464 THE ADVOCATE
VOL. 78 PART 3 MAY 2020
In 1892, provincial legislation was enacted to provide for the muchneeded
uniformity. This 1892 statute required that, as in the United Kingdom,
traffic proceed on the left. British Columbia’s Highway Traffic Act,
1892—as might be expected, still very horse-oriented—provided that vehicles
meeting were to “turn out to the left from the centre of the road, allowing
the vehicle so met one-half of the road”, and that a vehicle being
overtaken was likewise to “quietly turn out to the left and allow the said
overtaking vehicle or horseman to pass”.4 In the interests of safety more
generally, the legislation also said that “no person shall race with or drive
furiously any horse or other animal upon any highway”.5
However, as more and more of Canada changed to driving on the right,
in common with the United States, British Columbia became an anomaly.
In 1919, the provincial Legislative Assembly passed a resolution calling
on the government to introduce legislation in the next session to effect the
change to driving on the right, not the left.6 Its proponents included
prospective tourists from elsewhere in Canada and the United States, and
British Columbians wishing to attract them. For example, the manager of
the Automobile Club of Western Washington—part of a delegation that visited
the provincial Attorney General as well as B.C.’s Minister of Public
Works—noted that “fully one-half of the visitors who normally wanted to
visit British Columbia for their vacation were deterred by the fact that the
rule of the road for motor cars was the reverse on this side of the line, and
they were not sure enough of their driving to take the risk”.7
However, the change was not uniformly applauded. By early 1920, B.C.’s
Attorney General, John Wallace de Beque Farris, Q.C., was cautioning that
“opposition from unexpected quarters has developed. Even the motorists
of our own province are apparently not agreed upon the question”.8 Traditionalists
noted, for example, “the admirable manner in which the traffic in
London is handled”, though a proponent of the legislative amendment
retorted: “We all admire the excellent way in which London street traffic is
regulated, but it would be equally well conducted did the contrary rule of
the road obtain.”9
Other opponents of the legislative change noted that, as returned to
below, drivers and pedestrians alike would be put at unnecessary risk by the
need to adapt. As one commentator noted of the latter category, “it is the
custom of all pedestrians to expect traffic to proceed by the left and they
govern their own movements accordingly”.10
Beyond these practicalities, B.C.’s Opposition leader, W.J. Bowser, argued
that provincial legislation on the topic would be ultra vires insofar as it purported
to require even B.C. Electric Company (“B.C. Electric”), which oper-