In Minnesota they’ve started installing Reduced Conflict Intersections to deal with traffic (controlled by a two-way stop sign) crossing a usually much busier highway. They’ve eliminated the possibility of either driving straight across or of turning left. (You can turn left from the main highway onto the cross road when traffice is clear.)
Instead, all controlled traffic turns right to join the major road (when traffic allows), then merges into the left lane in time (it is hoped) to make a U-turn. Traffic that would have crossed the highway then makes a second right-hand turn, while traffic that would have turned left continues on the highway.
For example, if the highway is NS and the EW road is controlled, the right-hand turn for a E-bound driver is ESUNE. A left-hand turn for an E-bound driver has the sequence ESUN.
There are about a dozen of these in Minnesota, and seems to be a compromise to roundabouts where they don’t have a lot of space to create a traffic circle, or don’t want to slow down the main highway. Drivers seem to have figured them out quite quickly.
Do these show up in any other state, or in Europe? I haven’t seen any discussions of these here.
Michigan has intersections where thru traffic is permitted (controlled by stop lights) but a left turn requires a right turn followed by a u-turn (i.e., “Michigan Left”) but haven’t seen many of the Reduced Conflict design
I know of at least one such intersection in Massachusetts. But it’s not a pattern, it doesn’t have a special name, it only works that way in one direction (eastbound, but not westbound, where there’s a dedicated overpass for left-turning traffic) and it’s been structured like that for at least 40 years.
After reading this thread, the answer is obviously that everyone should yield. It’s clear that there is not a consensus, and that you have an excellent change of interacting with a driver who has a different interpretation than you do. The fundamental law of the road is “try not to kill anyone”. I’m sure that’s embedded in every traffic code in some words. (It’s at the beginning of the driver’s ed pamphlet in my state, although not in exactly those words. “The fundamental law is to drive safely”, or something like that.) In an effort to avoid killing someone in an ambiguous situation, everyone should pause and look to see if they can continue on safely.
@Puzzlegal - I disagree, there is consensus on the correct legality in this situation, which was the OP. There isn’t overall consensus because some posters don’t understand the difference between “this is how I do it (or this is how it should be done)” versus “this is what the law says”.
The original question was essentially “what is legal in this situation” not “what do you personally do in this situation” If you look back over the thread, the posts with cites are generally referring to the law, the posts without are generally saying “this is how I do it”. Which is nice to know but that wasn’t the OP’s question.
Some have trouble distinguishing between their own driving habits and the law and they can’t accept they’ve been breaking the law for so long. It seems to them their actions are just common sense and safe.
The intent of traffic laws is to establish unambiguous rules so accident liability can be determined as simply as possible. Meanwhile, driver’s “common practices” are intended to get them to their destination as fast and safely as they can. This is normal, everyone does it, but just because it makes sense to you and you’ve always done it doesn’t mean it’s correct legally.
I am an actuary, and I’m familiar with auto liability. It’s not that simple. The rules regarding liability vary widely from state to state, even when the relevant traffic laws are identical. And the purpose of the law is primarily to improve the safety and efficacy of the roads. Determining liability is secondary to those purposes.
But I agree that I am not opining on what the law says. I am opining on what a prudent driver should do. And a prudent driver should be aware of both the law and common practice, and should especially be aware of situations that different people interpret differently. And I’ve read enough to see that this is an area where US drivers lack consensus. (Even if all the people who have looked up their local law agree on what’s legal.)
As an auto claims manager once told me, it’s not just that good drivers have fewer at-fault accidents than bad drivers. Good drivers also have fewer not-at-fault accident than bad drivers.
Also, rereading the original post, the question is “which one should yield?” The op talks about competing rules, yes, but the question seems to be “what’s the right thing to do?”
I hope that what one should do at an intersection, and what the law says about actions at an intersection, should coincide. Or, at least, the hope is that what people thing they should do would gradually converge on what the law instructs, as the fight against ignorance gradually gains ground.
I presume people should make emergency stops as possible in preference to hitting other vehicles.
But it seems pretty clear that having rules of the road is an aid in avoiding accidents, as well as in keeping traffic moving.
Every time I find myself in the situation I initially posted about, and another driver and I are looking at each other so that each of us can proceed according to what the other is doing, I think there must be a correct way to do this. There must be best practices.
When I drive home from work daily I come to a stop at such an intersection. I want to go straight. This is on the outskirts of a small town, which lies to my right as I sit there, and the road without stops has a speed limit of 50 mph which people happily and substantially exceed. It’s usually necessary to wait, and at least weekly, there’s already somebody waiting, facing me and trying to turn left toward town across my path. Worse, the main road is busy enough that the wait is often long and only minimal windows open for a safe crossing. Often, entering the intersection and then braking because the other person also enters puts us in the uncomfortable position of being stopped in the path of fast approaching traffic, potentially having to trust them to see us and stop.
Texas does have these - they’ve shown up on a number of busy roadways. They are mildly annoying because of the need to make a right and then quickly cross three lanes to get to the U-turn. But they are better than the practice of 3 or 4 cars trying to cram into the space in the median so they can wait on traffic again.
However, they aren’t perfect. There’s one in Dallas right now that is causing traffic accidents. There are 3 or 4 lanes (the news said 4, but I counted 3, but there might be a right turn only at that street, too) of traffic to cross, and the number of crashes is significant. I think they said we’ve had 8 this year already. I suppose it would be worse trying to cross 3 or 4 lanes on each side at the same time for straight through drivers, so it could be doing its job of reducing crashes and still not be enough.
I agree that in an ideal world that would be the case. But it looks to me that even if there is a law, it’s not well enough known and understood and agreed upon to work.
And there might not be a best practice. It might be like driving on the right versus the left. Either rule is done if every else does it, but there’s no compelling reason for one rule over the other.
By “best practice” I meant something closer to what it means in commerce and government, but looking more closely at that, I see it doesn’t really mean what I was trying to express.
What I meant to express is more like “official recommendation”. I think many possible ways of orchestrating activities at an intersection might be reasonable, but having people converge on just one scheme is much better, whichever scheme it is. Just like driving on the right or left might be inherently equally good rules, but having everybody follow just one rule is much better.
I think a good driving textbook would represent a collection of such recommendations. There would be some law in it, but there would be a bunch of other things. For example, when sitting waiting to turn left into a driveway, don’t turn your steering wheel toward the driveway. If you do, anybody who hits you from behind will push you into the traffic for which you are waiting. Turn the wheel once it’s safe to proceed. There’s no law about this (at least I think not), but it’s still a better practice.
Yes, looking at your post again, this is really the crux of this whole thread, isn’t it? I was looking for any citation that shows together both the “wait your turn” rule and the “yield when turning left” rule, and clarifies which one prevails when both situations apply. If I remember right, we never saw any post do that (and please correct me if I missed it).
I do have the feeling that “wait your turn” probably only prevails at all way stops, as several have said, but don’t think anybody cited a law that states this (right?).
So we are left with a crummy situation in which, on my commute home every day, I often find myself and another uncertain driver waiting, on colliding paths, trying to figure out how to take advantage of the frequently all too short windows of opportunity to cross. There really should be a light or all way stop here. It’s unnerving to have to accelerate hard to make it through a small window, but I hate to have a line of impatient commuters behind me, sometimes waving and exasperated. I dread that possible day when both of us accelerate hard and hit each other, or get stuck in the intersection with cars bearing down on us at 50 or 60 or even 70 mph.
The argument that confusing signage is okay provided we all drive carefully is a poor one.
The fundamental point is that U.S. signage tends to focus on giving commands that we concentrate on obeying, but does a poor job of communicating a clear understanding of traffic flow and road conditions that facilitate sensible decision-making. The mortality rates in the U.S. (far worse per mile driven) strongly imply that the U.S. system does not work so well.
Sure. All States in the US have their codes. Several posts beginning with #3 quote from them. In the US, driving is covered under state laws and not (as far as I know) under federal laws.
I think the problem is finding a case where some State’s code refers to both of these rules together and says which one prevails when both conditions are satisfied.
Yes, traffic code is set by each state. There is a lot of consistency but nothing says there has to be.
The federal government occasionally attempts to influence traffic laws by offering or withholding funding (e.g., 55 MPH speed limit) but they cannot directly legislate traffic laws.