Is this allowed?

[my5cents]

hahaha, ok this is getting silly. Lanes don't cease to exist as they go through intersections just because there's no lines. If that was the case then people travelling straight through the intersection also wouldn't have to signal or yield as long as they change lanes in the middle of the intersection.

Speaking of changing lanes in an intersection, is that legal even with signalling and yielding? I'm pretty sure my driving instructor said no ;) but that was a while ago.

Well once again let's refer to the law..... we'll have to go to the same "part" of the MVA that regulates lane changes, and driving on laned roadways,,,,, as follows :

Part 3 (of the Motor Vehicle Act of BC)
Definitions
119 (1) In this Part:"laned roadway" means a roadway or the part of a roadway that is divided into 2 or more marked lanes for the movement of vehicular traffic in the same direction;

So, as you can read a "laned roadway" is only the part of a roadway that is divided into marked lanes. You might want to take note that there are no "marked lanes" inside intersections. Thus Section 151 (c) of the MVA that tells us that we must signal our intention to drive from one lane to another doesn't apply.

Driving on laned roadway
151 A driver who is driving a vehicle on a laned roadway
.......
(c) must not drive it from one lane to another without first signalling his or her intention to do so by hand and arm or approved mechanical device in the manner prescribed by sections 171 and 172,

Speaking of chaning lanes in an intersection, is that legal even with signaling and yielding? I'm pretty sure my driving instructor said no ;) but that was a while ago.[/

Oh, yes, the old, "It's illegal to change lanes in an intersection". That's in the same section as driving with bare feet, or driving with your interior light on.

Since we've already read the section that says a laned roadway must have lanes, and we know an intersection doesn't have lanes, we've answered our own question.

So, I guess this isn't "getting silly", it's just the law.

As for your driving instructor telling you not to change lanes in an intersection... There are many driving points that are taught, and are even tested for, that are not actually Motor Vehicle Act laws. An example is "shoulder checking", (looking over your shoulder in the direction you are intending on changing lanes). Nowhere in the MVA does it say, "one must look over their shoulder...." It does say that you must change lanes with safety, but it doesn't say how you should achieve that.

Don't shoulder check on a road test and see if you are marked for not doing so. You will be.

[rideforever]

So, I guess this isn't "getting silly", it's just the law.

I like how your overly literal interpretation of the law isn't silly, it's not even an interpretation, it's the law. But the dsc's interpretation is wrong. This is still getting sillier. While on the topic of you being smarter than the pros, the expert on Canada's worst driver also said that you must turn into the left most lane when turning left and the right most lane when turning right.

Part 3 (of the Motor Vehicle Act of BC)
Definitions
119 (1) In this Part:"laned roadway" means a roadway or the part of a roadway that is divided into 2 or more marked lanes for the movement of vehicular traffic in the same direction;

So, as you can read a "laned roadway" is only the part of a roadway that is divided into marked lanes. You might want to take note that there are no "marked lanes" inside intersections. Thus Section 151 (c) of the MVA that tells us that we must signal our intention to drive from one lane to another doesn't apply.

You read it too literally, next you're going to try saying that the lanes cease to exist inbetween the dashes because it says 'marked' lanes and there are no marks inbetween dashes.

Thus Section 151 (c) of the MVA that tells us that we must signal our intention to drive from one lane to another doesn't apply.
...
[since]we know an intersection doesn't have lanes, we've answered our own question.

151(c) talks about 1 thing that isn't allowed, that isn't proof that something else is allowed, specially not when that 'something else' is very similar, possibly even the exact same as the thing that isn't allowed.

[Always Sunny]

^^^
That's the funny thing about the law. It's meant to be taken literally, as written. Not by whatever interpretation each individual sees fit.

[Woodenhead]

That's why you need to apply for a drivers licence when you move from province to province.

haha Seriously? Guess I was an exception!

A friend of mine actually got hers upgraded when she moved. I think they just do what they want to at the dmv.

[my5cents]

I like how your overly literal interpretation of the law isn't silly, it's not even an interpretation, it's the law. But the dsc's interpretation is wrong. This is still getting sillier. While on the topic of you being smarter than the pros, the expert on Canada's worst driver also said that you must turn into the left most lane when turning left and the right most lane when turning right.

What is a "dsc" ? (curious)

"the expert on Canada's worst driver also said that you must turn into the left most lane when turning left and the right most lane when turning right"

I don't think one can be "overly literal" when it comes to reading legislation.

Like I said, driver trainers and driver examiners, instruct and test on best practices, but that doesn't mean it is the law. If turning into the closest lane is the law in BC, I'd love to see the section.

Here's the link to the on line MVA of BC : http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... e/96318_00

Trust me, it's not there.

The "expert" you are quoting is a former OPP Traffic cop. For one, I have no idea (and frankly don't care) what the law is in Ontario, but he is either quoting Ontario law, or, I suspect, stating best practice, which isn't necessarily the law.

Oh, and the definition of an "expert" ? A guy from out of town with a brief case.

You read it too literally, next you're going to try saying that the lanes cease to exist inbetween the dashes because it says 'marked' lanes and there are no marks inbetween dashes.

Your kidding, right ? You're not actually suggesting that it's illegal to do something that isn't specified in the law, because one should read between the lines ??

That would sure please some of the cops on these forums who are always complaining about lawyers "getting their clients off" using "loop holds" in the law.

(crown representative) "Your honor, it is true that Section 151(c) states a driver who is driving on a laned roadway must not drive from one lane to another without first signalling his intention, and it is true a laned roadway is described in Sec 119(1) as a part of a roadway that is divided into 2 or more marked lanes, and it is true that inside an intersection there are no marked lanes, but you should read between the lines, your honor, I'm sure the legislators meant ........"

Personally, I turn into the closest lane when turning left or right at an intersection, but I do know that law doesn't require it. I generally drive with shoes on, but I know the law doesn't require it.

I certainly drive differently when operating a motorcycle than I do a car/truck, observing lane position, avoiding blind spots (however I do that in a car/truck as well), non of that legislated.

You've done a 180, rideforever, first you providing a scenario that is stated in the MVA as illegal (driving through the red light at Spall and Enterprise after stopping and yielding), now you are insisting that "laws" should be obeyed that aren't in the MVA.

The creation, administration, and application of the law isn't perfect. One can still get themselves killed obeying the letter of the law and conversely reduced the chance of collisions while not obeying the letter of the law, using common sense.

[rideforever]

The "expert" you are quoting is a former OPP Traffic cop.

Wrong again. It was a driving instructor.

You're not actually suggesting that it's illegal to do something that isn't specified in the law, because one should read between the lines ??

You're assuming lanes cease to exist in intersections just because there's no dashes for a bit. I know it's possible to get away with obviously wrong things thanks to loopholes but taking two lanes in an intersection because there's no marks is pretty far fetched.

The marks that the law talks about are often represented by dashes. I haven't seen a part of that law that says the spaces between dashes must be less than a certain length and that that length is less than the length of an intersection.

Personally, I turn into the closest lane when turning left or right at an intersection, but I do know that law doesn't require it. I generally drive with shoes on, but I know the law doesn't require it.

I'm suprised you do that and yet think there's nothing silly about the idea of making a two lane turn through an intersection and calling it legal as long as you do it before hitting the lane markers at the edge of the intersection.

Speaking of taking two lanes and doing 90° turns without yielding or signalling, that's not only illegal because of lane change laws, it's probably also covered under the broader laws that focus on wreckless driving.

You've done a 180, rideforever, first you providing a scenario that is stated in the MVA as illegal (driving through the red light at Spall and Enterprise after stopping and yielding), now you are insisting that "laws" should be obeyed that aren't in the MVA.

I'm dead on, it's your interpretations that are jumping all over the place.

Turning right (while following correct procedure) is legal in most cases. It's legal because it's easy to do it safely because you're not crossing any lanes, just entering the nearest one to the right. The scenario I provide is very similar, it doesn't involve crossing any lanes, just entering the nearest one to the right. It's actually easier than turning right so it would make sense for it to be legal.

Changing lanes without yielding or signalling is illegal because it's dangerous. It doesn't matter if you do it so sharply as to complete the lane change inside an intersection, lanes don't cease to exist in intersections just like they don't cease to exist between the dashes.

Next time you're driving on a road with two lanes in your direction that go through an intersection, imagine side swipping the person beside you and then blamming the city for not putting up a sign to warn of the lane end and merge.