Turning right onto HWY 33 from HWY 97

[my5cents]

Legally that's what your supposed to do. However you're right you can't trust that people will do that...

Actually baconbits you are wrong. When turning left all one has to do is be right of the centre line. One doesn't legally have to be in the closest lane to the left. It's very good practice to do so, but not a legal requirement.

However once one has established themselves in a marked lane on the roadway they've turned onto they must give the appropriate signal and exercise the appropriate caution when changing lanes.

Turning at intersections (from the Motor Vehicle Act of BC)
165 (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,

[tommythecat]

Which lane should you turn into?

Legally when you turn right, you’re required to turn into the right lane; and any left-turning vehicle is required to turn into the left lane. However, if after you turn there are no vehicles in the other lane, you can quickly change your turn signal to a left signal and make sure it is safe and do a lane change into the left lane fairly quickly. This is perfectly legal as long as 1) you are not crossing a solid white line and 2) it is safe (obviously) and 3) your left-turn signal is flashing.

http://drivinginstructorblog.com/inters ... en-lights/

[my5cents]

You appear to be trying to make a point, tommythecat. .... and it is ?

Are you saying that it's a very good practice to turn into the left lane on a left turn ? I said that.

Are you saying that it is illegal to turn into a lane other than the left lane. Wrong, I've even quoted the "rule book", the BC MVA.

Are you saying that you will fail an ICBC Road Test if you don't, yes likely,,, you also will fail for all sorts of actions that are not illegal but are good practice,,,,

Your point ?

[jimmy4321]

I tought that illustration would show a solid white line to at least the end of the tip of the green car arrow,thus preventing a lane change till your in it for a bit

[Bsuds]

Are you saying that it is illegal to turn into a lane other than the left lane. Wrong, I've even quoted the "rule book", the BC MVA.

Check out page 10 http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/Ge ... ivers4.pdf

[my5cents]

Check out page 10 http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/Ge ... ivers4.pdf

Nice pictures, is that why you want to take the ICBC tips as gospel vs the actual law, because the Motor Vehicle Act doesn't have color pictures ?

I don't make the rules, I just quote them.

Tip, if you get a ticket for something and you want to dispute it, I suggest you rely on the MVA as a source of information vs the ICBC color brochure.

[Bsuds]

I read the MVA as well and I think you have interpreted it incorrectly.

[my5cents]

I read the MVA as well and I think you have interpreted it incorrectly.

The wording seems pretty simple.

The MVA does want a driver to be in the left lane on the approach to the turn "cause the vehicle to approach the intersection in the portion of the right side of the roadway that is nearest the marked centre line....."

But in completing the turn, the MVA makes no mention of being "nearest the marked centre line", all it says is "turn the vehicle to the left so that it leaves the intersection to the right of the marked centre line".

Is there some other way to interpret this or is there another section ?

Since the MVA is so specific in describing where a vehicle must be in approaching a left turn and does not say anything other than "right of the marked centre line" on completing the turn, we must interpret the law as written.

If the roadway we are turning onto is three lanes wide in the direction we are travelling, we can be in any of those three lanes as long as we are right of the centre line.

Don't get me wrong, there are "good practices" and there are "driving traits" that will add to the risk of having accidents and or being failed on a driver's test, but they aren't law.

The issue here was the stating that "it's illegal" when turning left, to not turn into the left most lane, right of centre, which there is no law against such action.

There are even actions that the majority of police officers would issue a ticket (wrongly) that are not illegal. Proceeding after stopping at a traffic light (while it's still red), that isn't at an intersection, for example. There aren't many in the Okanagan. One that comes to mind is West bound on Clement at the railway tracks East of Gordon. Once you have stopped and it is safe to proceed, you may do so on the red light, because it is not at an intersection. Don't know what ICBC driving tips would say about that one.

[rekabis]

Maybe I’m just getting the directions confused, but when you are going North on 97 (A.K.A., East on Harvey), and want to turn Right onto HW33 such that you are heading toward Rutland, you do not need to stop at that corner. In fact, stopping at that corner is actually illegal.

Why? Because that is not a normal yield-and-turn corner, it is a merge corner. Because anyone turning at that corner has their own personal merge lane clear up to Ziprick Road, and stopping at a merge corner or in a merge lane is actually illegal. Yes, that’s right -- you have your own personal lane, that does not exist for traffic that is going through the intersection from Enterprise and that gives you about 200-300m to “accelerate and merge” onto HW33 until it ends at Ziprick.

The problem is that the lane markings that make this clear and obvious are worn out by so many people ignoring them and just turning straight onto HW33 without bothering to do a “merge” of any kind. And this includes doing a shoulder check when you’re in that corner as well -- rest assured, if you use the lanes properly, there is no need to do a shoulder check in the turn itself, only once you actually complete the turn and decide to merge into the traffic that will be continuing up HW33 itself (instead of turning off on Ziprick).

[my5cents]

Maybe I’m just getting the directions confused, but when you are going North on 97 (A.K.A., East on Harvey), and want to turn Right onto HW33 such that you are heading toward Rutland, you do not need to stop at that corner. In fact, stopping at that corner is actually illegal.

Why? Because that is not a normal yield-and-turn corner, it is a merge corner. Because anyone turning at that corner has their own personal merge lane clear up to Ziprick Road, and stopping at a merge corner or in a merge lane is actually illegal. Yes, that’s right -- you have your own personal lane, that does not exist for traffic that is going through the intersection from Enterprise and that gives you about 200-300m to “accelerate and merge” onto HW33 until it ends at Ziprick.

The problem is that the lane markings that make this clear and obvious are worn out by so many people ignoring them and just turning straight onto HW33 without bothering to do a “merge” of any kind. And this includes doing a shoulder check when you’re in that corner as well -- rest assured, if you use the lanes properly, there is no need to do a shoulder check in the turn itself, only once you actually complete the turn and decide to merge into the traffic that will be continuing up HW33 itself (instead of turning off on Ziprick).

It's actually not illegal to stop. Unwise, stupid, unnecessary, etc but unless there is a sign saying "No Stopping", there is nothing preventing a driver from stopping, just like if there was a hazard, real or perceived on any roadway and a motorist stopped.

I think the confusing thing at this intersection is the "yield" sign erected in the curve. It is unnecessary because as many have said, a new lane is created for the former N/B Hwy 97 traffic as they become the curb lane E/B on Hwy 33. Also there is a solid line between the newly created lane and the right E/B lane of Hwy 33 crossing Hwy 97 for the first 50 - 75 feet. This solid line meaning neither stream of traffic (those on Hwy 33 wanting to get into the curb lane, and the traffic in the curb lane that has come from Hwy 97) should conflict for that distance.

By the time the solid line ends, a vehicle travelling in the curb lane has past the "yield" sign by 100 feet or so. Thus if the Ministry of Highways meant for the curb lane to yield to the traffic on Hwy 33 in the second lane from the curb the "yield" sign should be in the area where the solid line ends.

[GordonH]

I think the confusing thing at this intersection is the "yield" sign erected in the curve. It is unnecessary because as many have said, a new lane is created for the former N/B Hwy 97 traffic as they become the curb lane E/B on Hwy 33. Also there is a solid line between the newly created lane and the right E/B lane of Hwy 33 crossing Hwy 97 for the first 50 - 75 feet. This solid line meaning neither stream of traffic (those on Hwy 33 wanting to get into the curb lane, and the traffic in the curb lane that has come from Hwy 97) should conflict for that distance.

By the time the solid line ends, a vehicle travelling in the curb lane has past the "yield" sign by 100 feet or so. Thus if the Ministry of Highways meant for the curb lane to yield to the traffic on Hwy 33 in the second lane from the curb the "yield" sign should be in the area where the solid line ends.

I think your right about yield sign..... maybe MOT should change it to Merge sign. Since majority of those using that turn are heading toward Rutland.

[my5cents]

I think your right about yield sign..... maybe MOT should change it to Merge sign. Since majority of those using that turn are heading toward Rutland.

Not only change it, but relocate it to the area where the solid line ends.

[Scadam]

Maybe I’m just getting the directions confused, but when you are going North on 97 (A.K.A., East on Harvey), and want to turn Right onto HW33 such that you are heading toward Rutland, you do not need to stop at that corner. In fact, stopping at that corner is actually illegal.

You must be getting something confused. There is both a crosswalk and yield sign on that corner. Get as annoyed as you want at cautious drivers, but it is obviously not illegal to stop there.

[tommythecat]

Why a even have a merge sign? There is no merging to be done

[my5cents]

Why a even have a merge sign? There is no merging to be done

We were referring to the fact that at Ziprick the curb lane ends, perhaps something like "Through traffic merge left".

Certainly the yield sign is not required.