Most colonists can’t figure out how traffic circles work.
They’re not unheard of in New Hampshire. The first one that comes to mind is on Silver St. in Dover, which was eventually redone to make the right lane right or straight. The people who designed the intersection apparently didn’t anticipate people turning left much, so there was a straight lane which got backed up all the time when people made left turns, and a right turn lane which wasn’t used very much, so people who’d be trapped behind the cars turning left would end up in the right lane if they meant to go straight for 300’ and turn right on Central Ave.
The most common setup for a two-lanes-each-way-at-the-intersection road, in my experience, is that the left lane goes left or straight, and the right lane goes right or straight. And it’s fairly common for someone in the left lane to get stuck behind people turning left, and cut into the right lane.
And even when one of the lanes is restricted, it’s not always obvious. There was probably a sign that the people now waiting at the light might not have noticed, that’s behind theme where they can’t see it. And some markings on the road, which are covered by cars and can’t be seen. Or is far enough ahead that it’s not easy to see.
So the people waiting may not even know that the right lane is restricted to turning right.
If I’m in the right lane, I’d be dumb not to watch out for people trying to cut into it. Even if that’s illegal, it’s like jaywalking, something an alert driver should watch for.
I wouldn’t use the RTO lane to drive straight ahead. Even if it is clear, that’s a good way to have an accident with a car making the left turn from the opposite direction as he “knows” you must turn right instead of driving straight ahead.
Or get a ticket.
A few years ago I was a passenger in my Dad’s car when he stopped at a four way stop and waited for the other guy to go, even though he pulled up to the intersection well before the other guy. I asked why he did that, and the following conversation ensued:
Him: “Because he was on my right. He had the right of way.”
Me: “But you got to the intersection before he did.”
Him: “But only by a few seconds.”
And there’s the problem. You’re supposed to yield to traffic from the right if you arrive at the intersection at about the same time, except we don’t all agree on what constitutes “about the same time”.
I think the only sensible definition of “at the same time” is when you can’t easily tell who got there first. But who am I to say? This is why right of way that depends on order of arrival is so stupid.
It’s one of those things that’s stupid but there isn’t any less stupid way of doing it without getting rid of the all-way stop altogether. Because if it doesn’t depend on who got there first , you’ll have someone waiting for the person on their right who is still a block away from the intersection.
Of course, it’s intrinsic to the 4-way stop. They are stupid junctions, we should do away with them.
Do we just change it to a 2 way stop with continuous traffic through? Downside of that is that the cross street may never be able to go anywhere at all.
Not all intersections can be turned into roundabouts, and traffic lights are expensive to install and maintain.
Option (a) is the only legal option and also the only safe option. Either wait and consider your poor route planning, or make a right turn.
In L.A., many intersections have “no left turn 7-9am, 5-7pm” or something similar to prevent this kind of congestion.
Junctions where right-of-way is dependent on order of arrival are rare outside North America. On quieter roads, you just give one road permanent priority. Where necessary, you put in a roundabout or lights.
The visual indications of right of way are also far superior on U.K. roads. A big triangle and thick white lines ON THE ROAD where they are automatically in your line of sight, not just signs at the side that are laterally displaced on a wider road and can get hidden in foliage. This is H.K., but it’s the same markings and signage:
https://www.td.gov.hk/en/road_safety/road_users_code/index/chapter_5_for_all_drivers/stop_and_give_way_junctions_/index.html
The other thing that exacerbates the stupidity of the U.S. system is use of the SAME SIGN for 2-way stops, when the majority of junctions are 4-way stops. The only way to discern that it’s a 2-way stop and that vehicles on the perpendicular road have permanent right of way is from the ABSENCE of the small supplementary “4-way” sign underneath the stop sign. It is just inconceivably stupid. I think virtually everyone has seen at least close calls where someone at a 2-way stop pulls out when a vehicle is coming. And that’s why you often see a big extra sign saying CROSS TRAFFIC DOESN’T STOP after numerous accidents. If you need supplementary signs to explain your signs, you need to change the primary signage, for fucks sake.
For most drivers, this absolutely is a way to carry on straight. Draw a straight line from the center of the right turn lane to the center of the single lane on the other side of the intersection.
Same . . . which of course becomes untenable if the amount of traffic that wants to turn left reaches a critical mass, and/or oncoming traffic is constant.
One advantage of four way stops is that it slows traffic on all the streets. We have plenty near us, all medium size streets have them when they intersect, and they work fine. If some of the streets didn’t have them, the traffic wouldn’t be moving at 35 (10 mph over the limit) but more like 50.
As for roundabouts, when I drove around Boston the rule for rotaries, as I understood it, is that local tradition applied. Very helpful, but typical of Boston driving.
Continue to wait in line.
Or another minute while the light cycles. Or three, if there are multiple cars ahead of you that will cause the same situation. Three extra minutes at every intersection I cross even going two miles to the grocery store would add a good twenty minutes to my trip. If I add 20 minutes on the way back, I no longer have time to go to the grocery store.
This is overstating it. There is often plenty of room to go straight around left turning traffic that has already entered the intersection without breaking any laws or doing anything dangerous. It depends on the intersection and traffic, both of which are highly variable.
I definitely have. It makes perfect sense where there is lots of right turning traffic and not much straight or left traffic. It will also facilitate making a right turns on red, which can improve throughput.
Even if true, the easy answer is that the person using the right turn lane is simply going to move into the straight ahead lane. Intersections aren’t generally so tight that there is no physical room to make this maneuver after passing the left turning car. The OP’s hypothetical posits plenty of room for straight ahead traffic to go around the left turner. The guy in the right turning lane will just use that space.
If the lead driver is turning left and there is lots of oncoming traffic that won’t allow it. The lead driver will have to wait for the light to change and complete its turn from inside the intersection. I have heard this maneuver referred to as “claiming the intersection.” Turning after the light turns red is allowed if you entered the intersection before it turned red and cross traffic has to yield to the driver already in the intersection.
You might be right about this part. The people who do the somewhat dangerous behavior are also likely to do other dangerous behaviors, like not looking for other traffic when they change lanes.
In some sort of idealized world where cars move frictionlessly you think this might happen. In the real world, the guy in the right lane will probably do it without incident. Perhaps, if the traffic in the left lane starts moving while he is passing on the right, he has the advantage of higher speed to put him ahead of all that traffic. Bad case, he will be passing some cars and will find a gap between the restarting cars going straight to slide into and will have only passed two or three cars before he proceeds straight. People pulling away from an intersection leave way more space between cars than you imagine. 3-5 car lengths is pretty typical in my experience. Worst case is he screws up the merge and causes an accident. This will happen rarely but often enough to make the maneuver not worth doing in the first place, hence my not doing it.
You are very correct but it’s not the intersection that is dangerous, but rather the driver. In theory, at least, the left turning driver should be yielding to the turning traffic in the left lane but if the left turning driver, understandably, underestimates the oncoming driver’s speed (because he is accelerating to get through the intersection instead of slowing to make a turn) the left turning driver is more likely to try to get ahead of the jerk in the right turning lane. Worse yet, the left turning driver would almost certainly be deemed at fault for failing to yield.
I agree with this. If I’m there a fraction of a second ahead of the other person, I got there first and I’m going. That person probably hasn’t completed their stop before I’m on my way again. Your Dad would drive me insane because I would certainly be waiting for him to go, because right hand rule notwithstanding, we did not get there at the same time.
They seem stupid to me too generally, but they might be useful for things like reducing pedestrian collisions. I’m just not qualified to answer why there are so many. In general, many of them do seem entirely incomprehensible.
I’m not looking it up but I think the Uniform Manual on Traffic Controls discourages using stop signs to calm or slow traffic and it has other recommendations instead.
There are much better (and safer) ways to calm traffic in suburban areas.
I think I’ve posted about this before, but I know of a 4-way intersection with a 3-way stop (the non-stopping direction is coming up a hill). Until recently (street view from 2012), there were only tiny little signs underneath saying “3-way”, and even if you happened to notice that this meant the opposite of every other tiny little red sign, the only way to know which direction didn’t stop was to find the other two stop signs, which were presenting their gray, non-reflective sides to you. It was functionally impossible to know how it worked using the normal cues given to drivers, you just had to know from experience that traffic coming up the hill was going to blast through. If it was your first time? RIP, I guess. (There are now big yellow explanatory signs, very similar to CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP.)
I agree with your general point, but it’s not unheard of for this to happen in the UK. The most common example would be 3 vehicles all arriving at a mini roundabout at the same time - usually resolved quickly by making eye contact with the other road users and then whoever is most assertive going first. It can also happen at a 2-way stop crossroads, if 2 vehicles arrive at the main (crossing) road from opposite directions and at least one wants to turn right on to the main road. When this happens to me, I yield to the vehicle that arrived before me.
This requires three simultaneous arrivals at the smallest type of roundabout, obviously a much rarer event.
But the primary problem with the U.S. system is not the resolution of simultaneous arrivals per se, since this is an occasional feature of almost any traffic flow design. It is the fact that the order of arrival determines right of way - unless it doesn’t. It requires that everyone be mentally processing the order of arrival to the detriment of monitoring safety (such as looking out for pedestrians) when approaching a junction; and that everyone have the exact same understanding of what constitutes a simultaneous arrival, i.e. how small the time gap should be when order of arrival is abandoned and the tie-breaker of “person on the right has right of way” takes effect. It’s a mess when you have lines of vehicles arriving from 3 or more directions, all constantly pulling up to the stop lines and trying to evaluate whose turn it is, having to monitor cars arriving from multiple directions, with some people thinking that the order of arrival is still governing as new cars from the queues pull up to the stop lines, some maybe thinking that position rather than order of arrival should govern; all rendered even more chaotic by the inevitable idiots who imagine that they are being “generous” or “conservative” by not going when it is clearly their turn to go.
It does calm traffic in a perverse way, by creating a mess where everyone is confused. But if traffic calming is the objective, there are much better ways to achieve that.
That sounds like less of a problem with all-way stops in general and more of an issue that that particular intersection shouldn’t have one if there’s a line of cars waiting to pull up to the stop sign. The only time I see that are situations where it happens for a short time each day - for example, cars line up waiting to get to the stop sign only at school drop-off and dismissal times.
No way. The best was to keep everyone safe is to be predictable. Going straight while in a turn lane is not just illegal lane use, it’s not expected.