How to Handle a Short Right Turn

Quick question: a car is coming from the North in the single left turn lane with a green turn arrow to turn onto a 2 lane street (intersection is Hwy 97 & 15th Ave in Prince George), is it OK and or legal to just go almost straight and try and enter the frontage road (Central St), or is the car supposed to enter the 1st/closest lane the make a safe lane change to the right lane then maybe turn right at Johnson St.

DrivesmartBC is correct.

The driver instructor CompetentDrivingBC is completly wrong, don't listen to him, it could cost you 3 points on your license & $109 fine to just swing across all the lanes as he very wronly suggests, it is also very dangerous.

Fines and points vary from province to province and state to state but they all have the same laws, drivesmartBC has outlined the correct procedure. 

Answer

When you turn left and enter the cross road, you are required to enter the lane closest to the center line. From there, you need to do a proper lane change: mirror, signal, shoulder check, move. Once that is accomplished, you now need to give adequate notice of your intent to turn right, followed by the right turn.

Given the short distance to Johnson Street and the very real possibility of someone not obeying the yield sign, if there is any other traffic present you would be wise to continue on to Johnson and then turn. It's a minor inconvenience and gives you significantly more time to accomplish all that you need to do safely.

I suspect that few drivers will accomplish all that is needed before they turn onto Central Street given how close that it is to the intersection.

I respectfully disagree, of course.

When you turn left and enter the cross road, you are required to enter the lane closest to the center line.

But we've already beaten the subject to death in 'Yielding on Left Turns' and  'Left Turns into the Correct Lane' so there's no point in doing it again,

For sure in the intersection pictured, the driver might be wisest to go the Johnson Street route though, for the reasons you describe (but what if there's nobody else around, ha ha!).

The Honourable Justice Madam Russell Disagrees With You

The case of Le v Point concerns a collision that occurred in this intersection:

She seems to think that you need to turn into the first available lane when you are turning left, and I think that I would rather follow her conclusion....

'Seems to think' is not the same as determining a point of law.

I recall reading that judgment on this site previously; there aren't that many that deal with how one should turn left.

But the fundamental question of fault in this collision - in terms of law - was essentially determined in regard to Section 174, governing Ms Dickson turning left and being required to yield, vs Mr Lee proceeding straight after passing vehicles ahead of him that were waiting to turn left, this regarding Section 158.

Section 165 was mentioned almost as an afterthought, and without regard for the specific subsection.  The fact that Mr Le - who was obviously not paying sufficient attention, being as he was held primarily at fault - drove his mother's scooter into the back end of Ms Dickson's car might not have occurred if she had turned into the leftmost lane is almost incidental.

 

 

Selective reading & comprehension

I can totally understand your embarrassment of being completely wrong here, as you are a long term driver instructor that has been not only driving incorrectly your whole life, but also teaching your son and all your students to break the law. And at intersections where most crashes occur.

Your comment here shows very selective reading & comprehension....... "Section 165 was mentioned almost as an afterthought, and without regard for the specific subsection.  The fact that Mr Le - who was obviously not paying sufficient attention, being as he was held primarily at fault - drove his mother's scooter into the back end of Ms Dickson's car might not have occurred if she had turned into the leftmost lane is almost incidental."

You failed to read or missed the main point that had Ms Dickson followed the Law (MVA 165) this crash would have almost certainly been prevented, and why she is partially at blame being the dominant driver.

Here, it shows clearly a left turn must be finished in the "Left" lane according to the law.

[52]        However, Ms. Dickson has admitted that she violated s. 165 of the Motor Vehicle Act by turning wide into the northbound curb lane of traffic on Arbutus rather than the lane of traffic closest to the centre line. While this in itself is not sufficient to establish that she breached her duty of care, if she had turned into the nearest northbound lane as required, it is likely she would have been clear of the intersection by the time that Mr. Le entered it and the collision may never have occurred. On this basis, I find Ms. Dickson was contributorily negligent in causing the collision despite the fact that she was the dominant driver.

Good to see the Law being upheld

I know all the BC RCMP I have talked to know the MVA 165 (5) shows you have to finish right & left turns in the "CORRECT" lane, nice to see a Judge agrees and made the correct ruling in this case.

I am still dealing with ICBC to get them to change their commercial drivers guide and their commercial road exam manual so commercial drivers can no longer be Taught and pass a road Exam to obtain a commercial license, all while Breaking the Law.

Especially when most crashes occur at intersections, I still find it Amazing that a long term Driver Instructor from "CompetentDrivingBC"  can be so blind to the correct law and teach what is so blatantly obvious a very dangerous driving maneuver like swinging across many lanes while turning at multi lane intersections, it just boggles my mind as a professional driver. 

Is the law being upheld or misunderstood ?

I've read Sec 165 of the MVA hundreds of times over the years and it seems to me, just applying the English language, without reading anything into the words.  It appears that the MVA does not restrict which lane is turned into on a left turn onto a two way street.

Sub (1) Talks about a right turn and being as close to the right curb to turn right

Sub (2)  Talks about turning left at an intersection where traffic is permitted to travel in both direction on the "turning from street" and the "turning to street"

Sub (2)(a) Talks about the approach to the left turn, must remain right of the centre of the roadway and nearest the marked centre line on the "turning from street"  (ie, not allowed to "cut the corner, but also must be in the left most lane on the approach to turn")

Sub (2)(b) Talks about being on the "right of the marked centre line or centre line of the roadway" (again you are not allowed to "cut the corner")

Sub (2)(c) [This is the one that has apparently created the confusion] Talks about after entering the intersection turn so that it leaves the intersection to the "right of the marked centre line" (in other words don't drive on the wrong side of the "turning to street".

This section clearly does not say how close to the centre, just "to the right of the marked centre line", that would include the second lane, the curb lane etc.

That appears to me that Subsection (2) says "stay on the right side of the roadway on the street being turned from and turn onto the street being turn on to on the right side of that roadway".  Nowhere in this section does it say "must be in the closest lane to the centre line when completing the turn"

My contention that the law doesn't restrict which lane to turn into,  is further strengthened when one reads :

Sub (3) That talks about left turns into a one way street, states : "...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...."

Obviously that means you must turn into the left most lane. 

So if law makers wanted a motorist to turn into the the left most lane when turning into a two way street those same words could have been used in Sub (2)(c).   Since they weren't there is no law.

As for the judge in the judgement sited....   I've seen lots of bad interpretations by judges.

One comes to mind where a passenger in a stolen vehicle was awarded a civil judgement for injuries suffered under an ICBC policy when a police officer running after the stolen vehicle, stumbled and accidentally shot the passenger through the back window of the car. 

I'm not saying it is a good practice to not turn into the closest lane, I'm just saying that the law, as written, doesn't support a charge for not turning into the closest lane.

 

Your simply reading it wrong.

 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.   

The Judge could be wrong, but in this case is very correct, as is the officer in this case, and every BC RCMP I have asked all agree you must finish a left turn in the left lane, swinging across the lanes is not only illegal it's very dangerous, and why it can get a driver a $109 ticket with 3 points on their license.

Funnily enough ICBC that changes the rules out of thin air for "commercial" vehicles, even shows on page 50 the "Correct Lane" to finish a left turn.

http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/Documents/drivers4.pdf

As all other provinces in Canada, NWT and USA all have the same law, a left turn must be finished in the left lane.

Permit me to point out a couple of things here, about your post.

Let's commence with this:

The Judge could be wrong, but in this case is very correct

I'm pleased to hear you acknowledge that a judge could be wrong.  But nobody can be 'very correct'.  Your 'very' is superfluous and only used because she appears to support your point of view.

 as is the officer in this case

The officer in this case doesn't even know which part of the MVA applies, apparently.  Section 172 certainly doesn't. 

every BC RCMP I have asked all agree you must finish a left turn in the left lane

That's hearsay.  How many have you talked to?  One?  Three?  And how did you phrase your question?

Consider this; if RCMP Traffic Divisions (and other municipal police forces around the province) actually believed this, they would be handing out tickets all over the place to pretty much every driver of a transit bus completing a left turn into a multi lane two-way street.  You might want to think about that, for a moment.

Funnily enough ICBC that changes the rules out of thin air for "commercial" vehicles, even shows on page 50 the "Correct Lane" to finish a left turn.

http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/Documents/drivers4.pdf

As you're well aware - because I've explained this previously - ICBC base their examination criteria on the relevant guide.  And they don't base commercial Road Testing on the fundamental 'Learn to Drive Smart' publication issued to new drivers of small vehicles (which you have chosen to provide a link to), but on 'Driving Commercial Vehicles' (which you have chosen to ignore).

As all other provinces in Canada, NWT and USA all have the same law, a left turn must be finished in the left lane.

Nonsense.  As explained earlier, the law varies between provinces, jurisdictions, and countries.  You keep repeating this fallacy as though it were the truth; but the truth is that if the law was the same in all Canadian provinces and territories (for instance, lets leave the USA out of this) then that Driver License in your wallet would be Canadian.  But it isn't - it's provincial.  Traffic rules and regulations vary across the continent - and that's a fact.

Your 100% wrong.

You teach & driver illegally, you argue for years and prove you have zero clue of the law, you even try and suggest their are different MVA laws that apply to smaller motor vehicles VS commercial vehicles. How Insane is that?

You even enforce your 100% wrong understanding of the law by bringing up ICBC's commercial driving guide (Which is wrong) and ICBC's exam manual (Which again is wrong) in both cases ICBC shows "How to Break the Law" the guide says on left turns you can just swing across as many lanes as you like to even finish in the curb lane, (WOW, totally illegal & very dangerous)

In ICBC's road exam manual for commercial vehicles, it says on "Right Turns" if turning left at next intersection, that somehow you no longer have to abide by Law, you can just swing across all the lanes rather than finishing in the "Correct" right or curb lane as it states in the MVA (Wow, again, totally illegal & very dangerous)

On a left turn it states you can "Break the Law" and finish not in the "Correct" Left lane, again totally against the law, and very dangerous, not to mention in both right & left turns 100% Unnecessary and totally ridiculous to argue otherwise as it very easy in a large vehicle to follow the law and finish right & left turns in the correct lane.

And as you follow ICBC standards for your driving & teaching, as you argue for years now is correct, LMAO, I wouldn't brag if I was you the 4 more of your students passed their road exam and obtained their license.

Of course they did,,,,,, they can "Break the Law" and drive dangerously to obtain it, everywhere else in Canada, NWT and the USA they would fail miserably if they made right & left turns as you and ICBC teach and examine,  allowing them to  dangerously & illegally swing across all the lanes on right & left turns.

Just mind blowing you continue to argue against the law and the Supreme Court of BC, if I didn't know better I would swear your just an internet Troll.

 

And oh yes.

If you now read MVA 165, as of Feb 2016, they have re-worded it to make it easier for even you to understand. "Imagine That" 

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

Nothing new there.

If you now read MVA 165, as of Feb 2016, they have re-worded it to make it easier for even you to understand. "Imagine That" 

Imagine this.  165 1(d) has been in the MVA for years and years, as far as I recall.  It certainly wasn't added last month; you can see it quoted by our site host in this post from December.

Sometimes a driver is turning left at an intersection with a massive boulevard between the lanes of the cross street, so it isn't practicable to turn the vehicle in the portion of the intersection to the left of the centre of the intersection.

Sometimes a driver is turning left at an intersection when driving a commercial vehicle, such as a Transit Bus or a Semi-Trailer Truck, so the off-track makes it impracticable to turn the vehicle in the portion of the intersection to the left of the centre of the intersection.

And sometimes a driver is turning left with a regular car, but choosing to turn into a deeper lane on the cross street; so of course this makes it impracticable to turn the vehicle in the portion of the intersection to the left of the centre of the intersection.

Like I said, nothing new there.

Interesting how you deliberately ignore all of the significant points in my previous post, as they contradict your own point of view.

Your 100% wrong.

I have driven buses & semi's and have "Never" not been able to finish in the "Correct" left lane or right lane as the Law requires.

Your arguing it isn't practicable just shows me your complete incompetence in driving ability, not to mention failure to follow the law during your commercial drivers exam ( except BC so far of course) results in failure to obtain a commercial license.

If you don't know where and how your rear tires follow in a turn, known as off-track,  you shouldn't be on the road period. As close as practicable only allows you to make a wider turn, it doesn't allow you to "Finish in the Wrong Lane" and break the law.

But keep making excuse not to follow the law, I know how impossible it is for you to admit your 100% wrong, it's just amazing you don't know the correct and safe way to drive being an instructor, mind boggling in fact. If I had my way, I would revoke your instructors license for teaching dangerous driving.

Get serious, will you?

I have driven buses & semi's and have "Never" not been able to finish in the "Correct" left lane or right lane as the Law requires.

Of course one can finish the turn in whatever lane, any fool can do this.  It's your assertion that the law requires one to finish in a particular lane that is without substance per Section 165 (1) & (2).

100% wrong, it's just amazing you don't know the correct and safe way to drive being an instructor, mind boggling in fact. If I had my way, I would revoke your instructors license for teaching dangerous driving.

Don't just stop with me - we're all doing it!  

Every B.C. Driving Instructor teaching Class 1, 2, 3, or 4.  

Every ICBC Driver Examiner testing Class 1, 2, 3, or 4.

And yet you, Mr. 'Class 1 Driver' continue to try and make this a personal issue, which is just retarded.

How are you making out with tackling those in charge at ICBC licensing I provided the contact details for, along with the Minister of Justice, Suzanne Anton?  Have you convinced them of the error of their ways?  Or is it possible that they have either rebuffed you or ignored you, on the basis that actually, they know what they're doing and they know they're correct?

Too funny.

You just made comments that turns can't be completed practicably by buses & semi's, now you change that comment to of course one can finish in the correct lane. Here, your comment,,,,, "Sometimes a driver is turning left at an intersection when driving a commercial vehicle, such as a Transit Bus or a Semi-Trailer Truck, so the off-track makes it impracticable to turn the vehicle in the portion of the intersection to the left of the centre of the intersection."

You continue to argue against the Law, MVA 165, even though BC RCMP agree and hand out over 600 tickets a year, (according to the latest 2013 stats) The Supreme Court of BC agrees you must "Finish in the Left Lane",,, but of course you know better than them. I say every BC RCMP I have talked to, you say how many? I lost track, many though. How about you find even "One" that doesn't agree left & right turns Must be Finished in the Correct lane according to the law.

And I'm far from stopping with you to correct ICBC from allowing Instructors & examiners to put on our roads drivers that can't even follow the law, and are granted commercial licenses from ICBC all while breaking the law, but it's slow going dealing with the government, I'm assuming you have never tried before. And the bosses from ICBC you provided their names to me, refuse to answer for themselves, instead they passed it off to another ICBC customer relations person, Teresa Ciolfitto

Customer Relations Advisor

 

pc:      Ms. Susan Lucas 
          Mr. Ian Forbes

I'm still waiting on Suzanne Anton as well, but look how long it takes her to act on a proven Distracted Driving Epidemic that is now the #1 killer of BC teens. So don't think I'm giving up for 1 second.

As far as personal against you, well of course, you argue against any proof provided, your an instructor teaching dangerous driving practices. But as I have stated and pointed out, I'm going after ALL of BC & ICBC to correct this outrageous dangerous driving practice passing commercial drivers and granting commercial licenses all while breaking the law, not just you.

And I never noticed MVA 165 worded that way before.

I have read it many times, that's the first time I ever noticed it worded that way, so I must be wrong it just got changed, but it reads much more clearer now that one must "Finish in the Left Lane"

Even "Your" response to me that you copied from "my5cents" regarding it says right of center, here is your comment about MVA 165 copied and pasted,,,,, "

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.

 

Google Ads