So if you’re going northbound on Wells, making that left turn to get onto Congress, is it legal to make a left turn from the right lane? 'Cause I know everyone does it, but it fills me with grr every time.
The left lane clearly has a left turn arrow painted on it. The right lane is blank. A right turn is very much possible there. Going straight is not (Wells is a one way going south there, so it’s Do Not Enter going north.)
What say you, Dopers? If you saw this intersection, would you expect people in the right hand lane to be turning left? Google Maps
Probably, so long as they don’t collide with cars turning from the left lane. Otherwise there would be a right arrow in the right lane. There really should be better signage/surface markings. How many accidents occur here?
I would expect people to turn right or left from that right lane. Since it’s not marked, I think it could go either way. Other double left turn lanes in the city are also marked with a solid white line in between, and then the right lane is often marked with the double arrows indicating both straight and left turn. I would expect if the city were to ever paint an indicator on that right lane at Wells, it would be a double arrow indicating both left and right turns, with the left lane being left only. Fat chance that will ever happen, though. This is the worst city for clear traffic/road markings!
That’s some beautiful and expensive paver work there on the crosswalks … can’t believe they shortchanged the road paint … such an intelligent dispersal of funds …
Or do you mean the one ahead on the left, that looks like a bristle building block? 'Cause yeah, that one’s fugly. I don’t have any idea what that is. Judging from all the balconies, probably overpriced apartments.
Unless the lane has an arrow to allow your turn, you can only turn left from the left most lane, and you can only turn right from the right most lane. You can go straight in any lane that hasn’t got incompatible arrows … no disobeying the arrow and going straight.
The one arrow at the left lane just changes what you can do at the left lane, and changes nothing about the right lane.
One possible reason they didn’t paint a left,straight and right arrow at the right lane is that they don’t want the left turning vehicles to stop to wait to turn left and block the right lane !! But there can be more, such as the need to totally reengineer the intersection to make it safe…
One reason they didn’t paint “straight and right” arrow on the right lane , is to save money on paint. But this is very many many intersections, the arrow in one lane just removes the ability to go straight in that lane, it does not confer more freedoms on other lanes.
I agree with Isilder. They’re doing it wrong. You can only turn from the “wrong” lane if there are markings authorizing it.
There is no traffic control device directing that you can turn left from the right lane, so you have to do it from the left lane. I think having only a left arrow might actually be more confusing than no arrows here. It looks like an exception that proves a rule, but it’s not.
Oh, pretty pretty citation. I feel vindicated in my outrage.
No, not yet. But that’s a long light to wait through, and I sit there and stare at the line of cars in the right lane and fume that two thirds of them are going to turn left.
I DO have to get all the way right pretty quickly once I turn, which is the source of my grr. If they weren’t illegally turning left from a right hand lane, I could turn left into my proper lane and then very quickly and easily move into the right hand lane for my right side exit ahead. But because these nimrods are turning left from the right hand lane, I can’t get over easily after I make my turn.
My interpretation of general traffic law related to crossing a traffic lane that has right of way. Any movement is permitted, as long is there is no encroachment into a traffic lane with right of way, unless there is a signalling device to the contrary.
In this situation,a car in the right lane turning left does not cross a traffic lane that has a proceeding traffic flow, so it is allowed. For a more obvious example, say Congress is a one-way street to the left. Obviously, there is no place to go from the right lane on Wells escept left, whether signposted or not. The fact that one can also turn right on Congress does not change the fact that the left turn does not encroach on any other lane’s traffic.
There is, however, the legitimate complaint that the right lane is blocked by traffic waiting to turn left. But that would also arise in a single lane, where it is necessary for a left turn to yield to oncoming traffic. At an intersection where that happens egregiously enough, it is incumbent on the traffic division to redress it with signage. Absent a control device, it is legal to block traffic to wait for right of way.
Any or all of the above is subject to the foibles of 51 different state motor vehicle codes, not even counting Guam…
But we could maybe shoehorn your interpretation in if we also consider this:
What’s key here is that I don’t, as a driver turning left from the marked left turn lane, have to turn into the leftmost lane going westbound. I can turn into “a lane lawfully available to traffic moving in such direction”. It’s, oh, I don’t remember, at least three lanes wide all going westbound there. So I CAN, legally, turn from the left lane into the right hand lane, which would make my impending right side exit much easier and avoid at least two lane changes.
Except I don’t. Because I know there will likely be a nimrod in my blind spot, turning left from the right hand lane into my right of way.
When the light turns green on Wells street, it is green for both north and south bound traffic then the cars turning left are crossing “a traffic lane that has a proceeding traffic flow”.
I would also say any way that the cars turning left from the right lane are making a illegal turn. If I remember right most VCs require a left turn to be made from the extreme left lane unless other lanes are so marked.
Man, what bugs me is that there is no indication that you can’t go straight except that one little “do not enter” sign waaaaay across 4 lanes, real low-like. I’m already picturing myself getting in to major trouble there and I’ve only been to Chicago once!
Forget whether or not they need to indicate the legality of left or right there - they need a left/right arrow just to make sure no one goes straight!!
Since the IL traffic code requires the left turn to be made from the left lane, and because, as Zipper JJ noted, traffic cannot go straight from the righthand lane due to the opposite intersection leg being one-way, the city traffic/transportation department should install RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT signage on that approach to the intersection (and trim trees that block the existing and the proposed traffic signs). Supplementary right turn arrows + “ONLY” pavement markings in the lane would reduce confusion and improve capacity and safety. The arrow pavement markings alone will not suffice because they can be obstructed by snow.
If you look in the timeline of Google’s Street View of that intersection, back in March 2009 there WAS a right turn only arrow in the right turn lane. Then in 2012 it looks like they resurfaced and repainted, and after that the right arrow is gone. Why did they remove it?