R. v. Pang Date:, 2012 BCPC 253

Citation: R. v. Pang Date: 20120704 2012 BCPC 0253 File No: AH60045385 Registry: Victoria IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Regina v. TAK NUNG PANG REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JUDICIAL JUSTICE H. W. GORDON Counsel for the Crown : Sgt. G. LeBlanc Disputant: Appearing on his own behalf Place of Hearing: Victoria , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 21, 2012 Date of Judgment: July 4, 2012

Introduction [ 1 ] This case raises a traffic issue common in a large urban centre: making a left turn across two busy lanes of traffic at an uncontrolled intersection. Mr. Pang was ticketed under

section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act , RSBC 1996 c. 318 for failing to yield the right of way at such an intersection while making a left hand turn. [ 2 ] This is not a case of causing a collision, but of making a left turn across two lanes of opposing traffic where the driver only got across the first lane and waited for a safe break in the second lane closer to the far curb before completing the turn. It also raises the issue of the duties of drivers of vehicles in the opposing lanes of traffic. Legislation [ 3 ]

Section 174 reads: Motor Vehicle Act Yielding right of way on left turn 174 When a vehicle is in an intersection and its driver intends to turn left, the driver must yield the right of way to traffic approaching from the opposite direction that is in the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard, but having yielded and given a signal as required by sections 171 and 172, the driver may turn the vehicle to the left, and traffic approaching the intersection from the opposite direction must yield the right of way to the vehicle making the left turn.

Facts [ 4 ] The evidence is essentially uncontroverted, only the application of the law to the facts is in dispute. Just after 1 pm on July 13, 2011, Mr. Pang was driving south on Douglas Street in Victoria, intending to make a left turn onto Cormorant Street. Douglas Street is a four lane road with a bike lane and parallel parking on each side. It is one of the main roads in and out of downtown Victoria. Cormorant Street is a one way single lane street bisecting Douglas Street in a T on the east side, directly opposite City Hall. It is an uncontrolled intersection. [ 5 ] Sgt.

LeBlanc was patrolling the area on his motorcycle. He was northbound in the right or #2 lane and described the traffic northbound on Douglas Street as “stop-and-go”. [ 6 ] Mr. Pang was driving in the opposite direction on Douglas Street and stopped at Cormorant Street, with his left signal on. His recollection is that the opposing northbound vehicle in the left or #1 lane was stopped at the start of what would be the intersection (perhaps because he otherwise would be blocking the intersection due to the stop-and-go traffic). The driver of that vehicle waved to Mr. Pang to make the turn and Mr. Pang did that.

However, vehicles in the right hand northbound continued to drive through the intersection and so he waited for an opening. [ 7 ] Sgt. LeBlanc’s recollection is that as he approached the intersection, he could clearly see Mr. Pang’s vehicle waiting to make the turn. He recalls the vehicle in the #1 lane approaching slowly but far enough back that if Mr. Pang had made the left turn, he could have done so safely without causing a hazard to the vehicle in the #1 lane. Mr. Pang began the turn and stopped because the vehicle in front of Sgt. LeBlanc was closely approaching the intersection.

He estimated that the northbound vehicle in the #1 lane had to stop for about 5 seconds because Mr. Pang’s vehicle was stopped in his lane. Sgt. LeBlanc, approaching in the #2 lane, slowed and stopped to let Mr. Pang complete his turn and then followed him to issue a ticket for failing to yield. [ 8 ] On either recollection of events, Mr. Pang did not create a safety hazard to the vehicle in the #1 lane by turning in front of it. Analysis [ 9 ] Sgt. LeBlanc explained that the reason he issued the ticket to Mr.

Pang is that it is his understanding of the law that all lanes of opposing traffic must be clear before a left turning vehicle begins its turn. Such a vehicle cannot block the #1 lane waiting for a clear break in the #2 lane. [ 10 ] How does that

interpretation sync with the words of

section 174?

[ 11 ] There are a number of decisions in our Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on this section. All appear to relate to civil liability resulting from collisions between left turning and through vehicles. And all in some fashion appear to be based on whether the through driving vehicle constituted an immediate hazard to the left turning vehicle.

My reading of them does not provide any assistance in determining this issue. [ 12 ] I understand the officer’s concern about a left turning vehicle crossing several lanes of opposing traffic and blocking the intersection when the #1 lane is clear but the #2 is not clear. This usually happens at an intersection controlled by a traffic light, but not always. [ 13 ] I must apply the law as the words of the statute provide. In doing so in this case, must I impute into the concluding words of

section 174 , “and traffic approaching the intersection from the opposite direction must yield the right of way to the vehicle making the left turn”, the qualifier “only if the entire intersection is clear of immediate hazard before the left turning vehicle commences the left turn”? There is an element of common sense in imputing this qualifier, but does that control the

interpretation. [ 14 ] I conclude that the clear unqualified words of

section 174 must determine its

interpretation. Before a driver, such as Mr. Pang, can be convicted of an offence, it must be clear what his statutory obligation is. At a four lane intersection not controlled by a traffic light, if a vehicle has commenced a left turn when there is no immediate hazard in the #1 lane, then after all immediate hazards in the #2 lane have passed, the left turning vehicle has the right of way and vehicles approaching that intersection in the #2 lane must yield the right of way. [ 15 ] Sgt. LeBlanc yielded to Mr. Pang. He may have considered it out of courtesy (and to avoid being hit by Mr.

Pang’s vehicle) but in my view, it was also his legal obligation to do so. [ 16 ] For these reasons, I find Mr. Pang not guilty of the charge. ______________________ H. W. Gordon Judicial Justice