I hate jerks who won’t move out into the intersection too. But how is running the yellow “obeying the lights”? According to the cops in my former hometown, that’s NOT what the yellow means. It means the light’s gonna change, get through if you’re already approaching, but don’t “tag a long” and run the red.
Unfortunately, we won’t be getting any more driving insights from Libertarian in this thread. You see, he was following behind another driver and saw brake lights but didn’t immediately hit his own brakes.
Because, you see, brake lights are only one possible clue that the driver ahead might be coming to a stop… 
He didn’t mention anything about a yellow light. At all. He mentioned a green arrow and a red arrow, but nothing about a yellow. I think you’re mistaking a green arrow for a green light. If the light’s green, get your ass into the intersection. Failing to do so is impeding the normal flow of traffic.
No, as a matter of fact it isn’t safe to say that, which is why I fucking asked the question. We’ve quite positively ascertained that he’s talking about what he does at lights with green arrows. That doesn’t tell us dick about what he does at lights without green arrows.
The reason for asking is that I’m wondering if he behaves differently at a light which never has a green arrow than he does at a light which sometimes displays a green arrow, but is displaying a green circle when he encounters it. Those two signals have the exact same meaning, but for some reason, a few people seem to think they should act differently in the two cases. Why?
If you think these two signals mean the same thing, remind me never to come the other way when you believe you have a protected green.
One might act differently at an intersection with no arrow because you won’t ever get that protected green. That is a very different situation from knowing a green arrow will appear in a few seconds.
In my neighborhood, there’s one intersection with a green arrow that appears before the normal green light. I don’t ever bother with moving into the intersection unless I’m actually making the turn. The arrow will appear a few seconds after the red, the cross street doesn’t get a long green. Creeping into the intersection means I won’t be able to see the status of the light anymore, so I would always be sitting there when the cross street is trying to go. The few extra seconds isn’t going to hurt me, or the guy behind me.
This Year’s Model, I think galt is saying that the green circles mean the same thing regardless of whether or not an arrow exists.
They do mean the same thing. A solid green circular light always means the same thing, regardless of whether an arrow may or may not appear in the future, or appeared in the past. Clairvoyance is not a requirement to drive a car.
Point taken, note made. Thanks for the note, even though it wasn’t for me.
Only in that both a green arrow and solid green mean “you may proceed in the direction indicated.” A solid green does not mean “you may turn left, oncoming draffic be damned.”
NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!
Galt was talking about a solid green circular light. He was not comparing a solid light to a green arrow. He was comparing a solid green light at an intersection that also has arrows to a solid green light at an intersection that doesn’t have arrows.
Geez, it’s not that hard, people…
Oh, and to stave off further misunderstanding, we’re talking about when the arrow is OFF, and only the solid green is on.
ouch
On rereading for the tenth time - I believe you may be right; I have misunderstood the phrasing.
Ah, gotcha. TYM should be more careful when editing quotes.
I edited very carefully, believe it or not. What I need to be more careful of is comprehension before I pick out the piece of the quote I think I’m replying to. Or something like that.
That’s what I meant. 
Thanks for realizing your error before I had to come back in here and slap you guys around. 
Yes, I’m aware of that. What I was replying to was another poster who was describing moving into the intersection when the light was green (thereby allowing cars behind you to go straight), and then when the yellow forces oncoming traffic to stop, turning left at that point. Though I’m aware that there are intersections where you really can’t get turned unless you DO do this, it’s not, by any definition “obeying the lights”.
That’s what my question referred to, and again, as I said in my first post, I was in no way supporting idiots who stop dead at the light impeding all other vehicles behind them.
Just in case I wasn’t clear enough above, the part of the post I was questioning is bolded below:
Perhaps he meant something different, but I understood it as make your turn as the light changes from yellow to red, which in my understanding of “obeying traffic lights” isn’t “obeying” them at all.
Using them perhaps, but not “obeying” them in the sense that “obeying” means proceeding lawfully.
Okay, Australian law (and it would seem US law too, from this thread) is as follows:
When you are turning across the oncoming traffic where there are no arrows or where the arrows are unlit (ie. turning right in drive-on-the-left Australia, or turning left in the US of A), not only are you SUPPOSED to move out into the intersection, but THE LIGHT TURNING RED ISN’T YOR SIGNAL TO PANIC, WET YOUR PANTS, OR REVERSE BACK INTO THE CAR BEHIND YOU!
The law states that if you are over the horizontal stop line painted on the road (as you should be in this situation) you are ALLOWED to turn after the light has turned red. Calmly too. There is time. Traffic signals have a latency built into them, and on a four way signalled intersection there is a second or so when all lights show red in every direction. This is when you move if you are out in the middle and haven’t had a chance yet. Now is your chance.
You. Will. Not. Get. A. Ticket.
Put it this way, that stop line on the road has specific meaning. It is related to the lights. If you are past that stop line, those traffic lights no longer have any relevance to you.
Depending on the intersection, the number of cars in front of the stop line and intending to turn can vary. In most suburban ones, it is only one car. In bigger ones there is room for two or even three. The first guy in the queue of turners whose car is COMPLETELY behind the line is the first one who has to stop and wait. Everybody in front of him is obliged to complete the turn on the red.
Well thank goodness SOMEONE understands plain english. Yes, that’s exactly what I was asking about.
I had heard that you were not supposed to do this. (not that it ever stopped me). Thanks for clearing it up so well.