Pretty much, yup. After reading this thread, I’m starting to understand why u-turning is not allowed.
Yeah…I extrapolated, because in my corner of paradise, all my lefts are protected…shouldn’t extrapolate. But that’s what I was thinking of when I read Gawd’s post, because it happens to me all the time.
Livin’ in the 'burbs, eh? 
Interesting thread, if a bit scary as to some of the misinformed drivers out there.
Always remember that no driver ever has the right of way. All drivers must always be diligent in avoiding accidents to the best of their ability. If you hit a car you could have avoided hitting, then you are at fault. Period. If you don’t believe me, look it up in the laws for your state. They all got 'em. This factoid, incidentally, can win you bar bets, as it has for me. So even if they pulled out in front of you, if you barrel into them when you could have stopped, (looking for a settlement?) you will be held at least partially to blame.
Several descriptions in this thread seem unneccesarily complex. There are some very basic, guiding principles that permeate the rules of the road. Basically, the first and foremost is that green takes precendence over red. The second is that the more lanes you cross, the more you must yield. Turning right? Least crossing, so most able to go first. So much so that often you can turn right on red.
Turning left? Well, now you’re crossing, so you must yield to all oncoming traffic, whether they are going straight, or turning right into the same road you’re turning left onto.
Making a U-Turn? Now you’re making, in effect, two left turns at once, so you have to yield to pretty much everybody for a 3 mile radius. Unless, of course, you have a protected U-Turn arrow. One poster from NC in this thread made me chuckle, because for this Yankee, living in NC was a culture-shock in that U-Turns seem to be a preferred traffic design feature. I’ve never seen a protected U-Turn arrow anywhere but NC. For the most part, here in CT, U-Turns are illegal, or at very least, unheard of except on the precious few roadways with medians.
Also, regarding 3-point turns, here in the US we do them, but never on a main road. Basically, when you need to turn around, you turn left (or right, in a pinch) onto a side street, find a quiet driveway, make your 3-point turn there, and come back to the main road and turn right (or left) to complete the reversal in direction.
Nonsense. I defy you to show us any statute that says, “the more lanes you cross, the more you must yield”. And you can turn right on a red light if it is allowed by statute. There is no “guiding principle” that allows it.
Again, that’s just false. In that situation, you do not yield to a person who has a red light or a stop sign.
Why do you think U-Turns are illegal there? What are you basing that on?
Freejooky—were you making this U-turn in Chicago? Maybe things have changed, but I was taught in driver’s ed that U-turns in the city of Chicago are prohibited unless otherwise posted, hence the “U-Turn Permitted” signs you occassionally see here. I’m trying to find an authorative cite to back me up on this.
Come on, you can read better than that. I claimed no statute; I referred to it as a guiding principle. In general, it is true. The more lanes you cross, the more you have to yield. If you look up every possible statute on yielding, you will see this correlation bear out. If you dispute this, you may want to audit a driver’s ed course for a refresher.
Again, you misread. Remember the “first and foremost” part? That means it overrides the second principle.
I didn’t state convincingly that they are illegal here. I believe I added the caveat “or at very least, unheard of except on the precious few roadways with medians.” I think this way because nobody ever makes U-Turns around here. Except at the precious few protected U-Turn intersections on roadways with medians and dedicated U-Turn arrow lights, I have never seen anybody ever make one.
The problem is not my reading; it is your talking out of your ass.
I didn’t say you “claimed a statute”. I know you didn’t reference a statute, which is why I challenged you to do so. You can’t, because you’re full of shit.
That’s utter bullshit.
Actually, I was a licensed driving instructor, and I can tell you that you are spouting nonsense. If you have supposedly read so many statutes, perhaps you can tell us which one refers to “how many lanes you cross”, in relation to right-of-way. Oh, that’s right, you can’t.
Nope.
Yes, I remember you saying that. And then I remember you contradicting it later in the same post, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Blah, blah, blibbity bing what?
Maybe you should open your eyes.
That’s how it is in Florida, anyway. ::shrug::
(Reading this thread gave me a headache.)
Okay, douchebag, name me a situation where a car crossing fewer lanes (or none at all) has to yield the right of way to a car crossing more lanes without the benefit of stoplights or stop signs. Just one. Until you do, go fuck yourself.
I weep for your driver’s ed pupils. Or rather, all the corpses they must be creating due to your impeccable tutelage.
I just noticed Ellis Dee is posting from New England, which explains a lot regarding his bizarre understanding of the rules of the road. As a newcomer to the region, I was amazed that, to a man, drivers here think that the first car in the left lane has the right of way to turn left in from of oncoming traffic when the light first changes. They get very upset when I honk my horn and flip them off. I’m quite sure that rule is unwritten right next to the one Ellis is citing about right of way for U-turns.
That’s actually the exact opposite of what I’m stating, as the left turners are crossing more lanes and thus should yield the right of way.
However, the phenomenon you describe is quite real here in NE. The reason is because the majority of lights at busy intersections here have semi-protected lefts. This is when there is no arrow, but the regular green light is given to one direction (with the left turners) about 5-10 seconds before the other direction gets their green, thus allowing a small window of “protected” left turning.
Unfortunately, this is not universally true around here, in in some rare cases, is the exact opposite. This whole setup does tend to cause much confusion for people unfamiliar with the area.
By the way, what is bizarre about my understanding of the rules of the road? Quote them for me, if you would. Until I’m presented with a situation where the car crossing more lanes is granted right of way, I defend that position. I also defend that green takes precedence over red. Doesn’t seem bizarre to me. Also, no three point turns on major throughways. Again, why is this bizarre?
Bring on the dogpile.
The bizzarity is that Massachusetts MV laws do not require left-turning vehicles to yield to oncoming thru traffic, unless things have changed since I learned to drive/survive there. My current state of residence does require LT’s to yield (unless going on a fully protected green arrow) (something else unheard of in Mass. last time I was there). The problem here is when the signal is in a permissive/protected cycle that gives a green ball first and than a green left arrow. Many out-of-staters turn left on the green ball and get T-boned.
Since this thread is mostly off-the-OP conjecture due to lack of details in the OP, anybody live in a state besides Mass. that does not require left-turners to yield to oncoming traffic? And **excuuuuse me ** if Mass. does have such a law but nobody there knows or obeys it.
You must be missing something. I don’t know of any specific law, but if I turn left in front of oncoming traffic, it is clearly my fault. Probably failure to yield ROW.
As to the OP. U-Turns should be avoided, from what I’ve seen, people make U-turns because they screwed up and missed a turn. There is no way that the right-turner can anticipate what you are doing. And IMHO, a U turn will put you in the outer most lane, not the inner most lane (where you should be). So the u-turner is at fault. Illegal lane usage.
If, you where crossing, turning left and ran into a person turning right because you went into his lane, you would also be at fault.
I would be stunned to find out that this is not the case in Mass, or any other state in the union, or any other country in the world. (Making allowance for countries where they drive on the other side of the road.)
Generally true, but if memory serves, the OP is addressing the divided roadway (with median) situation where you can’t actually make U-Turns because of the divider. In such roadways, not all driveways/cross-streets/entrances meet the road at a break in the median, so you would have to turn right and travel to the next break in the median to make a U-Turn if you wanted to travel left down the roadway. (I need an editor. That’s way too wordy, but hopefully gets the point across.)
Unless you had a green and they were making a right on red or were at a stop sign. That’s the OP’s scenario, right? It seems like a dangerous setup to me; I’d imagine a “Watch for U-Turns” sign would be helpful for the right-turners.
How does the other driver know you are going to make U-turn?
Does your car come equipped with a U-turn signal?
Or do you just flip you left turn signal on?
If it’s the later, then I would assume you’re making a left turn, unless it’s a clear day and my telepathy is on, then I could just read your mind.
I think we are pretty much agreeing here. I certainly agree with most of your posts.
From my viewpoint - Consider a different senario. Two cars. On going north one south. The southbound car wants to turn right (West) the northbound car wants to turn left (also to the West). They are turning onto a two lane road. The north bound car sould stay in the ‘southern/left lane’ the southbound car sould stay in the ‘northern/right’ lane. Whomever strays out of there lane is at greater fault in an accident.
A car making a U-turn will not be able to stay in their lane. And will most certainly occupy the lane that the Right turning car is about to take. The person making the U-turn is more at fault.
Except that the person making th right turn, in this case, has a red light and has no right-of-way.
If he is making a right on Red, he has the ROW to the right hand lane as long as no traffic is coming. I still say he has the ROW over the U-Turner since the U-Turner is turning into the wrong lane, and, the intent of the U-Turner is impossible to predict. Anyone would assume that the person is going to turn left.
I can’t find the exact ordinace for Chicago, but I did find this: