OHTA.ca

I have a situation where I was traveling in a lane the size of which two vehicles could comfortably fit side by side and the lane is paved to curbed (no shoulders). I was to the right side of the lane and the second vehicle (a commercial carrier) came up on the left and attempted to pass. I began to give way but at the point where are vehicles were parrallel (nose-to-nose) the other driver attempted to turn right into a driveway without indicating and plowed into the side of my vehicle. My vehicle was clearly in the blindspot of the carrier. In my eyes, given the actions of the driver it did not appear they knew where they were going and were not aware of their surroundings when they made that turn.

There were no 3rd party witnesses and our stories are differing as to how we ended up parrallel and whether the other party indicated, but the stories match where the other driver made a right turn into me.

I'm being binged 50% at fault because insurance is stating that the vehicles shouldn't have been beside each other in a designated "single-lane" and that the entire story doesn't match. Because we have no 3rd party witnesses to explain how the vehicles ended up parrallel I'm stuck to defend myself with the traffic act but I'm unable to find a definition for "Single-lane" or driving parrllel or passing where a lane is big enough for two or more vehicles. Yet all over the city there are lanes like this!!!!

My argument is that there is no clearly defined rule in the act for the lane we were driving on, and because of that, both drivers should have used discretion due to lane size. Attempting to make a right turn from the leftmost side of the lane (where there was more than enough space for another vehicle) should have prompted the other driver to make a check in their blindspot before attempting the turn which is where I would say the infraction occurred. Being in the blindspot at the time of impact and driving in an unchanging direction should not make me at fault. The point of impact shows my establishment in the lane.

Is there anything in the act to help me?

Hi my name is nick,

I was hoping you can answer my question since i couldn't find an answer on google. I recently took my class 5 road test in Edmonton Alberta (the equivalent of g2 in Ontario), after the test the lady told me that on the one lane road i should have first signalled to the left even thew it was one lane, then stay on the left side of the one lane road and if i was to turn right i would have to signal to the right and move to the right side of the lane right before the stop or yield sign. She took off 50 points ( more than she should have) and i ended up failing my test because 75 points is the maximum you can get and i got 30 points taken off for not pulling my park brake and not cancelling my signal light on time two times. I looked through the drivers handbook and there is no such rule, i even googled it and i couldn't find anywhere that says you are supposed to treat a line big enough for two as two lanes. Do you know of a rule like that.

The rules are different everywhere. The reason you turn from the of the lane you intend to turn is in the very likely event someone is behind you they can pass you. Can you imagine if you were waiting to make a left from the right side of the lane and your rear signal was out and someone decides to pass you because they are not mind readers? Examiners can tell the difference between making a error because you were nervous and one because you dont have a clue. Bottom line you failed because the examiner thought you weren't ready.