Yes, when YOU claim some mysterious “guiding principle” as to how right-of-way is determined, but utterly fail to provide ANY cite for it, other than the bizarre machinations of your delusional mind, then it’s up to ME to provide “data” to disprove it. :rolleyes:
Fucking moron.
So far, your conclusions have been without merit.
He is the cite you twit. This “guiding principle” is the method Ellis Dee is suggesting those that have trouble figuring out the right-of-way use to assist them in determining such. It’s not the law, it’s just a rule-of-thumb that seems to apply.
Here’s another rule-of-thumb: You’re being an ass.
Here’s a good rule of thumb - IT’S NOT THAT FUCKING HARD. Seriously, if you’re having trouble figuring out who has the right of way, you shouldn’t be driving a car. I have NEVER heard anyone else talk about how many lanes you cross as a rule of thumb for anything. It’s just fucking stupid.
It’s pretty god-damned simple: (1) straight (2) right turn (3) left turn. That’s the order in which you yield the right of way; no lane-counting required. There’s lots of other stuff to remember, but none of them have jack-shit to do with how many lanes you cross, like traffic signals, who got there first, etc.
Takes one to know one.
I never said it was hard. I never even said it was a good rule-of-thumb. I just tried to address your ridiculous plea for a cite.
Sometimes it does. Sometimes it’s evident to anyone.
Yes, MY ridculous plea for a cite. That’s my name right there - Ellis Dee. :rolleyes:
Yes, as in THIS case.
That was not the ridiculous plea I was referring to and you know it. I’d like to believe you’re not as stupid as your recent posts in this thread seem to indicate. Maybe I’m just being too optimistic though.
I know it wasn’t. But don’t you think it’s a little ridiculous of you to criticize ME for asking for a cite, when it was in REACTION to HIS demand for a cite? Are you really that obtuse?
When it goes like this:
Person A: “Blah blah ridiculous assertion…”
Person B: “That’s ridiculous”
Person A: “Well then prove it’s not true”
Person B: “Why should I do that? You’re making the assertion; if anyone should prove it, it should be you.”
You think Person B is taking the unreasonable position, eh? :dubious:
And then you call ME “stupid”. Yeah, whatever.
You’re the second person in this thread to have this opinion, and I’m compelled to point out how stupid it is.
You know there is no “U-turn” signal.
You see the left turn signal on, which you know means they’re either making a left turn or a U-turn
Yet you assume it means they’re making a left turn.
How is your assumption anything but your own fault? You know you’ve got a good chance of being wrong, but you assume anyway. It’s dumb.
But he did provide examples of where his rule-of-thumb proves true:
So your synopsis would more accurately go like this:
Person A: “Blah blah ridiculous assertion…”
Person B: “That’s ridiculous”
Person A: “Well then prove it’s not true”
Person B: “Why should I do that? You’re making the assertion; if anyone should prove it, it should be you.”
Person A: “Here are some examples where it’s true… Now can you provide any examples where it’s not?”
Person B: “That’s fucking gibberish.”
Person A: “Since you can’t actually provide any examples as to where I’m wrong, I’m going to just consider you a lost cause.”
Person B: “You’re asking me to provide data?! Fucking moron.”
Yup. Person B is a tool. Person A might have an odd way of looking at something, but Person B is just plain bullheaded, relying on his loud voice and thickheadedness more than anything else.
I think I’m going to join Ellis Dee and leave you to your hopeless blatherings.
Where is that? In the Bay Area, many intersections with lights have signage specifically permitting U-turns.
I don’t know about anyone else, but a U-turn in a clearly marked intersection seems a lot safer than pulling into a driveway and backing out against traffic, or going into a store parking lot and cutting across lanes of traffic.
Um, yeah- we’ve been over that. I’m sure if you watch on your way home tonight, you might see a blue car yield the right of way to a red car. Does that example prove that red over blue is an “underlying principle”? Fuck no. Finding an example of a car that crosses more lanes yielding to a car that crosses fewer lanes does not prove that “number of lanes crossed” is the underlying principle. But then I don’t expect you to ever understand this, because your skull is apparently close to the density of neutronium. CarnalK seemed capable of understanding the fallaciousness of that position, so I can only assume the inability to comprehend is your own.
Sorry you’re too dense to understand it. Don’t hit yourself with the door on the way out.
Right, and they’re actually redundant, because the CA Vehicle Code permits U-Turns at any intersection unless specifically forbidden by a sign. But it was brought up earlier that the city of Chicago, for one, might have an ordinance prohibiting U-Turns. I don’t think anyone found a cite, but we did find references to such a law.
I couldn’t agree more. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a U-Turn. This whole U-Turn phobia that’s coming up in this thread is baffling to me.
I took motorcycle lessons a couple years back in British Columbia. Got my car license half a lifetime ago in Quebec, and I’m pretty sure the same rules apply there too. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of the Quebec highway code, and it’s not available online, unlike in B.C. I know there have been some changes in Quebec lately, such as allowing right-hand turns on a red light, but not on the island of Montreal.
I’ve got to try this one more time, because I can tell you have a couple brain cells. If we can just rub them together in the right way, I think we might get a spark.
The red car/blue car crap is obviously not an “underlying principle” because I could just as easily provide you with examples of a red car yielding to a blue car. I would be thereby refuting the “blue yields” argument. You were asked to refute Ellis Dee’s position and you so far haven’t been able to in any way other than claiming it’s irrelevant without providing any supporting evidence. That’s why you are the one failing basic comprehension here.
And as to the whole calling it an “underlying principle” crap, which implies this is something that came before and is at the root of right-of-way laws. It’s you that came up with that. Ellis Dee has consistently called them a guiding principle in following the law. Not in creating it. I personally think it’s an overly complicated way of looking at it, but it works for him and, for the most part, seems to ring true. He’s offering it as a rule-of-thumb to consider if you’re someone who has difficulty with right-of-way. He’s never claimed it’s the law, or even that it was considered in creating the law. It’s a resulting condition of the law. Not a preceding principle.
I still think you have a chance blowero. It’s fleeting, but I’m still optimistic that you can overcome your shortcomings and become a modestly rational person. I wish you the best of luck.
Gee, Severian - you didn’t leave when you said you would. What a surprise. :rolleyes:
You’re just so fucking clever, aren’t you? :rolleyes:
Huh? Who the bloody fuck cares if we use the word “guiding” or “underlying”? It is NEITHER. I would’ve used the word “guiding” if I actually had enough interest to search the whole thread to see which one he used. And if you’re just using it as a device to aid memory, like “Every good boy does fine” to remember the music staff, that is ALSO fucking ridiculous. There are much easier ways to remember it than counting lanes. Why make it needlessly complicated? And again, if one really can’t remember, one needs to read the whole driver handbook again, not memorize some asinine “guiding principle” that would be more likely to cause an accident than anything else. If you don’t know who has the right of way and when, you don’t belong behind the wheel.
I think we are in agreement, and you just don’t realize it. It’s an overly-complicated way of looking at it, and I would go one further and say that’s it’s an utterly nonsensical way of looking at it. DON’T YOU SEE? that I have no interest in even trying to come up with counter-examples, because the idea doesn’t even merit that type of scrutiny. It is flatly ridiculous. And I don’t feel bad in the least about not mincing my words, because, frankly, Ellis Dee has been acting like a jackass.
[yawn]
I’d like to respond to the person who said that most U-Turns are the result of screwing up and having to double back to correct a missed turn, with yet another example of how that assertion is incorrect. Take the following for example: I’m in Car “C”, travelling northbound and wishing to get to Business “B” on the S/W corner of the intersection, for which there are 2 Entrances “E”. There is no path I can take to get to it that doesn’t require a U-Turn somewhere. I can either make my U-Turn at the intersection where I sit, then an immediate Right into the lot; I can make a Left turn onto the westbound lane, pass the Entrance (which I cannot turn into through Eastbound traffic, not to mention the likely double yellow line prohibiting a left turn that near the intersection, or the physical barrier preventing same), find someplace up ahead to make a U-Turn and double back to make a Right into the Business; or I can continue to travel northbound, find someplace to make a U-Turn so I’m heading southbound, pass through the intersection again and make a Right into the lot.
| | | N
| | | W + E
| | | S
| | |
--------------- ---------------
--------------- ---------------
---------- E -- ---------------
_______ | |C |
| | E | |
| B | | | |
|_______| | | |
The only scenario that makes any sense is to make the LEGAL U-Turn at the intersection where I’m sitting. If I do so on a green light (whether solid or an arrow), any traffic sitting on the eastbound lane would naturally have a Red light and must cede the ROW to my U-Turn. This, as it happens, would also provide the scenario for the other poster who asked for an example of when a vehicle crossing more lanes would have the ROW over a vehicle crossing fewer. (Crossing my fingers that my diagram displays correctly as I hit Submit.)
I stand by that assertion, and believe that most people that U-turn screwed up and missed a turn. No way to prove it I guess.
Whatever floats your boat.
Re: getting to the business. I would have taken a left before getting to the intersection, make two rights and then enter on the north ‘E’ approaching from the west. I plan.
IMHO, U-turns generaly screw up the flow of traffic.
Re: who has the ROW. Seems to be pretty contested. I don’t think the person making the right on red should be expected to NOT turn right on the one in a thousand chance that someone is going to make a U-Turn. Yep, it may be legal, but when you are driving, and do something unexpected (like a U-Turn), the burden is on the U-turner to make sure the way is clear.
Sure, the right turner can look out for the unexpected, like a U-turn, but the U-turner knows what the right turner intends to do. The U-turner is a wildcard. Unexpected and impossible to predict.
To the people that feel U-turners have the right of way…
Should people making a right on red not turn if there is someone making a left (or unpredictable U-turn) on an arrow?
No, it would not in that the crossing lanes ROW rule of thumb is superceded by the traffic lights. I was asking about conditions where there are no lights and signs.
Excellent diagram, btw.
Cite, please? You have now made an assertion, and I would like you to back it up. Please identify any situation not mitigated by lights and/or signs where the driver crossing fewer lanes must yield to the driver crossing more.
You’re insane. There’s no magic involved in figuring out whether someone is making a U-turn. Take a freakin’ look!
I’m absolutely amazed that you have to ask this, but yes, if you’re turning right on red, and someone is making a green-arrow left onto the same street from the opposite direction, you must yield.
And again with the idea that U-turns are some kind of wacky, out-of-nowhere, unpredictable turn. I’m surprised you don’t demand that everyone clearly signal their intention to drive straight through an intersection. How else can you predict what they’re going to do? It’s crazy out there!
Today I made a U-turn. It was, I guarantee you, the only way to get to my destination without going at least four blocks out of my way. Nobody was killed or even alarmed.