REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

TheNewGirl · 02-11-2011, 02:35 PM

I was under the impression it IS illegal to change lanes in an intersection.

gars · 02-11-2011, 02:38 PM

it's something that would fail you on a road test, AND it isn't the safest thing to do - but it isn't illegal to not-shoulder-check either.

geeknerd · 02-11-2011, 04:30 PM

question for situation #3;
given that a dash cam is recording to provide icbc as evidence
1. if both A and B have green light, and situation occurs, is car b 100% at fault?
2. if B has left turn light, but A made a full stop, and then preceded to make the turn, would B still be at 100% fault?

It's my understanding that in both cases car A has done nothing illegal although potentially dangerous. or is there a law against this situation

mb_ · 02-11-2011, 05:58 PM

I think it'd be 50/50 for the first one

Gnomes · 02-11-2011, 07:27 PM

Like what many said, when making a right turn onto a 2 lane traffic, I make sure both lanes are clear. Never know when 1 decides to change lane in the middle of intersection and I cannot guarantee that when I make my right turn that the tip of my car wont enter the left lane for a brief moment.

FerrariEnzo · 02-12-2011, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geeknerd

question for situation #3;
given that a dash cam is recording to provide icbc as evidence
1. if both A and B have green light, and situation occurs, is car b 100% at fault?
2. if B has left turn light, but A made a full stop, and then preceded to make the turn, would B still be at 100% fault?

It's my understanding that in both cases car A has done nothing illegal although potentially dangerous. or is there a law against this situation

in both, car B would be at fault. car B's lane is lane 1 not lane 2....

goo3 · 02-12-2011, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geeknerd

question for situation #3;
given that a dash cam is recording to provide icbc as evidence
1. if both A and B have green light, and situation occurs, is car b 100% at fault?
2. if B has left turn light, but A made a full stop, and then preceded to make the turn, would B still be at 100% fault?

It's my understanding that in both cases car A has done nothing illegal although potentially dangerous. or is there a law against this situation

Don't know about how ICBC applies fault..

You either have the right of way, or you don't. There's no in-between.

1. Car B is supposed to yield to oncoming traffic. That includes cars turning right. Car B can turn when it's safe.

2. Since Car B has a protected left turn light, Car A has a red.. meaning he does not have the right of way. It doesn't mean he has the right to go just because he stopped. What if Car B's trying to turn into gas station? Turn when it's safe.

Safe means don't cause an accident and don't leave a trail of havoc behind you. If you can pull it off, great. Make sure you got room to do it without making a mess.

FerrariEnzo · 02-12-2011, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goo3

2. Since Car B has a protected left turn light, Car A has a red.. meaning he does not have the right of way. It doesn't mean he has the right to go just because he stopped. What if Car B's trying to turn into gas station? Turn when it's safe.

So does the Green Left Turn signal automatically have the right of way and people turning right have to yield to all left turners, even on multi lane roads? i assume this to be true if its a single lane road.

Soundy · 02-12-2011, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goo3

Don't know about how ICBC applies fault..

You either have the right of way, or you don't. There's no in-between.

It's still on both drivers to drive safely. Example: you're driving through a parking lot, some guy in front of your starts backing out without warning... if he hits you, he's at fault, as you have the right-of-way... however, if you see him backing out in front of you and don't stop, but just plow into him "because you have the right-of-way, dammit", fault would PROBABLY be split, because you didn't do anything to avoid the crash.

Having the right-of-way doesn't always mean you're in the right.

gars · 02-12-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goo3

Don't know about how ICBC applies fault..

You either have the right of way, or you don't. There's no in-between.

ICBC often makes judgments that result in 50/50 faults in collisions. Like Soundy says - just because you have right of way, doesn't mean you weren't able to avoid the collision.

And thinking of a way to CYA - Cover Your Ass - even if you had a left turn light, and the guy was turning right on a red light - if you can't get a witness - there is still a chance that the other guy might just say YOU drove into HIS lane.

DsZ24 · 02-12-2011, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FerrariEnzo

So does the Green Left Turn signal automatically have the right of way and people turning right have to yield to all left turners, even on multi lane roads? i assume this to be true if its a single lane road.

It should be true for single lane roads. Common courtesy and to keep the flow of traffic going, but too often you still see people turning right cutting off the left turners.

goo3 · 02-13-2011, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FerrariEnzo

So does the Green Left Turn signal automatically have the right of way and people turning right have to yield to all left turners, even on multi lane roads? i assume this to be true if its a single lane road.

A) Green left turn signal for traffic in the oncoming direction
B) Green light for traffic going from your left to your right

There's no difference between the above two situations. You have a RED LIGHT! It's your job to yield to traffic with the right of way. It doesn't mean you can't turn right.. do it if you have room. It's a judgment call.

Left turning traffic is supposed take the outside lane, so you can go most of the time. But what if a semi is turning left and needs to make a wide turn? Just make sure you understand you are NOT entitled to the inside lane. You are still on a RED.

I repeat this very important point: YOU EITHER HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY OR YOU DON'T.

goo3 · 02-13-2011, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

It's still on both drivers to drive safely. Example: you're driving through a parking lot, some guy in front of your starts backing out without warning... if he hits you, he's at fault, as you have the right-of-way... however, if you see him backing out in front of you and don't stop, but just plow into him "because you have the right-of-way, dammit", fault would PROBABLY be split, because you didn't do anything to avoid the crash.

Having the right-of-way doesn't always mean you're in the right.

I'm not for collisions

If you DON'T have the RoW but you violate the rule, you need the other person to perform some contingency act to avoid a problem. This is not safe.

If you DO have the RoW but you try to make the other guy go first, your passivity can really cause confusion and disruption. This is not ideal and can possibly be dangerous. (Imagine in an intersection where you have a stop sign but the other guy doesn't. He stops there and looks at you because he's afraid or whatever. He just eliminated the safest course of action and now everyone in that vicinity has to figure out what to do).

If all parties know their roles like they should, this is when traffic flows the best.

geeknerd · 02-15-2011, 04:24 PM

So if youre a left turner and you have left green arrow light, u have the right of way to use up both+ lanes of the road you're turning to?

also a similiar situation.
(provided u have a dash cam that shows everything needed as evidence)
You are turning right on a red. The immediate lane you turn onto is a dedicated right turn only lane except buses.
so if u turn onto this lane and a non-bus crashes into you from behind after you completed the turn, who's at fault? 50-50? typical defense would be that since its a right turn lane u assumed a right turn would be made by the other car.

sebberry · 02-15-2011, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geeknerd

So if youre a left turner and you have left green arrow light, u have the right of way to use up both+ lanes of the road you're turning to?

No:

Quote:

Turning at intersections

165
(1) If the driver of a vehicle intends to turn it to the right at an intersection, the driver must cause it to approach the intersection and then make the turn as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway.

(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,

(d) when practicable, turn the vehicle in the portion of the intersection to the left of the centre of the intersection.

FerrariEnzo · 02-16-2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebberry

No:

did you get this off the ICBC site? can you provide me with the link?

sebberry · 02-16-2011, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FerrariEnzo

did you get this off the ICBC site? can you provide me with the link?

It's in the Motor Vehicle Act:

Linky

sebberry · 02-16-2011, 11:29 AM

After reading that again, it is unclear if the vehicle is required to turn into the leftmost (ie, closest) lane.

However, if the road you are turning onto is a one-way road:

(3) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn the vehicle left at an intersection where traffic is restricted to one direction on one or more of the highways, the driver must cause the vehicle to approach the intersection in the extreme left hand lane available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle, and after entering the intersection turn the vehicle to the left so as to leave the intersection as nearly as practicable in the left hand lane available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle on the highway being entered.

So it would appear that if you are turning left with a green arrow, you do have the right of way over an oncoming car turning right on a red light. You may be permitted to turn into the rightmost lane, but a defensive driver wouldn't take the chance.

zulutango · 02-16-2011, 06:22 PM

"you do have the right of way over an oncoming car turning right on a red light."

Red light means you stop until the way is clear, yielding to all other traffic, then when it is clear you may turn. If you turn into the lane, cutting of a vehicle that is legally in that lane, you are at fault. No brainer.