In most jurisdictions, the right-on-red-turning vehicle would be at fault and would be charged with failure to yield right of way.
One of my examples that appears to run contrary to this thread was never addressed. In my area, there is a heavily used intersection that has conflicting protected green arrows if the overall message of this thread is to be believed.
Borrowing Shayna’s awesome diagram as a template:
N
W + E
S
=======================================
--------------- ---------------
A
=============== ===============
--------------- ---------------
=============== ===============
| | B|
| | |
| | |
| | |
This is a heavy volume intersection. There is a green protected left arrow at “A” allowing left turns to go south. There is a green protected right arrow at “B” allowing right turns to go East. Both of these protected green arrows are lit at the same time. Because this is a heavy volume intersection, there are virtually always cars waiting for “A” to go green so they can turn left, and in the same way there are virtualy always cars queued up at “B” waiting to turn right.
The basic premise I get from this thread is that the “B” cars must wait until the “A” queue is clear because the “A” queue may be making U-Turns. Nobody ever waits, though, because the “A” queue is never clear. There are no signs regarding U-Turns posted anywhere at this intersection.
So what’s the deal? Everybody has a green, and a U-Turner would be smacking into the right turners. How is this situation handled? I know of no law regarding this exact scenario, so I would fall back on my stupid, meaningless, irrelevant guideline of the U-Turners yielding because they are crossing more lanes. What is the real, factual answer to this?
That’s dangerous thinking, there. Sounds like one o’ them U-Turn sympathizers. Somebody get a rope. 
Is it really that important to go to the doctor? Maybe you should just skip it altogether. We wouldn’t want to cause any angst among those impatient right-on-red folks. You’re wasting valuable seconds of their lives when they could be turning right.
You should ask your city council. I’ve never seen an intersection that gave perpendicular directions protected arrows at the same time. You are right, it does sound dangerous.
Yep, that’s insane. It makes absolutely no sense to have two green arrows lit at the same time that allow traffic to enter the same roadway from two different directions. That would just be a recipe for disaster. A green arrow means the turn is protected. The very point of having a green arrow is that it means you don’t have to yield. If that really is the case in that intersection, it’s a colossal blunder. But I suspect that either the arrows really aren’t both green at the same time, or that U-Turns are not allowed at that intersection.
the obvious solution is that no one should ever turn, ever. It’s just not safe.
Sigh. When I lived in Princeton, no one made U-Turns on US 1, since there were jughandles, and U-Turn like maneuvers were made by turning right into the jughandle, going around it, then making a left turn back where you were coming from. And it sure as hell wasn’t because you missed the turn or were lost - it was because you can’t go left from that road, and so must wait for the next jughandle if your destination is on the opposite side of the highway.
Cite: “You can’t get there from here in Jersey,” on the first Car Talk Songs CD.
In California, a car turning on a protected left arrow into a two lane road can occupy either lane uness the intersection is striped differently, assuming there is one turn lane. So the right turner would definitely be at fault in this situation.
No, the right turner is at fault. You are right that in most situations there is no way of making a U-turn into the leftmost lane.
What would you have the right turner do? He is legally obligated to have his signal on to show he will eventually turn right, even if the intersection is a no right turn on red one. A right turn signal shows that this person is intending to make a right turn when it is safe, not that he will be trying to grab the right of way. Ceding right of way to the right turner is an invitation for accidents, since they happen more often when someone does something unexpected. And U-turns are not unexpected - at the interesection where I turn right on my way to work, I can expect two or three at each light. Perhaps you are of the “right of way is whatever is customary for the intersection” school - something that really applies to rotaries in some places I’ve lived. 
Not if everyone respects right of way and obeys the traffic laws. We’ve given you plenty of counter examples. I’ve lived in places where three right turns wouldn’t put you anywhere near the intersection you just came from, by the way.
I’ve decided that left turns are dangerous too. J. Edgar Hoover had the right idea. There’s really no good reason to make a left turn if you plan ahead, and it’s best to avoid the problem of turning left when someone doesn’t expect it and isn’t watching for it. With left turns, there may be two vehicles trying to enter the same space at the same time. This slows both queues down, and is totally avoidable.
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Better yet, let’s all just stay home and cower under our beds.
Here in California, where U-turns are legal unless otherwise posted, there are a fair number of intersections like this, especially around large commercial areas:
| | | || | | |
====================/ \/ \==
-------------------- --
C
-------------------- --
====================\ /==
====================/ \==
B
-------------------- --
-------------------- --
===\ | A /========\ /\ /==
| | | | | | || | | |
| | | | | | || | | |
The car at A may be on a small side street or coming out of a driveway. If their final destination is at C, they will either have to turn right onto B then make a U-turn, or drive a very long way out of the way. They can’t make a left from A because there’s a concrete divider in the way, although sometimes you see assholes in their big trucks or SUVs do it anyway. So U-turns are not always the result of some kind of lack of foresight by the driver, but a consequence of the street layout.
What, you don’t have a basement to cower in?
Kudos on all the hash mark intersection diagrams.
For what, the third time, I understand that U-turns are SOMETIMES the only practical way to get somewhere. And, again, IMHO, from what I see, most of the time they would not be necessary if the driver had planned a better route. Sure, people get lost or miss a turn. I don’t fault you for it, but would hope that drivers plan efficient routes that keep safety and consideration of other drivers in mind.
Sheesss.
Long way? Sure make the U-turn. What is a long way to you?
Now on to the diagram.
You’ve got two lane changes there.
Depending on how far Car A is from the intersection, the driver may not be able to travel the amount distance needed with his blinker on to make a legal lane change.
When making a turn, you are required to stay in your own lane. And there are also laws prohibiting lane changes near intersections. And laws requiring you to signal a certain amount of traveled distance (100-150ft with your blinker on) before you make a lane change.
I’m a bit anal about that, if you didn’t already know.
Hey, if the traffic is not heavy, and you don’t do anything dangerous, go for it.
But.
Don’t back up traffic behind you in the 7-11 (or whatever) because you want to cross 2 lanes of traffic and merge into a turn lane.
Go around the block OR find another 7-11 (hint, they’re everywhere).
I’m a Cartographer. GIS. I make maps. And maintain programs for street maintenance. I plan where I’m going and how I’m going to get there and back. It’s not hard. Just think for 10 seconds before you go. Driving is serious business, and IMHO MOST (NOT ALL) people that make U-turns fucked up somewhere because they had no plan, or simply where not paying attention.
Do understand that in many cases, it is easier and more efficient to go directly to your destination without using U-turns if you use a little common sense and plan a good route.
Oh, and thanks for the SUV rant. I’ll be here all day. (our dog had surgery yesterday and I’m home taking care of her. She’s doing fine.)
I try to avoid stairs.
I’m confused - was anyone arguing that U-Turns are ALWAYS the only practical way to get somewhere? Are we not in agreement?
I doubt it.
Yes, a number of folks have stated that making a U-turn is the only way to get to their destination. They don’t seem to consider that a different route may be better.
Like I’ve said, If you have to make a Ueeee, do, but it is best to avoid it so that YOU don’t screw up the flow of traffic.
Bingo/Bango… Quite simple really. Try not to fuck up the flow of traffic. It stuns me that ummmm… some people don’t see the common sense in this.
If you’re wondering why you’re getting such vehement opposition here, it’s that you come across as a fucking asshole and a half when you imply that someone performing a perfectly valid maneuver is somehow in the wrong, simply because you can’t be bothered to anticipate the possibility.
U-turns aren’t “unsafe”. The right-turners who aren’t paying attention are unsafe.
U-turns don’t “fuck up the flow of traffic.” The right-turners who aren’t yielding fuck up the flow of traffic.
All of your protestations about U-turns being “rare”, “unnecessary”, or “less safe” are simply excuses for the fact that some people can’t be bothered to pay attention to what they ought to when making a right-on-red. It’s the entire point of the OP, and you’re here making excuses for those assholes by implying that the people affected by them are in the wrong.
“Quite simple really.” Try to pay attention to where you’re driving, even when making a right turn on red.
Indeed, all the extra trip planning in the world isn’t going to help you if you don’t pay attention and don’t actually know the rules of the road.
You left out the practical there pilgrim. A U-turn avoiding at least three extra blocks of travel is more practical. Not to mention someone new to an area, who might find themselves lost on back streets trying to avoid a U-turn. Not everyone lives on gridded streets where all are two-way.
Umm, how is a U-Turn at a protected intersection, from a turn-lane, screwing up the flow of traffic? Someone making a U-turn can do it at exactly the same time as if he were making a left. (Maybe I was more accurate than I thought in bringing up the Hoov.) No one is coming the other direction. Perhaps you mean that the person turning right on red is delayed - but in that case people coming the same way as that person wants to go are also screwing up the flow of traffic. :rolleyes: I can imagine uncontrolled intersections with narrow roads and lots of cross traffic where making a U-Turn is not a good idea - Palo Alto, for example, is full of them.
But situation where I make a U-Turn most often is just like the one Sturmhauke drew, except there is plenty of room between the driveway and the next intersection, and a light to the left of the picture meters traffic so crossing a few lanes to get to the left turn lane in time is much easier.
No I didn’t. I stated it here —
It slows down the left turners behind you. If you haven’t seen this, you either haven’t been driving long and/or you’re not paying attention. And yes, it does also slow down the right on red turners, but that’s not the point.
Same time, Yep. Same speed No. You will slow down the people behind you. Pay attention next time you do this.
Like I said, If the traffic is light, in this situation, I don’t really mind when people bend the rules with a little illegal lane use. Just realize that what you’re doing is not just bending the rules, it is also, breaking the law.