Important Lesson, if you already don't know.

[Fancy]

This was in the link in the OP's first post:
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/20 ... ltIndex=10

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.

.....

In the circumstances of this case, I apportion the fault for the 2010 Collision as 70% to Mr. Le and 30% to Ms. Dickson.

[KL3-Something]

I'm still not seeing it. They make reference to her admission to contravening S. 165 by making a wide left turn. But nowhere in S. 165 does it mention that you must turn into the lane closest to the centre. And I think that if the judge in that civil producing had actually gone through an analysis of the law as it pertains to "wide left turns" she would have noted the same. But in this case they only mentioned it in passing because the main issue was whether or not the driver failed to yield the right of way on her left turn.

Section 165(3) is the only section that makes mention of which lane a vehicle must be in when making or completing a left turn. And that section only pertains to those situations where one or both highways are one way. No where does it mention that when making a left turn onto a two way highway that the driver must pull into the lane nearest the centre. It makes it pretty clear with respect to right turns, but not for left turns.

I, for one however, always pull into the leftmost lane for out of safety and out of courtesy for those turning right to go in the same direction as me. I, however, am not obligated under law to do so. I would like to see the changed myself. But that would require the addition of another subsection of S. 165.

[spooker]

Section 165(2)(c) mentions "to the right of the marked centre line of the roadway being entered" which is the legalese for the left-most lane when turning onto a two-way street ... it clarifies that by saying "if there is no marked centre line then to the right of the centre line of the roadway"

The difference between this and 165(3) is that if you go into the centre of a one-way street it could get confusing if there is more than one lane ...

The case law example from the DriveSmartBC page unfortunately dealt with a one-way street so the conclusion there fits more exactly with 165(3) instead of being able to clarify 165(2)(c) ...

And let's not talk about two left-turn lanes ...

But all the BC references to left turns used the terminology "you are required to enter the lane closest to the center line when you complete the turn" which expands on the MVA text ...

Maybe you could fight a ticket given for an offence but not sure if you'd win ... I think everyone was taught the same idea

[KL3-Something]

Section 165(2)(c) mentions "to the right of the marked centre line of the roadway being entered" which is the legalese for the left-most lane when turning onto a two-way street ... it clarifies that by saying "if there is no marked centre line then to the right of the centre line of the roadway"

It's not "legalese" for anything other than what it states. Read it for what it is: it states that you must enter the roadway to the right of the centre but makes no mention of now far right of the centre, just that you can't enter the roadway to the left of centre (i.e. cut the corner). You can't make a piece of legislation mean more than what it states.

Compare that to section 165(1) as it pertains to those turning right needing to turn into the closest available lane. if they wanted those turning left to take the closest available lane the language in the section requiring it would be similar to that which requires it on right turns (i.e. "as close as practicable to the centre of the roadway" or something of the like)

The difference between this and 165(3) is that if you go into the centre of a one-way street it could get confusing if there is more than one lane ...

The case law example from the DriveSmartBC page unfortunately dealt with a one-way street so the conclusion there fits more exactly with 165(3) instead of being able to clarify 165(2)(c) ...

And let's not talk about two left-turn lanes ...

But all the BC references to left turns used the terminology "you are required to enter the lane closest to the center line when you complete the turn" which expands on the MVA text ...

Such as?

Maybe you could fight a ticket given for an offence but not sure if you'd win ... I think everyone was taught the same idea

If I was handed a VT under S. 165(3) for turning into other than the far left lane I'm sure I would win a dispute.

But again, I myself am not in the habit of doing so because i don't think it is safe or courteous.

[GordonH]

I will continue to turn left as I've always done (check my earlier post), to those who find it necessary to lay on your horn. You can blow that thing all you want, I'm not about to turn into oncoming traffic.

*mini rant due to impatience a hole*

[dodgerdodge]

I, for one however, always pull into the leftmost lane for out of safety and out of courtesy for those turning right to go in the same direction as me. I, however, am not obligated under law to do so. I would like to see the changed myself. But that would require the addition of another subsection of S. 165.

And there you have it in a nutshell. Its the right thing to do but not defined as an absolute must in law.

[spooker]

And there you have it in a nutshell. Its the right thing to do but not defined as an absolute must in law.

There are some provinces that have clarified it since enough people would do otherwise ... you'd have to have too much time on your hands to try and figure out where you could get away with not doing it to do anything other than always turn into the left-most lane ...

Ontario: "and by leaving the intersection in the left-hand lane provided for the use of traffic moving in the direction in which his or her vehicle is proceeding where the lane is marked or, where no such lane is marked, by passing immediately to the right of the centre line of the intersecting highway"

Alberta: " leave the intersection on completing the turn by driving the vehicle to the right side of and as closely as practicable to the centre line of the highway then entered"

Saskatchewan: "make the left turn so as to leave the intersection, as nearly as possible, in the extreme left-hand lane that is lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction the driver is travelling"

Manitoba was the 4th I looked at quickly and it had the same wording as BC ...

One thing to think about is that I hear many times the interpretation is based on the "spirit" of the law versus the details ...

p.s. our neighbours to the south also have similar detailed wording in their regulations too (quick scan of Arizona and Washington)

p.p.s. yes I had too much time on my hands tonight

[dodgerdodge]

And there you have it in a nutshell. Its the right thing to do but not defined as an absolute must in law.

There are some provinces that have clarified it since enough people would do otherwise ... you'd have to have too much time on your hands to try and figure out where you could get away with not doing it to do anything other than always turn into the left-most lane ...

Ontario: "and by leaving the intersection in the left-hand lane provided for the use of traffic moving in the direction in which his or her vehicle is proceeding where the lane is marked or, where no such lane is marked, by passing immediately to the right of the centre line of the intersecting highway"

Alberta: " leave the intersection on completing the turn by driving the vehicle to the right side of and as closely as practicable to the centre line of the highway then entered"

Saskatchewan: "make the left turn so as to leave the intersection, as nearly as possible, in the extreme left-hand lane that is lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction the driver is travelling"

Manitoba was the 4th I looked at quickly and it had the same wording as BC ...

One thing to think about is that I hear many times the interpretation is based on the "spirit" of the law versus the details ...

p.s. our neighbours to the south also have similar detailed wording in their regulations too (quick scan of Arizona and Washington)

p.p.s. yes I had too much time on my hands tonight

But none of what you posted says what you claim. They all refer to making sure the vehicle is positioned to the right side of centre after your turn which is common sense otherwise it would be in the left opposite travel lane! They also all mention "leaving" the intersection which again is not same as turning into.
Clearly the wording of all of the above is not perhaps as clear and precise as it should be

[spooker]

Ontario: "and by leaving the intersection in the left-hand lane provided for the use of traffic moving in the direction in which his or her vehicle is proceeding where the lane is marked or, where no such lane is marked, by passing immediately to the right of the centre line of the intersecting highway"

Alberta: " leave the intersection on completing the turn by driving the vehicle to the right side of and as closely as practicable to the centre line of the highway then entered"

Saskatchewan: "make the left turn so as to leave the intersection, as nearly as possible, in the extreme left-hand lane that is lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction the driver is travelling"

But none of what you posted says what you claim. They all refer to making sure the vehicle is positioned to the right side of centre after your turn which is common sense otherwise it would be in the left opposite travel lane! They also all mention "leaving" the intersection which again is not same as turning into.
Clearly the wording of all of the above is not perhaps as clear and precise as it should be[/quote]

"left-hand lane", "extreme left-hand lane" and "as closely as practicable to the centre line" is pretty clear to me ... not sure if there is some other text you are referring to ...

The regulations outline three parts to a left turn ... 1) how to enter the intersection, 2) how to handle being in the intersection, and finally 3) how to leave the intersection ... do you have a different way to make a left turn? some secret that you're not sharing?

My texts all refer to the 3rd part of the turn, where to be when "leaving" the intersection ...

[36Drew]

The law is actually silent with respect to which lane a vehicle turning left must turn into. It states how you must approach the turn, and that you must turn so that you are on the right of the centre of the road. But unlike right turns, there is nothing that requires that a driver takes the lane closest to the centre.

Exit turn lane - the one closest to the centre line. So, when making a left turn into two lanes, you choose the lane closest to you.
Simple really.

The next time you see an RCMP patrol car while driving the streets of kelowna - have a look at the car numbers. You'll notice they are all KL3-something. That might give you an indication as to KL3-Something's profession. I say this, because if a police officer charged with enforcement of the MVA tells you that the motor vehicle act says such-and-such, they're likely to be more correct than you. You can, of course, do your own research. The MVA is fairly easy to find, and I'd challenge you to find and name the section of the Act that states you must choose the lane closest to you. I'll get you started - it's [url=https://goo.gl/O5uFcm]Section 165[/quote].

[my5cents]

For those who don't believe KL3-Something, don't. Turn left onto a two way street right next to the centre line. You aren't a traffic cop so you won't be pulling anyone over and writing an invalid ticket to a driver who doesn't turn into the "correct" lane.

Just don't get all bothered when you see someone not turning into the centre line lane, because they are not disobeying a law.

Oh, and if you want to make a turn (either direction) and there are no other vehicles that could be affected, be my guest to do so WITHOUT signaling, it's legal. But if you are changing lanes and there are no vehicles that could be affected, you better signal, because that's the law.

Also if you come across a red traffic light, that is not at an intersection, they are fairly rare, but they do exist. Once you've stopped and it's safe to go and it's still red away you go. That one you might get some flack from a cop that isn't a traffic cop.

Don't forget there are general duty cops and there are traffic cops (ones that specialize in traffic stuff)

The average general duty cop doesn't have the full knowledge of the MVA that a traffic cop will have.

and.... yes KL3-Something is 100% correct.