they'll be in contravention of MVA Section 193.  Though what's more likely to happen is that if the DE sees the driver reaching for the shift lever, they will be commanded not to move; this is an automatic Failure, as the DE took verbal control.
  • If they do nothing, then they are indeed blocking the crosswalk, and thoroughly!  Back when I was conducting Class 5 Road Tests, you wouldn't mark it as a Violation, but as a 10-Demerit error.  I'm honestly not certain whether using the new criteria for Class 5/7 Road Tests what would apply, but I'll be in an ICBC office on Monday and will be sure to find out and report back.  I suspect that it's still only an error, as the driver is complying with the traffic light.
  • Furthermore, they will be in the highly embarassing position of having pedestrians swirling around them, probably giving them dirty looks and like that; not very good for one's self esteem or confidence during the Road Test!

Believe me, I've seen each and every one of these scenarious played out, time and again.

Something I think you may have missed, though, was in an earlier post on this topic, from our esteemed site host, where he referenced MVA Section 189 (1)(e). That beginning sentence allows for a driver - and they might be turning left or right, they might be the first or the second vehicle in the intersection, it doesn't really matter as I see it - to temporarily block that crosswalk.

What else can I add, that might be useful?  Well, I could argue that if a vehicle is 3/4 of it's length into the intersection, then it's still 1/4 of it's length in the crosswalk; if it's a Smart Car probably not much, if it's a Chevy Suburban quite a lot, and if it's a Kenworth with a 53' trailer then totally, even if the entire tractor unit is past the crosswalk!

It's also worth noticing the diagram on Page 82 of 'Tuning up for Drivers'.  That initial blue car you see - which is being used as an example of where to position for the turn - is only 1/2 in the intersection and completely blocking the crosswalk.  Not a problem though, due to the wording of Section 189; and besides, any pedestrians would be facing a 'Don't Walk' signal so the crosswalk isn't available to them.

As for commercial vehicles, such as my aforementioned Kenworth?  One has to laugh, really, at the small, and ambiguous, amount of information presented in Driving Commercial Vehicles.  If you take a look at the bottom picture on Page 49, then you'll see a purple rig supposedly in position for a left turn; but you and I know that ain't going to happen as illustrated without his dragging the trailer over any vehicles on the left, facing their red light.  Sneakily, ICBC present us with the unlikely situation that in fact there's only a motorcycle there, on the right half of the right hand lane (which is in contradiction to the Safe Riding Guide, I do believe).  To be fair, there are three brief paragraphs at the top of Page 38 with more realistic, helpful information.

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

Here's something that's a bit off topic, but it might amuse you.  The vehicle I use for Driver Training (I deal mostly with Class 4 Unrestricted) is an extended wheelbase 14-Passenger Ford Econoline Van.  On occasion, I'll go out in this with my teenage son, who is on his Class 7 L license, and let him drive just for the experience of it.  Nothing wrong with this, so long as we don't have any passengers then it's within the categories of his license, so long as we slap an 'L' on the back to comply with his license restrictions.  And I don't charge him anything, so Division 27 of the Regs doesn't apply.  He could even take his Class 7 Road Test to get his N license using this vehicle, (though somehow I think he'll prefer to use his mum's Honda when the time comes).

When he does take that Class 7 Road Test, he'll have to finish his left turns in the left lane; not because it's specified in the MVA - it isn't - but because it's how the Road Sense for Drivers guide shows it should be done, and that's what they base their testing standards on.  But if he were to decide to get his Class 4 license when he turns 19, he could use that same vehicle, making the same left turns at the same intersections, and elect to end in either lane; because Driving Commercial Vehicles is what they base that testing standard on.  Weird, eh?

Your Reading it wrong I believe.

MVA 189 (1) (e) clearly states,, " Except when necessary to avoid conflict with traffic or to comply with the law or the directions of a peace officer or traffic control device, a person must not stop, stand or park a vehicle as follows:,,, (e) on a crosswalk;

If the second vehicle is 3/4 through the crosswalk that puts them " in" the intersection & not stopping/standing on the crosswalk. I don't see how any problem or confusion can arrise, being in the intersection means you must exit the intersection when safe, even if that's on a red light,,, so why would the second vehicle have any problem? No one is ever left " blocking the crosswalk to break the law or be embarassed,,,, that's how my class 1 professional & class 1 driver examiner have trained me, and it makes much more logic to never be in the situation of blocking the crosswalk, so it makes no differance if it's a smart car or a semi, your in the intersection not stopping/standing on the crosswalk,...... I see no diagram on page 82 where a blue vehicle is only half way through, I see one on page 89, but thats an advanced green arrow.

I also see no left turning semi on page 49, but if I uderstand how your teaching your son that you can finish a left turn in either lane, that is totally wrong,,,,, just because your in a commercial vehicle, even with a trailer(s) you still must finish your turn on the inside lane. Of course you will have to cross into the other lanes so your trailer(s) don't crush the vehicle waiting to go through the other way, but you still must finish your turn in the correct lane, there is " no choice" same as turning right, the semi may have to even cut into the oncomming lanes to complete a right turn, but still must finish in the inside or curb/right lane, again there is no choice.

In the spirit of the season let's see if we can settle all this!

In no particular order:

I see no diagram on page 82 ... I also see no left turning semi on page 49

The page numbers I'm referring to are the ones on the Guides theselves, usually in green or blue on these ICBC publications.  The thing is, each electronic pdf they provide online has its own sequence that commences with the outside front cover designated '1' then the inside front cover '2' and so on, by the time you've got through the publishing credits and the list of contents (several more pages, indicated in the publication with roman numerals) by the time you get to something about 'Using This Guide' or 'Introduction' you'll be several pdf pages into the thing before reaching the page with a '1' at the bottom corner.  Thus, the diagram with the blue vehicles is the 89th page of the pdf, which has the number '82' at the bottom left corner.  In a classroom situation, where everybody had the printed copy, and the teacher asked them all to turn to page 82, that's where they all would open their books.

Then, everybody would be on the same page (I'm sorry, I just had to do that ... )

 I see no diagram on page 82 where a blue vehicle is only half way through, I see one on page 89, but thats an advanced green arrow.

Please look again at that diagram.  We're on Session 14 of the Tuning Up guide that's dealing in a general manner with left turns in traffic (basic information on left turns will have been found in Session 5, while more exact information should be included in the 'Learn to Drive Smart' guide that has been read, and at least 80% understood, for the 'L' driver to have got this far).

I realize that above it is some script about 'Advance Green Arrow' and three recommendations about that subject.  But the advance green arrow situation is not what is being depicted.

Both of the northbound traffic signals are solid green.  Both of the southbound traffic signals are solid green.  The two blue cars intending to turn left, as well as the oncoming white car that is proceedng sraight - in potential conflict - are all facing solid green lights.

This is why the adjacent information in the grey box advises 'When turning left on a green light, wait unil there's a safe gap in the oncoming traffic'.  With a depiction of a driver waiting, legally and acceptably, although he is not only being on the crosswalk, but blocking it completely.

With regard to MVA Section 189, permit me to make an analogy.  Let's suppose that tomorrow, when you're driving along, you find yourself arriving at an intersection; and right there on the right corner, there's a fire hydrant.  But gosh darn it, there's also a Stop Sign or perhaps a Traffic Signal showing a solid red light. Either one of these is, obviously, a traffic control device. So, being a good, safe, law-abiding driver, you stop.  Now, out of nowhere, a cop shows up and writes you a traffic ticket under MVA Section 189 (1)(d).  Perhaps said cop points out the adjacent fire hydrant, which is clearly within 5 metres of your vehicle, and yet there you are, stationary.  Stopped, that is.

What are you going to do?  Accept that you erred in stopping there, along with the consequently well-deserved ticket?  Or avoid this egregious error by simply continuing through the intersection without stopping, regardless of the fact that you were required to do so, in accordance with the Stop Sign or Red Traffic Light facing you?

OR, would you kindly point out to the cop, or maybe later to the judge in a court of law, that said section of the MVA is clearly written to ALLOW you to stop in this situation, despite your close proximity to that there fire hydrant?  In other words, eliminating all the unnecessary legal verbiage, and reducing it to this essential: 

189  (1) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with the law, or traffic control device, a person must not stop within 5 m of a fire hydrant.

I suspect that this would be your argument, in order to avoid ticket, penalty, or accident; let me know if you don't agree, though, but please be clear on why not.

But if we are on the same page vis a vis the fire hydrant thing then you also have to accept and acknowledge that, regardless of whether you're the first, second, or whatever car intending to make that turn we've been talking about, then that same caveat must also apply to stopping on a crosswalk.  Or within 6 metres of the entrance to a dance hall, for that matter (I've always liked that one, probably got written in the 1930s or something).

No one is ever left " blocking the crosswalk to break the law or be embarassed.

Now hold it a moment, you have to look at the context.  I was clearly referring to a situation that does not apply to a driver who has decidedly 'entered the intersection', by whatever measure you choose to define this entering thing (which is where you originally disagreed with me).  My basic contention was that about 1/3 of the vehicle being past the second crosswalk line was sufficient, while yours was 3/4 of the vehicle.  Either way, let's face it, a portion of the vehicle will remain 'on the crosswalk', yeah?  Heck, in the case of the an extended wheelbase Chevy Suburban, 1.4 metres or the 3.0 metre wide crosswalk will be in the shadow of this behemoth (these are real numbers, not theoretical, so look 'em up if you want to disagree).

But when all is said and done:

There are no special rules regarding this in the Motor Vehicle Act about first car vs second car (unless you can show me otherwise).

There are no special rules regarding this in the ICBC Assessment Procedures about first car vs second car (unless you can show me otherwise).

There are no special rules regarding this in terms of left turns or right turns (unless you can show me otherwise) - whether we're referring to the MVA or the ICBC testing criteria.

If your ICBC supervisor doesn't agree, they are simply wrong and should educate themselves correctly, but I guess we will find out Monday:-)

Well there are at least a couple of different issues we haven't agreed on so far, but please don't use terms like 'your ICBC supervisor' because I don't own one and I certainly don't work for ICBC these days.  The fellow I spoke with the other day was Dimas in North Vancouver.  The fellow I spoke with today was Peter in Point Grey.  I'm certain however that Jeannie in Richmond, or any of the other highly trained, vastly experienced, and inarguably well-qualified DE Examiner Supervisors in the numerous ICBC license offices would provide the same information on these issues, otherwise they wouldn't hold their positions and job descriptions.

I had mentioned previously that when I used to conduct Class 4 & 5 Road Tests, blocking a crosswalk (where the driver ends up on the crosswalk, to some extent, only not actually in the intersection) then the result would be a 10 demerit error on the Results sheet.  Within the same general context, 'Too far ahead/Too far back' would be a 5 demerit error.  I'm pleased to have it confirmed that my memory isn't failing me, so far.

I'm also pleased to be able to provide this update.  Both Class 7/8 & Class 5/6 Road Tests these days are using the more modern 'Global Skills' testing criteria (rather than the Demerits criteria).  I'll be providing more information on this whole issue about testing procedures in a separate topic on this site early in the new year, so let's not get sidetracked by this.

The mistake (of stopping in, or on, a crosswalk) would, these days, would be marked under the 'B' category referred to as 'Space Margin', under #10 - 'Stop Position'.  The resulting mark on the test sheet (think of this as demerits, only it's a bit more complex than that) would be either a B5 or a B10 checkmark, this depending on whether or not pedestrians were blocked as a consequence.

Meanwhile, we have the quite recently introduced 'Driver Re-Examination Class 5 Road Test', which is Demerits-based.  This, also, would assign 5 demerits under the Road Position sub-category of 'Stop Position - Too Close/Too Far'.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

OK, that's enough for this particular comment, it's a lot to digest.  I'm really hoping that Carmen from the BC Driving Blog will be able to provide her insight on the aforementioned issues.

But I will of course follow up on the lane choice/obligation issue shortly, and as cogently and completely as I can.  If anybody wants something interesting to read in the meanwhile, may I recommend MVA Section 165, and what it actually has to say about which lane - or is it road position - one should turn into?

You proved yourself wrong.

And here I thought I was clear, lol:-) Like I said ICBC examiners judge you on your drivers exam for breaking the law, MVA189, otherwise why is there demerits? If it was correct to do so why would there be consequenses? I do find it odd that if pedestrians show up somehow "Wrong" becomes worse, wrong is just wrong and never putting yourself into that position in the first place is the "professional" way to operate a motor vehicle.

You also miss the point that if your 3/4 through the crosswalk you are now established in the intersection and must exit when it is safe, you will not be left stopping/standing on a crosswalk, therefore no marks on your road test, so the correct procedure.

So as you see teaching your students to stop on a crosswalk with only their front tires over is just plain wrong and why it's against the law.

You found you were teaching your son wrong as well then, MVA 165 clearly states where you must finish your turns, right or left, and you notice there is no seperate laws for commercial vehicles or choices, all motor vehicles must follow the law.

Oh no, I didn't. But, you need to read. And understand. (lol)

Like I said ICBC examiners judge you on your drivers exam for breaking the law, MVA189, otherwise why is there demerits?

Simple.  Because whether or not you break the law is only part of the marking criteria.

Here is a list of 'Reasons for road test disqualification' for your edification:

  • Demerits
  • Dangerous Action
  • Traffic Violation
  • Unable to Perform Manoeuvre
  • Colliding with another Vehicle or Object
  • Inability to Operate Equipment
  • Discontinued Test

I have already explained - thoroughly and at length, with links to pertinent information, the answers to your other question if you would but take the time to read them; including why there is no precise definition, either in the MVA or in the ICBC criteria, for how much of the vehicle needs to past the inner crosswalk line in order to be considered 'in the intersection'.

I can tell you that, as a Professional Driving Instructor these last 28 years, I have been able to enjoy a very high 'Pass' rate for my students when they have taken their Road Tests.  So maybe, just maybe, I know what I'm talking about?  Incidentally, as I know you like that word 'PROFESSIONAL' so much, I'm pleased to also tell you that I've held a Professional Driver License of some category now for 42 years.  I remain to this day a Professional driver, not only holding a Class 1 Driver License, but in the practical sense of earning my living as a contract driver, transportation provider, and instructor to this day.

 

Section 165, and like that ...

In regard to this ...

I uderstand how your teaching your son that you can finish a left turn in either lane, that is totally wrong,,,,, just because your in a commercial vehicle, even with a trailer(s) you still must finish your turn on the inside lane. Of course you will have to cross into the other lanes so your trailer(s) don't crush the vehicle waiting to go through the other way, but you still must finish your turn in the correct lane, there is " no choice" same as turning right, the semi may have to even cut into the oncomming lanes to complete a right turn, but still must finish in the inside or curb/right lane, again there is no choice.

... I think I can clarify things for you, quite a lot in fact.

So as to avoid repeating myself from another thread on this site, I'll refer you to 'Left Turns into the Correct Lane'.  I'm pretty certain that covers things, vis a vis 'correct' lane use.  Please, take the time to read all of it, including the various links.

I must admit, I can be verbose at times, but sometimes that seems necessary.  However, this contribution in the thread I just referenced is succinct and worth reading, so I'll copy/paste right here:

Turning into the left lane, Sec 165 Sorry but.....

If you care to read Sec 165 It does not tell us that we have to complete a left turn by entering the left most lane next to the centre line.

The portion of Sec 165 that discusses this, is subsection (2)(c) which states : after entering the intersection, turn the vehicle to the left so that it leaves the intersection to the right of the maked centre line of the roadway being entered, or if there is a maked centre line then to the right of the centre line of the roadway being entered,

"Right" of centre is anyway to the right of centre.  The second lane or whatever.  Yes, good practice dictates that we turn left into the left most lane and then if we want to move to the right signal and do so when safe, but the MVA does not mandate that we turn into the left most lane.

Having (hopefully) dealt with the MVA Section 165 aspect of things, let's see what ICBC have to provide us with in regard to their Commercial Vehicle Road Test procedures, and this is much more precise.  I'm referring to the 'Commercial Vehicle Assessment Procedures Manual', provided for assessment officers.  Be aware that the standards that must be applied for ICBC Road Tests are identical to the standards that must be applied by a Certification Facility (see Section 3 for further explanation).

Go to Page 67, under the Left Turn category.  In the third of the four sections, take a look at the definition of 'Ends in Wrong Lane'. Read the Criteria, but more importantly, read the accompanying Notes.  See where it says 'When turning left, C1 - 4 may end in any available lane including the furthest right hand lane'.

Well, that's pretty straightforward.  And although the examination/assessment procedures may not use the same language (or lack of it) found in the Motor Vehicle Act, they obviously cannot contradict them.

And if you've been finishing all of your left turns in the inside/leftmost lane for all of these years - (or teaching others that this is how it should be done), even when intending a right turn shortly afterwards, then this must be a huge relief to you.  After all, trying to then manage a bunch of lane changes to the right in a short distance can be pretty challenging; particularly if you never had to go through that silliness in the first place!

I rest my case.  Please don't try to contradict or argue with me any further, without reference to solid facts.  Telling me I'm 'wrong' just doesn't cut it, no matter what some other instructor or examiner may have said to you.

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

Some readers may be wondering about Training Assessment Officers, and Commercial Vehicle Assessments.

To the best of my knowledge, while accredited Driver Training Schools were for some years permitted to fulfil this role for Class 1, 2, 3 & 4 Road Tests as well as Airbrake Pre-Trips, this authorization was rescinded several years ago, with the sole exception of Airbrake and Driving Instructor certification.

Certain entities/corporations - I'm searching for the right word, here - have for many years held this type of accreditation.  I think it's fair to say that these will be organizations that already provide extensive and thorough training, to a very high standard, to prospective employees that goes above and beyond the necessary criteria to hold the necessary class of license.  Think in terms of the City of Vancouver, Coast Mountain Bus, or Telus, and you'll get the picture.

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

As for myself, I may actually be unique in terms of experience and qualification, as I have been trained and employed by ICBC as a Driver Examiner under temporary conract, certified as a Training Assessment Officer for Class 4 and Driving Instructor qualification, and also by the OSMV (now RoadSafeBC) as a Driver Evaluator, this in the role of being a DriveABLE Examiner, and as a Community Therapists evaluation expert.

It is in the MVA

I forgot to add, turning at intersections is in the MVA, check 165, and as a commercial driver you still must follow the law, there is no exemption because your a bigger vehicle. Being aware of how your rear wheels follow is key to how far you must manover, but that's the only difference.

If your ICBC supervisor doesn't agree, they are simply wrong and should educate themselves correctly, but I guess we will find out Monday:-)

Gosh

By the time I got to the end of reading all of this I forgot what we were fighting about. ;) 

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Just because I published it online on my own website doesn't necessarily mean I know what I am talking about.

Those are just my thoughts/opinions/interpretations/personal understanding of certain things which do seem to be vague or 'grey areas' in certain cases like this one; but things that may have worked for me when I was teaching.

It doesn't mean that ICBC agrees with this particular wording. It may just mean that it made sense to the drivers I was teaching to the point that they were able to turn left safely and legally and/or succeed on the road test. For sure, it was a 'story' that I told.

The 3/4 thing that I described in that article was based on a recommendation of a mentor of mine when I was learning how to become a better teacher, as  a simple way to explain to a new driver this situation and potentially how to deal with it correctly in a way that made sense to them, in English. You can not talk to a young and new driver by quoting the motor vehicle act language. They will look at you like you are talking in a foreign language and/or will fall asleep.

Teaching driving is an art form that requires the instructor to take all of that sometimes confusing legalese and transform it into a simple but concrete concept that can be understood, applied and practiced often by young people; and you have to get creative with that. If you want to actually make it enjoyable on top of that, it will require something more.

So this particular 'translation' took into account the size of the vehicle used for training (a small one), as well as the particular design and width and general size of the average intersection that we used at our location, that was typically encountered when training drivers who had never turned left at a light  before. It's not meant as a bible.

I will update the article and website to include a better disclaimer. I would not be surprised if some information on there is downright wrong. I do personally believe that it is still better to have a website with mostly correct info that might help people, rather than not having it at all.

But I did feel I had gained a lot of knowledge that I could share in the form of a website, since it was the 2012's and all, after teaching driving lessons for a few years and wanted to create this resource that people might find helpful. And It may not seem like it, but I do put forth a lot of effort to ensure I am not 'fibbing.'

This is one of the reasons why I wanted to start my blog. I found that searching for these concepts and answers straight from ICBC could be a little difficult or even non-existent, or there was no diagram. Or things were vague. The information was there, but the answer to the qusetion wasn't. I wanted to make something that had plain language in it, that anyone can look at particular topics if they are new, or experienced and wanting to brush up. And find a rather simple answer.

Didn't mean to cause such a stir. What I think about this matter is that if it's this complicated and difficult to agree, why can't ICBC just come out and tell us? Obviously people do care and people do wonder about what they are supposed to be doing while driving; (my little website has had more than 1,600,000 page views in the last 1 year) why is it so difficult to get a black/white, yes/no answer from one of the only places we are supposed to be trusting to offer us guidance? 

Can we put 2 damn cars in the intersection or can't we?

Do we need to bring our measuring stick into the intersection with us or don't we?

I didn't know we were arguing.

I guess you didn't read what I posted, of course I don't believe everything I read on the internet, I was using it as an example because that's what my professional instructors & examiners have taught me, not beginner class 7 or 5 instructors or examiners. If your the second vehicle and can get at least 3/4 of your vehicle into the intersection, your established into the intersection and not considered stopped/standing on a crosswalk and can proceed even on a red light. If you do it "young Pauls" way and only have your front tires over the crosswalk, you can't proceed on a yellow or red light and will be breaking the law by stopping/standing on a crosswalk as you can't back up either, very logical,,, correct. No measuring tape needed:-)

I thought your blog was well thought out and correct, if I thought it was wrong I would not use it, and you didn't cause a stir I'm simply pointing out what professionals have taught me and now what I teach to professionals, I have driven over 5 million kms crash & ticket free, so if I have been driving wrong for 39 years by never putting myself in the position of stopping/standing on a crosswalk, I guess I will continue to drive & teach class 1 professional licence holders that anyways as it's not against the law, unless it can be proven otherwise.

Good luck with that!

Can we put 2 damn cars in the intersection or can't we?

Do we need to bring our measuring stick into the intersection with us or don't we?

You know what ICBC would say?  'How big is the intersection?'  Turning left from West 17th Street into Chesterfield, while waiting for oncoming traffic to go away, a driver will be lucky to get even half of his car into the intersection (the other half remaining on the crosswalk) in order to complete the turn left of the centrepoint of the intersection.

That same driver, southbound on Bewicke Avenue turning east into West 3rd Street, could find herself one of a queue, all legally waiting.  Think in terms of a 24 passenger bus, a smart car, a Chevy Suburban, and some chap on a unicycle.  Wanna write the ICBC Examination rules for this, lol?

Measuring stick won't help, it's up to the DE to determine whether the driver has sufficiently occupied the intersection (to whatever degree) or failed to enter it at all, even though they may have foolishly followed those ahead and found themselves stranded in the crosswalk.

 

 

Keep teaching wrong

I will stick to the correct procedures & the safest way to drive, it has served me well with zero crashes or tickets. Comercial vehicles must stay in the correct lane after turning right or left, and that is how they are tested, ICBC is in error and going against the law if they allow multiple lane changes with no signals, very dangerous mistake and have fun getting tickets, even in the states it's the law & the way commercial drivers are tested, so you may want to tell your students to expect to recive tickets for incorrect turns, not finishing in the correct lane, my students have no worries:-) This clearly states what I have passed on about 20 lines down from the top, "must finish turn in correct lane" http://www.drivingrules.net/cdl/CDLDrivetest/drivetest1.htm

You may warn them to stay out of Alberta as well, turning left must finish in left or right of center, 26 (c) of the traffic safety act http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2002_304.pdf

I could keep going, but you seem bent on your beliefs rather than the facts, "who's at fault" when you run over a right turning vehicle on a multi lane intersection wide left turn that you teach? Can you just crush them even though your changing lanes with no signal, that vehicle that stopped at the red light before turning right, that now finds you or your students barreling across all the lanes all at once to crush them against the curb even though they turned right into their right lane after stopping first?

 

Thank you for the links

Unfortunately, the Florida based information is irrelevant to this discussion, and the 13-year old Alberta pdf also; when I have more time, I'll try to find updated info from that jurisdiction, though.  The fact remains, though, that the wording of Section 26(c) of their traffic safety act says 'as closely as practicable' so if the tractor unit needed to go one or two lanes deep in order to get the trailer wheels around the corner without hitting the median or whatever, then the turn has been completed legally, just like here in BC, without any necessity to bring the unit all the way back across to the leftmost lane at the completion of the turn.

Meanwhile, you've already acknowledged that a large commercial vehicle may need to occupy several - including oncoming - lanes in order to make a turn, regardless of where they finish the maneuver.

So, in regard to 'Yielding on Left Turns' - this being the topic in this thread?  Don't worry about all that barreling, and crushing, and so on.  That's all covered under MVA Section 174.

And you have a class 1?,, WOW, amazing!

Did you buy it or have a friend give it to you, you certainly never passed a road exam! How can you have no clue how to drive correctly? If you tought anyone I knew I would demand a refund due to total incompatence. You don't even understand driving laws correctly, amazing.

Total BS!,,,,  your 100% False comment,I said NO SUCH THING,,,,,,,, " Meanwhile, you've already acknowledged that a large commercial vehicle may need to occupy several - including oncoming - lanes in order to make a turn, regardless of where they finish the maneuver."

You not only can't read & understand laws correctly, you can't read & understand my posts correctly,,, here I will copy & paste my comment,,,, try reading and understanding this time,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, " but if I uderstand how your teaching your son that you can finish a left turn in either lane, that is totally wrong,,,,, just because your in a commercial vehicle, even with a trailer(s) you still must finish your turn on the inside lane. Of course you will have to cross into the other lanes so your trailer(s) don't crush the vehicle waiting to go through the other way, but you still must finish your turn in the correct lane, there is " no choice" same as turning right, the semi may have to even cut into the oncomming lanes to complete a right turn, but still must finish in the inside or curb/right lane, again there is no choice."

Very clear wording and can't be mistaken for your FALSE comment.

Your also totally wrong again, MVA section 174 has ZERO to do with a multi lane intersection, that is for a single lane intersection. ( nice try) Here again seeing as you can't read & understand, I will copy & paste my comment again, so it's very clear,,,,,,,,,,,, " I could keep going, but you seem bent on your beliefs rather than the facts, "who's at fault" when you run over a right turning vehicle on a multi lane intersection wide left turn that you teach? Can you just crush them even though your changing lanes with no signal, that vehicle that stopped at the red light before turning right, that now finds you or your students barreling across all the lanes all at once to crush them against the curb even though they turned right into their right lane after stopping first?"

Are you actuall an instructor or are you just an INTERNET TROLL? Or are you mad at the world because your close to retirement with a 16 year old son?

Whoa!

I'm going to jump in here with a comment. Class 1 Driver's statement of:

Your also totally wrong again, MVA section 174 has ZERO to do with a multi lane intersection, that is for a single lane intersection.

is not correct. Section 174 applies to every situation that fits the definition of intersection:

"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;

One lane, two lanes, three lanes wide each way, it doesn't matter, they are all part of an intersection.

OK Yes, correct.

But not in the context we were speaking, we were talking a multi lane left turn, I will clairify, I totally worded that wrong for what I was meaning

On a multi lane intersection if a semi turns left and rather than finish it's turn in it's proper lane, the vehicle that stopped before turning right gave right of way to the left turning semi before turning right itself, then all of a sudden the semi changes lanes to the right with no signal and just choosing to now finish it's turn in the right lane instead of the left " correct" lane and crush the vehicle against the curb or in it's right lane, would that not be the fault of the semi for an incorrect lane change? I know if I was driving and turned left into the incorrect lane, I would take full fault for the crash as I should have finished my left turn in the left lane and then moved right when safe to do so. Or am I incorrect?

I took it as him trying to twist what I said again as he just did with his previous comment, I don't like being called a liar,,,,, Thanks for correcting me:-)

Trolls Rn't Us, eh?

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here, or something.  I mean, obviously, you and I are not in agreement as to which lane a driver is obligated to complete a left turn in; that's been the essence of our discord all along here in the latter part of this Thread.  But it's inarguable that, right turn or left turn, a Class 1 Semi-Trailer unit is going to need a bunch more real estate than a Honda Civic to get the turn made; on multi lane streets, that requires the use of several lanes, OK?  You know it, I know it, etc.

So I don't think there's any fundamental difference of opinon - never mind stuff like "Total BS ... 100% False Comment ... NO SUCH THING" and so on. I certainly didn't call you a liar, by any stretch of the imagination.  Our disagreement is whether or not a left turn must be completed in the leftmost lane, are we OK on this so far?

With regard to right turns, incidentally, Section 165(1) is no more specific about the lane you're required to end in than it is about left turns, regardless of what you're driving.  But it's commonly acknowledged that this can be interpreted as finishing in the right lane.  For sure that's how it is for the 4-wheelers, and I have no problem achieving the maneuver that way in Class 4 vehicles.  But even in this situation, applying logic in the absence of specific lane law, the criteria for testing (see previous link, Page 66, Right Turns, 2nd item) Notes read that the vehicle must end in the first available lane when the turn is completed, unless driver will be making a left turn at the next intersection.  Which only makes sense, when you think about it.  From a legal point of view, 'making the turn as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of roadway' has been accomplished - and it would be pointless to expect the driver of something like a tour bus, or one of those twin-steer concrete mixers, or a semi, to bring the front end of the vehicle all the way back to the right hand lane if they're just going to next change lanes to the left in preparation for the following maneuver.

On a multi lane intersection if a semi turns left and rather than finish it's turn in it's proper lane, the vehicle that stopped before turning right gave right of way to the left turning semi before turning right itself, then all of a sudden the semi changes lanes to the right with no signal and just choosing to now finish it's turn in the right lane instead of the left " correct" lane and crush the vehicle against the curb or in it's right lane, would that not be the fault of the semi for an incorrect lane change?

This is kind of a complicated question, but I'll give it a whirl!  If that facing vehicle, making a right turn into the same road that the truck driver was turning left into, did not stop, and the two of them collided, blame would definitely rest with the left turning truck driver, as per Section 174 that I referenced earlier.

But, if that facing vehicle did indeed stop, then they have indeed given right-of-way to, well, everybody!  I believe the most fundamental right-of-way rule must be Section 169.  If a driver stops moving, and then commences to move - and that action results in a collision - it's his fault, plain and simple.

Meanwhile, addressing the second part of your question, we return to the whole conundrum, legality, and rationale of whether the driver of the semi was ever obligated to finish his turn in the leftmost lane in the first place.  If he simply takes the tractor unit deep into the intersection (having of course obeyed Section 174) and turns the tractor unit into the second or even third lane of the other highway - without ever bringing the front end of the unit back across the lanes to finish the manuevre, somewhat pointlessly, in the leftmost lane - then the question of lane changes is irrelevant as he hasn't made any; he has simply selected a deeper lane to turn into in order to remain within the law, while accomplishing the practical task of getting the whole thing through the turn.

However, if he instead insists on finishing the manuever by steering the tractor unit (or front end of a tour bus, whatever) into the leftmost lane, Section 151 comes into effect; And this means that any consequent collision (perhaps with that nice right-turning guy who previously stopped to give him the room to get through the turn, who would probably by now be moving along in an adjacent lane, and probably accelerating more briskly) would place the truck driver at fault, clear and simple.

I previously referenced another Thread on this site, and suggested it would make good reading.  Namely, 'Left turns into Correct Lane'.  Allow me to once again quote a portion of what I said there:

Many – probably the majority – of drivers who complete a left turn into a multi-lane two-way road by ending up one or even two lanes wide of the ‘nearest available’ lane actually do so illegally – not because they’re obligated to take the nearest available lane, but because they tend to complete a parabolic turn that is launched incorrectly (per Outrageous’ observation about starting their turn-in too early) and end up with a lateral move across the broken white lines between the nearest and the next available lanes.  And that, my friends, is an illegal lane change per Section 151 (c) and therefore an offense that can and should be ticketed by the police when it occurs.

Another participant followed that up, succinctly and correctly, with this:

How to take an exit lane correctly when turning left.

Simple, drive deep into the intersection and excute your turn sharp enough to exit the interesection lined up perfectly with which ever of the multiple lanes you wish to take. That way it is clear which lane you have taken when exiting the intersection and no question of having made an illegal lane change as you have not cut across any lane dividing lines. If you want the curb lane from a left hand turn, drive deep and execute a right-angled turn within the intersection when your exit path is completely clear.

Exactly.  And it doesn't really matter whether you're driving a Smart Car (unless you're on your Class5/7 type Road Test) or a 53 footer.

I'm still looking for more thorough information regarding Florida, Alberta, etc rule 'n regs, will let you know what I've managed to discover in a subsequent post.

Did you buy it or have a friend give it to you, you certainly never passed a road exam! How can you have no clue how to drive correctly? If you tought anyone I knew I would demand a refund due to total incompatence. You don't even understand driving laws correctly, amazing. totally wrong,,,,, Are you actuall an instructor or are you just an INTERNET TROLL? 

You know, I'm a pretty mellow guy, But I have my limits.  I've already stated my credentials, and they're easy enough to verify.

To begin with, why don't you click on this list of accredited Driver Training Schools on the ICBC Website?   See if you find my company name amongst the listings; it's an alphabetical listing, so easiest for you to search under Lower Mainland (North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond etc) or up the Sea-to-Sky corridor (Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton).  Please expect that others reading this Thread may do this, to satisfy their own curiosity.

After that, you might want to phone the ICBC Driver Training Unit in Victoria, here's their toll free number, I have it memorized: 1.866.339.0363 this won't take you a moment or cost you anything.  Best person to talk to there is probably Jill Apsey as she's pretty senior and has known me for a very long time; for sure you'll be able to determine (if you're not already convinced) that my company is real, and that I indeed hold a valid Class 4/5/7 Instructor License as I have previously stated, and their website indicates.  Also, please ask whether I hold a Class 1 Driver License, yes or no; you'll need to phrase this carefully as all ICBC personnel must be extremely careful about releasing any kind of confidential information about anything.

If you were, alternatively, to call the North Vancouver Driver Examiner Supervisor - name of Dimas, I mentioned that before - well, that fellow has known me for an awful long time, and would surely be able to verify my credentials.  I'm not allowed to provide you with his direct phone number, but calling 604.661.2255 and asking to be connected to that office will get you there.

I've also claimed that I'm still currently, professionally, employed in a professional capacity in the Transportation business.  To verify that, I would encourage you to go the Passenger Transportation Authority website, and see whether in fact I hold license number PT71946.  I'll save you the time of bashing around looking for this, you'll find me there under my surname, which is Hodgson.

But after you've done this, I expect you to man up and submit a complete and unreserved apology from you for publicly doubting my veracity and qualifications.

As for the remarks about my family and general life situation, I'll treat them with the contempt they deserve, except to mention that indeed, with my 61st birthday approaching in a couple of weeks, I could have retired by now (the mortgage is paid off!) - but I thoroughly enjoy teaching (which I'm very good at, despite what you may choose to think), and providing my considerable expertise about driving issues; in this, I have a lot in common with the ex-RCMP Traffic officer who runs this site.  We don't necessarily agree on everything, Tim and I, but we certainly share a mutual respect and interest.

 

You certainly did.

Not only calling me a liar but totally making up false comments that I never said, I will copy & paste again,,,,,, "your 100% False comment,I said NO SUCH THING,,,,,,,, " Meanwhile, you've already acknowledged that a large commercial vehicle may need to occupy several - including oncoming - lanes in order to make a turn, regardless of where they finish the maneuver.",,,,,,,, I clearly stated otherwise.

You are still wrong, when making a left turn at a multi lane intersection in a commercial vehicle, ( any vehicle for that matter) you must finish your turn in the left lane, that is the law in every province in Canada I have driven as well as every state in the USA I have driven, and no where have I had any problem following that law, then safely moving right after completing my turn. And of course with the off track you need to cut across other lanes to complete the turn safely, but you still must finish your turn(s) ( right or left) in the "correct lane"

Of course I find it hard to believe you have a class 1, you keep making your own law up, how did you pass a road test? Left & right turns are part of the road exam, and the examiner looks for if you finish your turns in the correct lane..... And that PDF from Alberta is revised to 2014 if you look, no where near 13 years old. But have at it, phone Cameron Driving school, they are about the biggest, or a scale and ask a DOT officer, commercial vehicles are not exempt from the law.

And treat my comment with contempt, that's as it was intended after calling me a liar, what I'm supposed to be pleasant after that? Does knowing Tim give you a right to call me a liar, I think not, I have no problem being honestly incorrect, but don't change what I have said to something false that you make up out of thin air, that's exactly what internet trolls do, what do you expect?

So lets recap

I don't know the name of your company, but I would like it as to make sure no one I know goes there to be taught dangerous driving practices like stopping/standing on crosswalks, leaving pedestrians, wheelchairs & blind with their seeing eye dogs to be forced to go around your vehicle, maybe passing in front to be struck by cross traffic, something I am very clear about never to do for that exact reason, not due to embarrassment.

Secondly being taught to break the law when turning a vehicle at an intersection, your link even states 10 points for finishing in "Wrong Lane" that is because you must finish the turn in the "Correct Lane" Why ICBC goes against the law on a road test after 10 points are added if you end the turn in anything but the correct lane I will phone and see if I can get this rediqulous stipulation ICBC has added, contrary to the law, (unless your making left turn at the next intersection) taken off, why does ICBC figure they can pass a driver that is breaking the law everywhere they drive after obtaining a licence is insane.

Manitoba professional drivers manual has the best and most clear diagrams to back up how turns are to be completed in the "Correct Lane" by class 1 drivers in semi's. Pages 61 to 68 http://www.mpi.mb.ca/en/PDFs/ProfDriverHBookComp.pdf ,,, Like I have said all along,there is "No Choice" But please check with Alberta and the states as well, You must finish your turns (right or left) in the correct lane & then when safe start to change lanes when safe to do so.

That's not to be disrespecful, just honest, being as safe as possible and following laws to me is most important, not doing things that in my opinion "make sense" or "seem logical".

Say what?

I don't know the name of your company

You're joking, right?

 

Did I stutter?

Why would I be joking? Am I supposed to have ESP? Or is this your way of changing topics after calling me a liar and ignoring links that show the correct lane positioning after turns, and yes, even in a semi, it even shows the 3 methods to allow you to finish in the correct lane and conform with the law.

Am I too late to throw my hat

Am I too late to throw my hat into this ring?

Help Yourself!

Until the thread is closed, anyone is welcome to post. I haven't closed a thread yet...

Hiding in plain sight, etc.

A word of warning to one and all; I feel compelled to respond to various previous contributions, and although it would make more sense to respond to various points separately, I wouldn't want anybody to feel that I was trying to change topics, or failing to answer whatever they may have said.  So this could take quite a while; feel free to take an intermission, bang your head against the wall, or whatever works, I'll understand, eh?

A key reason that I enjoy forums such as this, is that often and almost serendipitously I find myself learning something new, even though I may have jumped in simply because I figured I had something useful to impart to others.  This thread has been no exception.

This is what I've been able to determine on the subject of driving in other north american jurisdictions; we sure aren't all playing by the same rulebook(s).  And it's not just things like metric or imperial measurements for everything from vehicle weights to speed limits to the colour of school zone signs.  And perhaps we should define 'rulebooks'.  It's fair to say that there will be some kind of massive legal tome that will specify what you must, or must not do, to comply with the law(s). In this province, the BC Motor Vehicle Act and Regulations pursuant to the MVA would be the reference.  If we all had to read, and understand, one of these, in order to obtain a Driver License then most of us wouldn't bother; it's easier to buy a horse.  But even if you did manage to assimilate the morass of information, then this would surely only be sufficient to obtain a Learner License or Permit - after all, at this stage of the game you wouldn't have actually driven a vehicle (legally) and you certainly wouldn't have demonstrated to anyone in authority that you could actually do so.  And don't think for a moment that laws are complete or completed; in fact, they are frequently updated (probably not as often as they should be), and frequently require the interpretation of a learned judge - that's why there are frequently new Case Law items on this very website.

So the natural response, in order for government - at whatever level of jurisdiction - is to provide some kind of simple Guide to Driving.  Maybe more than one; a BC example would be the Learn to Drive Smart guide aimed at new drivers in BC, the Learn to Ride Smart guide aimed at new motorcyclists in BC, and of course the Driving Commercial Vehicles guide.  At one time, there used to be an Airbrake Manual that you had to actually pay $2.00 for, but that one was assimilated into the Driving Commercial Vehicles guide so now, all of this information is available free in either hard copy (like, a book) from your local ICBC office, or online via pdf or whatever.

Over the years, I've been in the habit of collecting these guides, from various eras and jurisdictions (I should get a life, eh?), just because I find it interesting and informative.  And it's fascinating to see how, even in this province, they have developed from the 1952 'Motor-vehicle Driver's Manual' (which has some great diagrams of everything from Hand & Arm Signals to Correcting Skids to Parking on Hills.  But they don't even attempt to provide a diagram on Turns; at least they provide the sage advice that 'Left-hand turns in traffic are dangerous and should be avoided as much as possible.') to the most recent ones already mentioned.  But if you ever want to know how to be a successful pedestrian in Hong Kong, or survive night driving in Saskatchewan, or even how to navigate the Swindon Magic Roundabout, let me know, I can provide the official guide!

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

So I've been chasing information from previous links provided by Class 1 Driver in this thread.  Not sure why I got the idea that the CDL link was particularly Florida based - it isn't.  It's just sort of an 'online university' type website put out there to draw visitors, and provide general generic guidelines on how they perceive the Driver Examiner will judge them on some US Commercial Driver Test.  Not a teaching guide for driving, certainly not a Motor Vehicle Law source, just someone's idea of what they believe the testing criteria might be.

I did try to discover a 'Florida Motor Vehicle Law' type internet source, but without success (is that stuff all under Federal Governance in the US?).  Even the Florida DMV Website - despite numerous links - can't provide a source, and their related information on how to turn left in a Commercial Vehicle only goes so far as to advise that when there are twin left turn lanes, it's a real good idea to use the right hand one.

So, it's time we were Alberta bound.  

You may warn them to stay out of Alberta as well, turning left must finish in left or right of center, 26 (c) of the traffic safety acthttp://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2002_304.pdf

 I can't argue.  If we were discussing traffic law in Alberta, you would be right and I would be wrong.  I think.  Not trying to be difficult here, but I still see room for interpretation.  I'm still not arguing, I'm asking.  Bear with me.

Left turns 26(1) For the purpose of making a left turn with a vehicle from a 2-way highway onto another 2-way highway, the person driving the vehicle shall, unless a traffic control device otherwise directs or permits, (a) drive the vehicle to the right side of and as closely as practicable to the centre line of the highway while approaching the intersection, (b) turn the vehicle to the left at the intersection, and (c) leave the intersection on completing the turn by driving the vehicle to the right side of and as closely as practicable to the centre line of the highway then entered.

What would a judge determine, in regard to completing the turn as described (and assuming that some zealous police officer had given the driver a ticket that was subsequently disputed in court)?  That, being as the tractor unit is already two or even three lanes deep into the road the driver has turned into, it should still be steered all the way over to the leftmost lane?  Or that, as the vehicle was indeed turned as closely as practicable once the trailer wheels cleared the median, the practicable thing to do was continue from this point in the same lane it had ended up in? Or, that because every left turn in Alberta - by any vehicle - must be completed as close as possible to the right of the centre line, so the driver was obligated to go all the way back into that lane with his whole unit before making any other maneuver, even though he probably has no good reason to do so?

On to Manitoba.  I've held Driver Licenses in all three of the Provinces we've mentioned here (as well as Ontario) but this is the only other one where I've held a Class 1.  Doesn't mean anything, mind you; in the 70s all you had to do was pay an extra buck at the license office, and voila you were were a truck driver!   Fortunately, I'd acquired enough practical experience driving Class 3 units - my first job out of high school was driving a Mack concrete mixer, and I'd had the opportunity to drive Kenworth and Western Star tractor units all with different transmissions - so I managed to do a creditable job of hauling rigs when called upon between Winnipeg and Brandon, though mostly it was Cornbinder single units with 5-speed/Eaton's 2-speed axle PU/PD stuff around town for MacArthur's and Hill Security, to be honest.

Manitoba professional drivers manual has the best and most clear diagrams to back up how turns are to be completed in the "Correct Lane" by class 1 drivers in semi's. Pages 61 to 68http://www.mpi.mb.ca/en/PDFs/ProfDriverHBookComp.pdf ,,, Like I have said all along,there is "No Choice" But please check with Alberta and the states as well, You must finish your turns (right or left) in the correct lane & then when safe start to change lanes when safe to do so.

No argument on the 'best and most clear diagrams' on how to complete left turns by Class 1 drivers in semi's, if the goal is to finish the turn in the leftmost lane. Just excellent, better than anything I've seen. Unfortunately, and I really am not trying to be combative or argumentative - and I know Class 1 Driver probably isn't going to appreciate this - but when you look at Manitoba law on this, it does not support the assertion that this is the only choice, in terms of completing a left turn in a rig.

Take a look at Section 121 of the Manitoba Statutes.  I think I can paste it here, let's see:

Turning left

121(3)      Where a driver intends to turn left at an intersection where traffic is permitted to move in both directions on each roadway entering the intersection, he shall

(a) approach the intersection in the part of the roadway to the right of the directional dividing line thereof that is nearest to the directional dividing line, and on a laned roadway, in the extreme left-hand lane available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle he is driving;

(b) keep to the right of the directional dividing line at the place where it enters the intersection;

(c) after entering the intersection, make a left turn so as to leave the intersection at a point to the right of the directional dividing line of the highway being entered; and

(d) when practicable, make the left turn in the portion of the intersection to the left of the centre of the intersection, passing as closely as practicable thereto.

There's no way that leaving the intersection at a point to the right of the directional dividing line of the highway stipulates being as close as possible to that centre line or median, and there's no way that entering, or finishing in, the leftmost lane is stipulated.  It may be time to get those Manitoba Public Insurance guys to update their guide, as good as it is! Not that finishing in the leftmost lane is dangerous, or wrong - it just isn't necessary, by any measure.

Why would I be joking? Am I supposed to have ESP? Or is this your way of changing topics after calling me a liar and ignoring links that show the correct lane positioning after turns, and yes, even in a semi, it even shows the 3 methods to allow you to finish in the correct lane and conform with the law.

I will repeat that I haven't called anybody a liar in this thread, nor have I even stated that anybody has lied.  If anyone wishes to contradict this, then quote my exact words from this thread or remain silent, please.

This website is intended to provide practical information to drivers in BC, so let's get back to this.

The fact remains that while Section 165 of the BC MVA is as ambiguous now as it was 50 years ago, it certainly doesn't stipulate required lane completion after a turn - any turn, unless it involves a One Way Street of some kind.  And I've also presented solid information to show that the ICBC Driver Examination standards for Commercial Vehicles reflect this, so if anybody wants to tell them that they've got it wrong, then be my guest; I've already provided links and phone numbers that should help point you in the right direction.

I've also quoted Section 189 of the BC Motor Vehicle Act, and done my best to provide the ICBC criteria that are applied to Road Tests, as far as they are publicly available.

If anyone wishes to infer, from this information, that my company would advocate that drivers should block crosswalks in order to interfere with blind pedestrians in wheelchairs (with or without guide dogs) well I guess that's up to them.  But it really doesn't help anybody, and if they were to claim that those are my teaching practices, then this might well be the basis for a libel suit.  And it's very hard to hide, actually, on the internet.  Eh?

Oh yeah, the name of my company is (drumroll please) ... Competent Driving BC.  I can be emailed at competentdrivingbc@gmail.com or called at 604.401.3611

Like I said, hiding in plain sight ...  

Third & final time

Sorry TIM! I will not respond after this as I have already copied & pasted 2 times being called a liar and having my words on social media turned into something totally FALSE from what I said,,,,, being incorrect I can live with, if infact I was, but to change what I say is calling me a liar.

"I will repeat that I haven't called anybody a liar in this thread, nor have I even stated that anybody has lied.  If anyone wishes to contradict this, then quote my exact words from this thread or remain silent, please."

For the third time, your exact words copied & pasted showing you twisted what I said. "your 100% False comment,I said NO SUCH THING,,,,,,,, (I quote) " Meanwhile, you've already acknowledged that a large commercial vehicle may need to occupy several - including oncoming - lanes in order to make a turn, regardless of where they finish the maneuver.",,,,,,,,

What I clearly stated,,,,,,, "just because your in a commercial vehicle, even with a trailer(s) you still must finish your turn on the inside lane. Of course you will have to cross into the other lanes so your trailer(s) don't crush the vehicle waiting to go through the other way, but you still must finish your turn in the correct lane, there is " no choice" same as turning right, the semi may have to even cut into the oncomming lanes to complete a right turn, but still must finish in the inside or curb/right lane, again there is no choice."

That's the only reason I got somewhat rude, having my words right or wrong twisted into a lie,,,, I respect anyone up until that point,,,,, that is totally crossing the line and totally different than disagreeing.

Class1 Driver

Having noted your particularly unique brand of punctuation, I have to ask - are you "Larry Ash"?

Maybe I need English lessons?

I simply don't see the difference between occupying several lanes, and crossing into other lanes.  I mean, if your rig is crossing into other lanes - whether their flow is in the same direction, or (as with a tight right turn) or an oncoming lane, that part of that lane is not available for any other vehicles; because it's occupied, even if only temporarily, by some or all of your vehicle.

Obviously, you consider it very important where the vehicle finishes the whole maneuver, and this is where we fundamentally differ.

Left turns

As a licenced truck instructor and when I was a fleet driver trainer for a large Canadian fleet based in BC I had to be very careful when evaluating and coaching drivers to make sure they were aware of what was required for each jurisdiction they were in.  In BC it was taught that large vehicles such as semis and buses fininshed left turns in the second from left lane (if there were more than one lane each way) as they usually needed that much room to turn anyway and that is the lane they were expected to be travelling in.  Unfortunately car drivers think that if truck and bus drivers do this that they can too.  In Alberta even trucks with trailers were expected to finish their turn in the left most lane just like cars.  I agree that this is an excellent place to keep tuned up on what is going on in the driving world.

I was trained in Alberta

In the 80's, but I took the extended course where after I passed the exam and obtained my class 1 my instructors took me with actual loads and we headed to Vancouver. Being taught we had to follow all the laws of the road, even in BC there was no seperate laws for semi's is the way the instructors taught us and drilled it into our heads. Or has the laws changed in BC since then? and why would demerits be issued for not completing turns in the correct lane?

So as soon as semi's leave BC in any direction, south, north or east, they must now learn how to follow the law like all other vehicles and finish their turns, left turns in the left lane the same as cars & right turns in the right lane same as cars. And if they took their road exam in Alberta and turned as they were taught in BC, they would fail their exams, how insane is that.

I moved back to BC in the late 80's and drove in Vancouver and the Island & almost every city/town in BC and never found one intersection I couldn't complete my turns as I was trained, or in the other provinces or states I drive in, nor did any driver I trained from BC tell me otherwise, mind you I was longhaul so rarely stayed just in BC, I covered Dawson City down to Texas, the whole western half of North America not including Caliornia I had to many axles, or Mexico, in my semi anyways.

I'm sticking to completing turns as I always have as it's the correct way everywhere I drive but BC.

I forgot to add

I still can't find anywhere in the BC MVA where there are different laws for different vehicles, where do I find where these different laws exist for larger motor vehicles?

Answer

Turning at intersections

165  (1) If the driver of a vehicle intends to turn it to the right at an intersection, the driver must cause it to approach the intersection and then make the turn as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway.

(2) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn it to the left at an intersection where traffic is permitted to move in both directions on each highway entering the intersection, the driver must

(a) cause the vehicle to approach the intersection in the portion of the right side of the roadway that is nearest the marked centre line, or if there is no marked centre line, then as far as practicable in the portion of the right half of the roadway that is nearest the centre line,

(b) keep the vehicle to the right of the marked centre line or centre line of the roadway, as the case may be, at the place the highway enters the intersection,

(c) after entering the intersection, turn the vehicle to the left so that it leaves the intersection to the right of the marked centre line of the roadway being entered, or if there is no marked centre line then to the right of the centre line of the roadway being entered, and,

(d) when practicable, turn the vehicle in the portion of the intersection to the left of the centre of the intersection.

(3) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn the vehicle left at an intersection where traffic is restricted to one direction on one or more of the highways, the driver must cause the vehicle to approach the intersection in the extreme left hand lane available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle, and after entering the intersection turn the vehicle to the left so as to leave the intersection as nearly as practicable in the left hand lane available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle on the highway being entered.

(4) If at an intersection there is a traffic control device indicating the course to be travelled by vehicles turning at the intersection, a driver must turn a vehicle at the intersection in the manner directed by the traffic control device.

(5) A person must not turn a vehicle at an intersection unless it is in the position on the highway required by this section.

The highlights above are what allow large vehicle drivers more leeway in positioning of their vehicles during turns.

Thanks

But very odd, what defines a large vehicle? A 14 pass van can swing wide like a semi in BC.

And once you leave BC you have to learn how to turn like all other vehicles. I was taught and find it practicable to turn right or left like a car and finish my turns like all vehicles, and like I said I have never found an intersection where this was in any way a problem to do so, from Super-B to 53 foot tridems.

So I guess that's how I read it wrong in BC, I find it "very practicable" to finish all my turns like all other motor vehicles, and have done it this way for millions of kms, never have I had to finish in the wrong lane.

I learned a new trick that I will probably never use but good to know I have read & understood the law in BC wrong for over 25 years, Thanks again:-)

What is Practicable?

The definition of practicable includes: capable of being done; feasible.

So, if you are capable of turning right from the curb lane into the curb lane, and a 14 passenger van is certainly capable of this, then you must do it. If you are a super B, you cannot physically accomplish this, so you are permitted to turn just widely enough to turn without dragging the rear end up over the sidewalk. Within reason, if you take more, you are not being practicable and are subject to the possibility of being ticketed.

I define a large vehicle with a measuring tape. ;-)

I understand offtrack

But I have never had any problem anywhere of "finishing" my turns in the correct lane. Knowing where and how the rear tires of the trailer follow, known as off track, with a Super-B or 53 foot trailer I can & always have everywhere I drive finish my right turn in the inside or curb lane, and finish my left turns in the left lane closest to the center line.

I have never had to finish my turns in anything but the correct lane, like the next lane over that the other BC Instuctors have suggested is allowed in BC, and without running over the curb, which I believe is an automatic fail on an exam.

So I am correct then in finishing my turns in the correct lane allowing for off-track (within reason) during the turn.

Definitions, etc

So, if you are capable of turning right from the curb lane into the curb lane, and a 14 passenger van is certainly capable of this, then you must do it. If you are a super B, you cannot physically accomplish this, so you are permitted to turn just widely enough to turn without dragging the rear end up over the sidewalk. Within reason, if you take more, you are not being practicable and are subject to the possibility of being ticketed.

I agree; although Section 165(1) doesn't actually use the word 'lane', where there are multiple lanes it's pretty much obvious that the practicable application means turning from the right lane, into the right lane.  In the course of my work, I often drive a 24-Passenger size bus and even with that, it's hardly necessary to do more than borrow a bit of the next lane over for the front end as the back end remains within the lane lines throughout the turn.

Here's a bit of trivia that I came up with, when researching various provincial driving laws; you have to go all the way to Ontario, where governance falls under their Highways Traffic Act, to find a specific 'Long Vehicles' addendum, if that's the word; it's under Section 141(9) and basically allows drivers of these to do what's necessary, within reason, to get the thing around any intersection turn.

Speaking of right turns, I have a couple of anecdotes, make of them what you will!

  • A fellow I knew who had recently acquired his Class 1 license got a job driving a Class 2 tour bus on weekends.  He found himself one day driving east on West Georgia Street in Vancouver, and wanting to turn south into Howe Street.  So this is from a 2-Way into a 1-Way, but that doesn't matter as all right turns are covered by Section 165(1).  But he was in the next lane over from the right curb, with vehicles in that adjacent lane, so it wasn't possible to move over.  So he signalled right, and waited for his chance, and sure enough a vehicle in the other lane stopped short of the intersection and flashed his lights to indicate he was giving him the room to get around the corner.  A Vancouver Traffic Cop on a motorcycle saw this, and next thing you know he's been give a ticket under Section 165(5).  Incidentally, that's the commonest ticket to be issued in BC when it comes to intersection turns, as 'Correct Lane' could really only be used for left turns from, or into, a one way street and even then the wording is different in terms of how Section 165(3) is applied.  So, not wishing to have points on his license, and feeling that he had made the turn in a way that was practicable for the size of his vehicle, he took it to court.  Didn't help him any; basically, the judge's ruling was that he should have been entirely in the right lane in order to commence the turn (this would work, by taking the front end of the bus real deep before steering sharp right so that the rear wheels stay close to the curb going around the turn); or, at least, if he had straddled the two lanes on approach in such a way as to prevent anything other than a suicidal cyclist from coming up beside him before he commenced turning.
  • I once received a phone call from a lawyer, seeking advice about how right turns should be made in a semi.  His truck driver client had arrived in Vancouver, around 3:00am, for the first time, with his destination being the container terminals at the north end of Clarke Drive.  Driving northwest on Kingsway, he had missed the turn he needed to make at Knight Street, and basically he just followed his front wheels until finding himself northbound on Main Street.  When he was approaching the intersection at East Hastings, he had realized that he had overshot his destination, and realized that a right turn was going to be needed to get him back toward his goal.  The intersection of Main & Hastings has a couple of interesting aspects to it.  This was where Vancouver's first Traffic Light was installed, in the late 1920's, and these days it has the dubious distinction of having the highest pedestrian fatality rate of any intersection in the province.  In fact, due to the not uncommon insobriety of the local residents, that whole section of East Hastings for a block or two in each direction, despite being a multi-lane arterial street, has a full-time 30 km/h speed limit on it, just to try and reduce the chances, or severity, of pedestrian collisions.  Arriving at the intersection, and preparing to make the right turn, the driver noted the presence of an apparently intoxicated woman on the sidewalk to his right.  Wanting to be sure of avoiding collision, he waited until she was stationary, and didn't appear to want to cross the road; then, with the traffic light green, but the pedestrian signal on 'Don't Walk', he commenced his turn.  As I'm sure Class 1 Driver will attest, when you make a turn in a straight unit like a bus or a concrete mixer, there's still something useful to be seen in the main side mirror; but once you commence a turn in a semi, the only thing it will show you is the side of your trailer; all you have to see back there is the convex; and at night, particularly if a pedestrian is wearing dark clothing, or if it's raining and the light conditions are challenging, it can be devilish difficult to see everything clearly, there.  He didn't know he had hit her until he felt the trailer wheels bouncing over the body; she had stumbled off the sidewalk and under the trailer at the worst possible moment.  He stopped immediately, and went to try and help, but she was already very, very dead.  I don't know the outcome, or if it even went to court, but I doubt very much that the judge would have found the driver at fault in any way.

Just allowing for off-track

"Here's a bit of trivia that I came up with, when researching various provincial driving laws; you have to go all the way to Ontario, where governance falls under their Highways Traffic Act, to find a specific 'Long Vehicles' addendum, if that's the word; it's under Section 141(9) and basically allows drivers of these to do what's necessary, within reason, to get the thing around any intersection turn."

This law is just stating long vehicles can leave their lane to allow for off-track, they still must complete their turns, left or right, in the correct lane, the same as all other vehicles, failer to do so allows the driver if caught to recive a ticket & 2 points on their licence.

Long vehicles

(9) Where, because of the length of a vehicle or combination of vehicles, a turn cannot be made within the confines of the lanes referred to in subsection (2), (3), (6) or (7), a driver, when making such a turn, is not in contravention of any such subsection if he or she complies with the applicable provision as closely as practicable.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 141 (9).

 

Good point about Ontario law, there

This law is just stating long vehicles can leave their lane to allow for off-track, they still must complete their turns, left or right, in the correct lane, the same as all other vehicles, failer to do so allows the driver if caught to recive a ticket & 2 points on their licence.

You may be right about this; it has to come down to the legal interpretation of  'as closely as practicable' and whether this would be determined by articulating the turn in such a manner as to bring the trailer wheels tidily around the corner in close proximity to the curb, or whether the obligation is to take the tractor unit all the way back over.  There's certainly a much stronger argument in your favour in Ontario, where they use definable terms such as 'right hand lane'  or 'left hand lane' as well as other specifics (for when the lanes aren't marked) such as 'road edge' or 'immediately right of centreline' as the finishing point.

I doubt if it would come up in Case Law, either; while finishing the turn completely in the rightmost or leftmost lane, as you do, is totally safe and arguably a very good practice to follow, it's unlikely that another vehicle is going to collide with the side of the unit as it completes the turn, no matter which lane the driver decides to continue in.  With left turns, it's essentially impossible for another vehicle to be inside of the unit, unless it was already waiting there beside the median (perhaps in stalled traffic, or like that) and with right turns the same thing pretty much applies, although there would be a greater chance of some fool in a car pulling out of a parallel parking space on the right side, into the path of the trailer wheels.  The risk of this happening would be higher of course, if the unit was brought all the way back over to the right lane.  But, any ticket issued would surely be against the driver who had been stationary and parked, who then moved into traffic unsafely.

But here in BC, Section 165 is so non-specific about where you finish your turn that it becomes clear why Class 1 Driver Examinees (as well as Class 2, 3 & 4) are allowed to turn, and remain, wide even on right turns during their Road Test, without penalty (if they'll be turning left next, that is).

Oh, and it also shows why any driver in BC, in any vehicle, can turn left into a 2-Way street and finish in any lane (unless there are lane guide markings through the turn, as with multiple turning lanes).

Yes it is, your still reading the law wrong.

All drivers in BC must finish a right turn in the right lane closest to the curb or right edge of the roadway, and all drivers must finish a left turn in the left lane closest to the left curb or roadway  on a one way, or as close to the center line or left lane on a multi lane intersection, unless there are 2 left or right turning lanes.

If your teaching your son to swing wide and choose lanes in a 14 pass van, your teaching him wrong like I already pointed out.  And in a class 1 test I have no idea how ICBC can make it's own rules contrary to the law, I will be taking that up with them.

You don't find it odd that the way you see the law that BC is the only province that does it different, or as soon as you leave BC in any direction the laws are different than what you teach? Do you warn all your students that the way you train & understand the law is totally wrong outside BC? You have never had your students come back with tickets for incorrect turning and asked you why?

As close as practicable is allowing for off-track during the turn, you still must finish the turn in the correct lane, and knowing how you back tires of your trailer follows will allow you to keep vehicles from squeezing beside you on your right as you turn, that's the other part of as close as practicable.

I don't believe that I'm reading the law wrong at all, sir!

Seriously, I do not understand why you try to make this some sort of personal issue between us!  It's pathetic, a distraction, a sideshow.  Knock it off with this crap, for pity's sake!  This has nothing to do with my son, but it has everything to do with MVA Section 165, and/or ICBC Driver Testing standards.

Here is the quote of what I said, in full, that started you off on your side of this pointless argument.  Read it.  Understand it, if you can.  But you're wasting your time if you think you can dispute the truth of it!

Here's something that's a bit off topic, but it might amuse you.  The vehicle I use for Driver Training (I deal mostly with Class 4 Unrestricted) is an extended wheelbase 14-Passenger Ford Econoline Van.  On occasion, I'll go out in this with my teenage son, who is on his Class 7 L license, and let him drive just for the experience of it.  Nothing wrong with this, so long as we don't have any passengers then it's within the categories of his license, so long as we slap an 'L' on the back to comply with his license restrictions.  And I don't charge him anything, so Division 27 of the Regs doesn't apply.  He could even take his Class 7 Road Test to get his N license using this vehicle, (though somehow I think he'll prefer to use his mum's Honda when the time comes).

When he does take that Class 7 Road Test, he'll have to finish his left turns in the left lane; not because it's specified in the MVA - it isn't - but because it's how the Road Sense for Drivers guide shows it should be done, and that's what they base their testing standards on.  But if he were to decide to get his Class 4 license when he turns 19, he could use that same vehicle, making the same left turns at the same intersections, and elect to end in either lane; because Driving Commercial Vehicles is what they base that testing standard on.  Weird, eh?

Time after time in our back and forth, I have asked you to present solid evidence to back up your argument(s).

All drivers in BC must finish a right turn in the right lane closest to the curb or right edge of the roadway, and all drivers must finish a left turn in the left lane closest to the left curb or roadway  on a one way, or as close to the center line or left lane on a multi lane intersection, unless there are 2 left or right turning lanes.

Show me the law on this!  Show me where the term 'lane' even shows up in Section 165, with the exception of (3), which only addresses left turns from or into 1-Way streets.  You cannot.

And in a class 1 test I have no idea how ICBC can make it's own rules contrary to the law, I will be taking that up with them.

You have said as much before. And seriously, I want you to do this.  I want you to report back to us, after you have made your best efforts to explain to ICBC how they've been getting things wrong all this time, what their response was.  I'm hoping that you'll go up the necessary chain of authority as far as you have to - try Ian Forbes, Regional Licensing Manager, as a starting point if you like.  I've already provided the contact details for the Driver Training and Certification Unit, and they will be happy to direct your call in the right direction, if that helps.

You don't find it odd that the way you see the law that BC is the only province that does it different

Once again, stop trying to personalize this!  It's not that the way 'I see the law' that's the issue here!  In fact, I've done my best to show that the specifics of the law are different in each province, as well as the way they're interpreted.

Do you warn all your students that the way you train & understand the law is totally wrong outside BC?

Hell, no.  I train my students, here in BC, how they should drive here in BC.  And this goes above and beyond merely 'following the law', as I always ensure that I try to explain what the law is based on, as well as general defensive driving practices; including how reliance on the law is never going to be sufficient to driving and surviving.

You have never had your students come back with tickets for incorrect turning and asked you why?

Never.

Ever.

Has not happened, will not happen.

And I've been driving this way, when in this province, for 44 years.  And teaching others to drive this way (and even to teach this way, when they're Driving Instructor trainees) for 28 years.

There are lots of people, I reckon, who have been following this Thread.  And, I reckon, they are all waiting as eagerly as I am for you to report back to us on what you are able to find out when you speak with ICBC.  Please be sure to provide names, and credentials, from anybody you deal with there for verification.

Did you buy it or have a friend give it to you, you certainly never passed a road exam! How can you have no clue how to drive correctly? If you tought anyone I knew I would demand a refund due to total incompatence. You don't even understand driving laws correctly, amazing.

Are you actuall an instructor or are you just an INTERNET TROLL?

Defend these accusations.  I've already told you I hold a Class 1 Driver License, as well as a Class 4/5/7 Instructor License.  I've provided links to prove my other credentials.

And if you are unable to do so, having realized that your comments were unsubstantiated and utterly indefensible, then apologize.  Or leave - but not before you do some proper research with ICBC, and report back on the facts of the matters at hand.

 

Personal,,,,,, WOW

The only thing I took personal was where you took what I said and twisted it into a total lie, I do take offence in being called a liar.

I have simply pointed out that everywhere in Canada, NWT & at least the western half of the USA a left turn must be finished in the left lane & a right turn in the right lane. All the laws seem universal and in agreeance, including BC MVA 165 where if you finish your right turn in anything but the right lane can get you a ticket, yet ICBC says unless your turning left at the next intersection. No where in the MVA is this stated.

But I'm not commenting anymore seeing as your getting to upset to carry on reasonably, and your getting mad will just cloud your mind from the truth or any rationality and this isn't my site, so to be respectful to the owner I'm done, but I certainly will report back in the New Year with my answer from ICBC.

I will add this from DriveSmartBC, if I may....

As it seems to agree with what I have said acording to MVA 165 finishing a left turn in the correct lane.

http://drivesmartbc.ca/intersections/making-left-turn-intersection

Google Ads