CASE LAW - Trytko v Kafafi

To my mind, MVA Section 173 has it covered.

At roundabouts, the Yield signs define the right-of-way (the person entering doesn't have any).

At traffic circles, the situation is uncontrolled, which 173 also covers. Hence the judgment in this case favouring the driver on the right.

Am I understanding this correctly? One vehicle was in the traffic circle, and a second vehicle entered the traffic circle without slowing and collided with the first vehicle AND the first vehicle was at fault?

Isn't that completely the opposite of how we are led to believe that traffic circles and roundabouts are supposed to work?

https://www.tranbc.ca/tag/roundabouts/

It's a guide for drivers as to how to drive safely ...

It does state "If there are no traffic control signs, treat it as an uncontrolled intersection".  But confusingly, it also states "Yield to any traffic in the traffic circle".

... but it doesn't replace the Motor Vehicle Act / Regs, nor is it meant to.

Think about it this way - they could say "As you're the driver on the right at this uncontrolled intersection, you have total right-of-way and the best thing to do is to barge right in there and expect others to recognize that they must yield to you or take the consequences".

But, they don't, because that would be stupid. Telling drivers to "Yield to any traffic in the traffic circle" is good advice.

There's all kinds of other good advice in the guide, too. Stuff about looking all around before you back up, stuff about using the mirrors and making shoulder checks, stuff about all kinds of stuff that isn't necessarily required by law.

How does a driver who is already in the traffic circle know if the approaching driver has a yield sign or not?  Is he/she expected to look for the back of the sign?

Well yes, obviously. Identifying right-of-way at intersections is always a two-part process, first identifying whether one is required to Yield or Stop, then identifying whether the other guy is required to Yield or Stop.

This is why 3 of the 4 Right-of-Way signs are not only red and white, but of a singular shape; this allows another driver to identify a Yield, or a Stop, or a railroad Crossbuck even, from the back of it.  Even if you go back thirty years to when Yield signs were yellow with black writing on them, they were still inverted triangles. Stop signs have always been octagonal I think. (Identifying the back of a 'Do not Enter' sign is irrelevant, if you think about it.)

Hey, here's a bit of trivia for you; I don't know if it's cast in stone for Traffic Engineers exactly, but across both Canada and the US, you can typically expect that if there's any kind of a yellow stripe or line down the middle of the road, then the intersections will be controlled (typically this means the other guy has a Stop sign). No yellow line? Then no guarantee, and it becomes much more important to check the cross-streets, and the back of the signs that face the other drivers; or not ...

BC needs to amend the motor vehicle act to explicitly handle roundabouts and traffic circles as many other jurisdictions have done.

Well roundabouts have already been explicitly handled, using Yield signs - the same way that jurisdictions around the world do it, with complete success in my opinion.

So let's think about those uncontrolled traffic circles, and the reality of the world we live and drive in. And let's think about it in the way that a Traffic Engineer would, whose job entails both maintaining traffic flow and preventing collisions.

Do we see confusion? The West End of Vancouver (highest population density of anywhere on this continent, apart from New York) has many of them; Nelson & Jervis - where this collision took place - is only one example. In many cases they have replaced 2-Way Stops, thus reducing noise (from stops and starts) and collision severity when there is a crash. They work, they flow traffic safely, any 'confusion' just makes drivers more careful. They also put the onus on both drivers to look out for conflicts, something that isn't guaranteed at intersections that use Stop signs as the one on the 'main road' will often rocket along complacently (I kinda like that image).

I guess what I'm saying is, if it ain't broke, then don't fix it. Traffic circles work, period. They're building more and more of them because they work. They work better, more safely, than uncontrolled intersections without a circle in the middle, even.

But the moment somebody writes a law for them that gives absolute right-of-way - whether it be to the driver in the circle, or the driver approaching the circle - then I would foresee an increase in the crash rate as drivers presume they're in the right and will be yielded to, whichever way the law was written.

Ready for some more trivia? At uncontrolled intersections, the reason right of way is given to the driver on the right is in order to protect him/her, literally. If there's a T-bone collision it's the driver on the right who will be most severely hurt; and most likely to immediately lose control over their vehicle. This would have been more than ever the case back in the days before seatbelt use and strong door beams became common and/or mandatory. Giving right of way to the driver on the right protects that driver.

"Confusion just makes drivers more careful."

I don't know where to begin with this one.

Interesting how you zeroed in on that one sentence in my post.

'Confusion' might be too strong a term; but 'Uncertainty' would certainly fit.

Maybe they don't have traffic circles where you live, but what happens presently, due to the absence of signage, is that drivers look out for each other - literally and figuratively. They make judgments based on how far away the other vehicle is, how fast it's going, whether it's signalling, and they will usually try to make eye contact with each other.

But, my mind is open. Please spell out for us this Motor Vehicle Act amendment to explicitly handle traffic circles. I want to know how you're going to word it.

as many other jurisdictions have done

And maybe you could provide examples of how these many other jurisdictions have done so, how they have worded things.

I'm still not convinced that we need such legislation to be introduced here, mind you.

In my opinion, the 'current chaos' is functioning fine.

Cheers, Paul