I know of an intersection near me that has a lot of traffic turning right, so it has a protected right green arrow. Now, it has heavy volume both ways through this turn, so if you made that protected right, went a mile down the road and turned around (using a parking lot; a U-Turn would get you killed,) to come straight back, and now wanted to turn left so you could go back to where you started, you would reach a protected green arrow for left turns.
The relevant part is that the protected right arrow and the protected left arrow are both lit at the same time, because these turns are always independent of each other. If, however, you tried to make a U-Turn at the protected left arrow, you would be slamming into the people who were making their protected right arrow turns.
This came to mind because the protected right turn is onto a two-lane section. Your point is a good one in that a U-Turn would force a car to turn into the far lane, which is (obviously) where the right turners are turning into.
There is no sign prohibiting U-Turns anywhere around this intersection. Perhaps blowero could explain this setup to me so that my meager understanding of traffic laws would be expanded. Even when I open my eyes, I still never see anybody make U-Turns around here.
False. There are many situations where it is necessary to make a U-turn. Just an example: You exit from a driveway onto a street with a raised median; you need to turn left onto the street, but are prevented from doing so by the median; the proper thing to do in that situation is to turn right, go to the next intersection, and make a U-Turn. One cannot always make 3 right turns; besides it being a stupid, time-wasting, convoluted thing to do, not every city is laid out in perfect grids. If U-Turns are prohibited in the particular place you’re driving, then you have no choice. But if they are allowed, there are lots of situations where it would be ridiculous to try to avoid making one. A person who lives in the boonies or doesn’t have a lot of driving experience might not know this, but most people who have done a lot of city driving in different areas does.
That sounds really wrong, unless you live somewhere with some really bizarre laws. Here in California, it’s perfectly acceptable to finish your U-turn in the outer lane. You will not be cited for failing to accomplish the impossible. If you have a cite for a law that considers completing a U-turn in the outside lane to be “illegal lane usage”, I’d love to see it.
Assuming you have a red light and are making a right turn, it is your duty to make sure the roadway is clear before you enter it. That means looking both ways.
You just don’t get it. The number of lanes crossed is irrelevant. Whether I can give examples of correllations between numbers of lanes crossed and right-of-way is immaterial, because the right-of-way is not determined that way. There are very specific statutes that give very specific conditions under which one must yield the right-of-way, and “number of lanes crossed” is not one of those conditions.
It’s like if you said blue cars have the right-of-way over yellow cars, and I said “no they don’t”, and then you asked me for an example of a yellow car ever having the right-of-way. My response would be that the color of the car is irrelevant.
First of all, I said I was a driving instructor, not a driver’s ed teacher, idiot. I gave behind-the-wheel training. Second, I was just thinking that you might want to look into a refresher course yourself. Seriously.
I’ve been driving since 1975. About 15 years of it in Denver. And many other experiences in cities that aren’t grided out, like Pittsburgh. I rarely encounter situations where I need to make a U-turn. And don’t consider making a U-turn a better option than three rights, or pulling into somewhere and turning around. I’ve been driving for nearly 30 years, I’ve never been involved in any kind of accident. I must be doing something right.
I can’t honestly remember when the last time I made a U-turn was. I’m sure I have a few times. Probably because I was lost, missed a turn and was in a rush. That’s the only time I would do it.
No, you aren’t understanding my post at all. Your example of blue cars and yellow cars demonstrates that you still don’t grasp what I’m saying.
This is what I’m saying. There are many different laws dictating who must yield the right of way in numerous different situations. If one looks at all these diverse situations, one can identify a pattern in the noise that can aid people in figuring out the right of way laws in a situation they are unfamiliar with. This pattern is exactly what I stated: The more lanes you cross, the more you must yield.
Yes, before your head explodes, I recognize that this is not written into the law. I never claimed it was. I’m offering a relevant guideline (as opposed to your blue and yellow cars example) to all the drivers out there.
Let’s look at some cases. Where there are no traffic indicators such as signs and lights, the following rules apply: (When I say highway, I mean limited access highways.)
Cars changing lanes on a highway must yield to cars not changing lanes.
Cars merging onto a highway must yield to cars already on the highway.
Cars turning left (off the roadway) must yield to oncoming traffic.
Cars crossing a street must yield to cars already traveling on the street.
Cars entering a street from a driveway must yield to cars already on the street.
In these five examples, the identifiable pattern is that the more lanes you cross, the more you must yield. Again, I am not claiming this is a law, I am claiming this is an identifiable pattern in the traffic laws.
You have disagreed with this position several times in this thread. But you aren’t speaking to the position, you are speaking to the law, which is not relevant to what I’m saying.
So, to better clarify your position, please identify for me any situation where any car must yield to another car that is crossing more lanes of traffic. Remember, I’m not asking for statutes, so answering “it’s not in the law” is a simpleminded strawman argument.
The only way you can logically refute my position is to show more (or any) examples where crossing lanes does not require yielding to traffic that isn’t crossing lanes. It doesn’t matter if my position is spelled out in the lawbooks or not. I’m pointing out an emergent principle in traffic laws, and the best refutation you’ve come up with so far is that “crossing lanes is not a specific condition for granting right of way.” No kidding. I never said it was, and my argument doesn’t require it.
This part of your response makes me wonder if you are even capable of grasping what it is that I’m saying.
I must defend blowero on this one. Even here in CT, the land of the no U-Turns, we have divided roadways that require U-Turns if you want to go left. This one’s a no-brainer.
You have failed to present any data whatsoever that contradicts my original position. Instead, you have simply put your fingers in your ears and continued to chant “la la la I can’t hear you!”
I conclude that you are either monumentally stubborn, or not very bright. Either way, I cannot see any value in continuing this debate.
Jeebus. Just trying to keep track of all the various possible U-turn/right turn combinations used in your examples is making me dizzy. This thread would be a lot easier to follow if you guys could work together to create a handy dandy Flash animation.
(And just where the heck is Freejooky, anyway? Did he make one too many U-turns against the light and wind up in a hospital?)
I find it hard to believe that such an esoteric subject as who has the right of way on a u-turn can have this much traction. That’s why I love this message board. Has anyone ever heard of making a U-turn from the right lane? I have a friend who says that even if there is a sign prohibiting U-turns that you can make one from the far right hand lane. This sounds like the ravings of a lunatic mind to me, since it seems far more dangerous, but she insisted she “read it somewhere.”
