Left Turns Into the Correct Lane

I also dislike drivers that cannot make a left turn into a correct lane.

I just have to add, the reason left turners don't make it into their correct lane is because they start their turn-in too early. Quite often I see drivers begin turning their wheels right from the stop line, and then they end up looking at the median and then overshoot their lane and end up on the right.

The solution is to start turning when it is appropriate: on most left turns the proper turn-in point is once your car is fully over the stop line, then one quick quarter/third turn of the wheel and your car ends up perfectly parallel to the lane next to the centre line. (Remember to keep your car facing straight, not pointing into oncoming traffic, until there is a clearing, otherwise a rear-end incident could turn into an offset head on collision)

Ending up in the correct lane is the issue of predictability - being predictable allows other road users to avoid you.

I would add that for those of us who follow the correct procedure, a hazard presents itself when the driver(s) behind you just dives straight into the next lane and accelerates alongside you instantly.
Not an issue if there is plenty of road before you need to change lanes however there is one stretch I drive where you need to change lanes quickly as there is about 200' to the next junction, it's a busy junction and it makes for an interesting drive!
The sad part is most of these drivers haven't a clue that they are driving incorrectly or if they are aware, they just don't care.

Absolutely agree, I do the same thing on this junction or should I say try. :)

There’s no such thing as the ‘correct lane’ when turning into a two-way street!

Now before everybody leaps up and starts throwing rotten tomatoes, I would like to tell you how I would have responded to the Courtenay resident who gets upset with drivers who ‘fail to enter the first available lane’ when completing that turn onto Ryan Road, or any other left turn into a multi-lane highway (despite the Reference Links our site host provided to try to support this argument) and the question of liability.

Addressing these links in reverse order; ‘Learn to Drive Smart’ is a guide, a useful reference for new drivers, potential road users from other jurisdictions, and anybody looking for simply presented information that will explain how to drive in BC and pass your Road Test here.  But the current BC guide, as with every guide published in the last forty or fifty years, commences with a disclaimer that advises the reader to refer to the Motor Vehicle Act & Regulations for legal purposes.

The BC Driving Blog information is great, and those videos should be mandatory viewing for any driver wishing to know how to turn left when attempting to pass your Road Test.  But showing the ‘ideal way’ to execute a left turn on a test route isn’t the same as depicting all possible legal ways to make this type of maneuver.

The Case Law makes for some interesting reading, but unfortunately it refers to a collision involving a left turn into a one-way street so it isn’t actually relevant here.

Which this leaves us with the section of the mighty Motor Vehicle Act that specifically deal with left turns into a two-way street (Section 165) and the one dealing with Yield signs (Section 173). 

Let’s address the second one first, so to speak, and that question of liability; it really isn’t complicated.  Although we often hear drivers claiming they ‘have the right of way’, in fact that isn’t ever the case.  There are only times when you specifically do not have right of way; and consequently you are expected to yield it to the other road users.

While most regulatory traffic signs are predominantly black and white, and usually either square or vertically rectangular in shape, the ones that deal specifically with right of way – ‘Stop’, ‘Yield’ & ‘Do Not Enter’ - will use red as their defining colour (just like a red traffic light, not coincidentally) as well as a unique shape in the case of the first two (for the information of the drivers on the ‘main road’, so that they are able to determine that the potentially conflicting vehicle is required to yield the right of way to them; not relevant of course to the driver looking at the back of a ‘Do Not Enter’ sign).  In the absence of traffic lights to control traffic flow, they are used not just to indicate what drivers facing them should do, but also to clearly indicate who is obligated to give the right-of-way to all others.

25 to 30 years ago, ‘Yield’ signs in BC were yellow, with black writing; similar to the ‘Merge’ signs we often see facing drivers on freeway entrance ramps.  Not any more.  These days, they are red and white, to clearly show that they are not merely warning signs, but regulatory right of way signs (and they don’t have ‘Yield’ written on them because there’s an ongoing effort to remove words from signs, oftentimes replacing them with symbols to denote the message).  They are used (rather than ‘Stop’ signs) simply to encourage traffic flow when there are no conflicts at the intersection.  But the message remains clear, and failing to yield will surely place all responsibility on the driver who was facing the ‘Yield’ sign for any consequential collision that would not have occurred if they had properly given the right of way.  If you don’t believe me, ask a lawyer.  Or a judge.

OK, so let’s go back to that ‘correct lane’ issue.

The first thing to realize, if you look at Section 165 (2) is this: the word ‘lane’ does not exist there.  And don’t worry about looking for the fine print, or combing through the rest of the Motor Vehicle Act & Regs trying to find some kind of supporting contradictory evidence, the fact is, this is all you’re going to find to advise drivers how to position themselves before and after left turns, legally.  Why 165 (1) & (2) is so seemingly ambiguous - particularly when compared to 165 (3) which concerns one-way streets – is surely due to the fact that when these laws were written, traffic lanes didn’t exist.  Hadn’t been invented.  Neither did one-way streets, for that matter.

So, in keeping with Section 150 (1)  - probably written around the same time - which basically says that you have to drive on the right in BC unless there are extenuating circumstances, the rules for left turn positioning, and where a driver is supposed to conclude his left turn into a two-way street remain ambiguous at best.  For sure, there is nothing in law that instructs him to end up anywhere other than on the right half of the road; if you doubt me, please read Section 165 (2) (b) once again.

I would like to add a couple more general comments, if I may.

Firstly, any driver making a turn into any multi-lane street who does so in such a manner that they are dependent on the ‘other guy’ doing the ‘correct thing’ does not understand that this is foolish at best; from observing other drivers, we all must surely realize that frequently they will not do the ‘correct thing’.  Drivers making right turns often end up turning wide and ending up in potential conflict with opposing drivers making left turns; so for anybody to simultaneously make a maneuver like this – left turn or right turn – is presumptuous, and in terms of controlling space, time, and visibility it is the opposite of defensive driving.  Expecting to be able to go past a ‘Yield’ sign while expecting other drivers to enter the lane that you think they ought to be using is a recipe for disaster, and the fault will be all yours when the collision inevitably occurs.

Secondly, 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.

@thriving

"a hazard presents itself when the driver(s) behind you just dives straight into the next lane and accelerates alongside you instantly."

This also happens just going straight through an intersection with a view to change a lane right after, when some dinkus completes a switch with-in the intersection and blocks you from the lane. Used to be a real nuisance in a cylindrically challenged Civic or Tercel; but now it's only just another thing to watch out for while driving a twin turbo conveyance.
 

@CompetentDrivingBC

Wow, isn't that something. Learn something new everyday. Thanks for posting!
 

I was reminded on the way home today of how inadequate peoples' use of signal lights are as well - 1 flash or 2 is not sufficient notice to let people know you want to change lanes or turn. If the driver blinks or is looking in his mirror or is watching the vehicles in the other lane, or something else, they will likely never know you signalled.

They couldn't do otherwise, or their marking would be in contradiction to the advice provided in their 'Learn to Drive Smart' guide, and they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if the applicant protested.

BUT - they would not mark it as a Violation.  Because it isn't. 

Incidentally, and perhaps not germaine to this discussion, but did you know that Driver Examiners for higher classes are not required to hold the license or possess the skills necessary to actually drive those buses or trucks themselves?  That's right - apparently, just because a person would be unable, if asked,  to drive a tractor unit with 18 gears, hauling a 53' trailer through traffic, they can somehow qualified by ICBC to judge whether someone else can do this!

But, maybe the standards they use in the airline industry are too high.

I mean, just because you wouldn't ever be able to take off and land a Boeing yourself shouldn't prevent you from judging whether somebody else can handle the responsibility - does it?  

... but you'll have to bear with me, because I can't leave this thread alone!

It's not that I'm obsessive (really!), it's just that if it were me making that left turn, with the goal of shortly thereafter turning right in order to shop at the Superstore, I wouldn't even think of turning into the nearest available lane; rather, I would go deep into the intersection (but in such a manner as to turn my vehicle in the portion of the intersection to the left of the centre of the intersection) and enter cleanly into the next lane.  If the 'opposing' driver making a right turn into the same highway proceeds past his Yield sign and we adjacently collide, he has failed to give right-of-way as specifically required and will be held responsible; if he is far enough ahead in the same lane we both now occupy that my vehicle hits his from behind, then this would be my fault for following too closely; I should have decelerated/braked and given him the space even if I shook my head and mumbled under my breath at his error.

But let's stay with the 'adjacent collision' that has resulted from the other driver and myself trying to occupy the same space at the same time, both of us now being there in the right hand lane of the highway we have just turned into.

If ICBC were to be making the adjudication, perhaps there would be a 50/50 decision, but far more likely 25/75 in my favour - when all is said and done, the other guy failed to yield as required - so all consequential costs would be borne by him in terms of damage and/or injury, with no increase to my premiums.

But despite the well reasoned arguments and opinions that some have presented here, and notwithstanding the fact that in the vast majority of cases, the driver executing a left turn is held to be at fault, I really don't think that in a court of law there would be any question of shared responsibility in this scenario; the other driver, continuing with his right turn past that there Yield sign, will find the judgment against him.

I would refer the judge to Section 165: Turning at Intersections and point out that turning into a 2-Way street does not specify which lane to select (although turning into a 1-Way street does).

I would refer the judge to Section 130: Arrows and point out that this only requires the driver facing the green arrow to yield the right of way to pedestrians and vehicles lawfully in the crosswalk or intersection.  And that the traffic engineer designed that separate left turn lane with accompanying green arrow in order to provide a completely protected turn, free of conflicts (which is why the big grey control box on the corner in front of Supersave Gas is wired so that it cannot possibly show either a walk signal to pedestrians, or a solid green light to oncoming traffic, while my green arrow is illuminated).  And that the same traffic engineer, having eliminated the possibility of those two common right of way problems, solved the final one - that of the opposing right turner - by erecting a Yield sign to face them and remove their right of way also.

OK, so you may be asking why I would deliberately select the lane beyond the nearest available.  I'll give you three good, solid, reasons.

• Other road users will be able to deduce from my lane selection that I'm probably not intending to subsequently continue straight, or turn left, on Ryan road.  Body language, as it were; we can say a lot of it with how we position.
• Vehicles following me will be physically prevented by my vehicle from turning wider than me, and stealing the space I would need for the lane change(s) to access Superstore; all they can do is follow me or drive into my back bumper - this is not aggressive on my part, it's defensive.
• Every time you make an unneccesary lane change, you increase the risk of accident or collision.  Why would anybody set themselves up to do this?

Now then, if we go back to Section 165 (and I hope by now we can all agree that the words 'to the right of the centre line of the roadway being entered' are NOT lane specific), let's ask ourselves why parts 1 & 2, like so many parts of the Motor Vehicle Act, keeps using language such as 'as far as practicable' or 'when practicable' etc.

When I think back to the days when I was being trained to drive a semi-trailer truck, I well remember how the instructor drew a diagram on the board to show that the typical unit (normal size tractor, 40' trailer) needs a space equivalent to the width of four lanes to make a turn.  Left turn, right turn, it doesn't matter; if you don't have the space, you cannot physically get that vehicle around that corner unless you have the room.  So if you're turning from a 3-lane highway into a 3-lane highway, then you have three possible options, assuming no parking lane and your typical 3 metre wide lanes or whatever.  And those options might be considered 1st & 3rd, or 2nd & 2nd, or 3rd & 1st, if you see what I mean.

Now, we can maybe see why Section 165 (1) simply says that any right turn, whether it involves 1-way streets or 2-way streets, and regardless of the number of lanes available, simply requires the driver to 'make the turn as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway'.  Any driver, any vehicle, that's the law in BC.  In practice, what you'll do with that vehicle in all likelihood is that on approach you'll stay as far to the right as possible - this to physically block other drivers who are oblivious to your turn signal, or ignorant of your road requirements, to sneak up on your blind side - and then go as deep as necessary with the tractor unit, in order to get around the corner without hitting anything.

So what are you going to do in order to be in compliance with Section (2), a left turn into a 2-way street?  Exactly the same thing; whatever works, practically, in terms of maneuvering that rig around the corner without conflicting with other vehicles, curbs, road islands, etc - and being very aware of the potential for running the tail end of that trailer over something or someone you simply couldn't see once you initiated the turn.

There is no separate law for trucks and buses and so on; we're all governed by the same rules, and hopefully I've provided a good explanation why this is so.

And it's also why, whether I'm driving a rig - or a Honda Fit - from Hwy 19 into Ryan road (or any situation like this), I'll turn left into the lane I want to/need to when entering a 2-way Highway.  Because, not only is this legal, but the choice I'll make will also be the most practicable, logical, and defensive.

...is a phobia of a run-away truck running a red light and using my car as a decelerator.

"So does the ‘mere’ fact that there is a yield sign change this whole situation in terms of guilt should there be an accident as you described on your article?"

I don't blame our esteemed site host for not wishing to respond specifically to this liablility issue.  And my own opinion is just that - an opinion.  BUT the fact - and it is not a mere fact, it is a real honest to goodness fact - is that the Motor Vehicle Act says this:

Yield signs

173 (2) Except as provided in section 175, if 2 vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time and there is a yield sign, the driver of a vehicle facing the sign must yield the right of way to all other traffic.

Being as Section 175 refers to entering a through highway from a Stop sign, it doesn't apply here.  But yielding the right of way to all other traffic could not be more clearly stated, and it most certainly does apply here.  That is why the Yield sign was placed there, and why it must be obeyed completely and without equivocation by the driver facing it.

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 land and then if we want to move to the right signal and do so when safe, but the MVA does not madate that we turn into the left most lane.

I'm not convinced that the case law you reference is actually relevant to this thread.

Why?  Because the subject raised here is about turning left into a two-way street, and the question of whether opposed traffic facing a Yield sign need to give right-of-way to left turning vehicles who didn't turn into the nearest available lane.   But we've already discovered that the law does not specify what lane they should turn into [Section 165 (2)], so long as they end up on the right half of the roadway.

Whereas, the case law refers to a collision between a vehicle turning left into a one-way street and a pedestrian in the crosswalk facing a 'Walk' signal.  They being governed, respectively, by Section 165 (3) and Section 132.

Having read the thread, and appreciating both sides of the arguments about liability, I have a question.

Is there case law in BC that is recent and similar to the events as described in this thread about Ryan Road and left turn vehicles having (or not having)the right to turn into any lane they choose?

I'm afraid to state my own thoughts or opinion as I don't wish to recieve attacking responses.

So, is there recent case law on this subject and is there a shared fault, no fault or one driver fault for these situations?

Clearly, it may be best to exercise caution when making a right turn during a left turn signal episode and if making a left turn, do choose the closest lane to centre lane. Why invite litigation or an acccident?

Sandy

I was reading the verdict linked above, and there is a section of the judgement that seems to have no basis in law.  I've read section 165 carefully and I see no requirement on a two-way street to turn into the closest lane.

What am I missing?

[52] However, Ms. Dickson has admitted that she violated section 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.

Source: Le v. Point, 2014 BCSC 154, par. 52.

...... that courts aren't always correct.

You are completely correct.  The MVA in Sec 165 only requires that a vehicle turning into a two way street turn so a left turning vehicle is on the "right of the marked centre line of the roadway being entered",.

"Right of the marked centre line" could be right next to the centre line or two lanes away, perhaps near the far curb.

Maybe the law makers meant the words to mean "as close as possible to the right of the centre line" but to have that become the law, they have to include those words in the MVA.  One can only be expected to comply with what the law says, not what it doesn't.

That's why we have actual speed limits with exact speeds stated.  We don't have laws that say "not too fast".

The average driver does have the misconception that it is illegal to turn anything but right next to the centre line, but that simple is not the truth.

One can only be expected to comply with what the law says, not what it doesn't.

To my mind, Section 174 makes it redundant to specify what lane the left-turner chooses. Provided that the driver properly yields all right-of-way, what the heck difference does it make where they complete the turn?

And, if the driver's next maneuver is going to be a right turn, then it's kind of stupid to turn left into the nearest lane because then you've just added the necessity for a lane change that could have been avoided if you turned into the further lane in the first place.

....that, IF as you make a left turn onto a two way street and you enter the closest lane to the centre line and then angle towards the curb, let's say to turn into a driveway on the far right, you are actually changing lanes and should be signalling and yielding with each lane changed.

My arguement against that is that by the angle you are crossing thoses lanes (if you do so) you aren't changing lanes, just like driving across a street at a 90° across lanes isn't changing lanes.

My arguement against that is that by the angle you are crossing thoses lanes (if you do so) you aren't changing lanes, just like driving across a street at a 90° across lanes isn't changing lanes.

Because, if you enter the lane closest to centre line, then you are in that specific lane.

And so at that point, Section 151 must rule.

A 90 degree turn across lanes - well, that's covered under Section 155.

But your 'angled turn' as you call it is a multiple lane change, in my humble opinion.

The circumstance I'm thinking of, is entering the gas station that is frequently at the corner of two streets.  In that circumstance, visualizing it, I don't think that any size vehicle would be completely in any one lane, at any time, as it travelled across to the far curb entrance way to the location.

I guess to be on the safe side, one doing so could have their right turn signal on as they completed the movement.

There is no requirement in the MVA to establish themselves in any one lane before entering the next.

We're really getting into splitting hairs though, considering the number of un-signaled lane changes and turns, for a cop to write someone for not signaling as they travelled diagonally across several lanes.