Left Turn Surprise!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Tim: Love the new software)

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

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

Indeed, the preamble says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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