Doesn’t this sort of resolve the issue? If you are second in line it isn’t like you are holding up the line, if they guy in front of you turns right then you can just move forward enough to let everyone through, if he isn’t then it isn’t you holding up the line.
Either way, it is a courtesy to let people turn right, but not an obligation. If you feel comfortable moving to the middle line you should do that, if doing so means you’re going to have to get back into the right lane on short notice then I wouldn’t bother, since you’re basically driving more erratically (always a bad thing).
Something to bear in mind here is that the lane really is a driving lane. That is what it was built for, to be a third driving lane, and it would be ridiculous if people slowed down the traffic by all cramming into the two other lanes. If the planners thought that two lanes were sufficient then they would have made the third lane a turning lane only, clearly they felt a third lane of regular traffic was necessary.
A couple of the lights are such that you can’t pull up too far, and small cars can sneak by me but larger ones maybe can’t. Also, sometimes I may be second in line, and the car ahead of me has pulled up sufficiently for cars to go around them, but I’m stopping that by being second.
I was defending a decision to drive straight in the right hand lane, where turning is permitted but not required. Why should such behavior be the weirdest traffic rule you have ever seen? Why should someone be penalized for not turning when turning puts them off their route, and going straight is perfectly legal? It’s not a turn lane; it’s a regular traffic lane where turning on red is allowed assuming conditions warrant it.
And he’s saying that where he lives, if you are going to turn right, you have to turn right; you don’t get to squat there, clogging the lane, so you can make the turn at your leisure. If you pull up, angle your car as telegraphing a turn, flip your turn signal on, then if you DON’T turn when it is safe to do so, you can be ticketed.
You said “right on red is allowed, not required,” which includes the assumption you are in fact turning right. He is saying that in his half of the world, right on red (again assuming you are in fact turning right) is required when safe, not merely allowed.
Neither of you is talking about going straight from a turn lane.
Said situation has fuck-all to do with the OP, who is *not *going to turn right. He is going straight in a lane where right turns are allowed, but not required. *That *is the situation I was addressing.
It most certainly does not. My assumption is that you are *not *turning right. That’s what the whole thread is about. Why is this so hard to understand? I was responding to a poster who apparently feels that *if *you are in a lane where such turns are allowed, they are compulsory, which is ridiculous.
Actually, in his half of the world, it’s left on red.
If there is a lane in which you can turn right or go straight, of course you would sit there if going straight, but IF YOU ARE TURNING RIGHT and there is no traffic on the cross street so no danger of a collision, then WHY ON EARTH would you just sit there?
Once again, I was addressing your post about right turns being permitted but not required. I’m not talking about being forced to turn right if you want to go straight, but talking about the bizarro idea that if you are turning right you can choose to wait if you like.
But, for most (all?) of my state anyway, that’s exactly what “Right Turn on Red Permitted” means. I can, assuming it’s safe to do so, turn right on a red light, wait for the green, wait for a count of 100 and then turn, wait whilest I whistle a chorus of “Old MacDonald Had a Farm” and then turn, wait until the cross-traffic gets a yellow ('though I can’t imagine why, it does seem like some people do so…)…
If you are turning and you choose to wait out a significant portion or all of the red before you turn, you’re likely to be shouted at or honked at, of course. But probably less so in the big cities, where it can be confusing where you can turn on red and where you can’t. Surprisingly enough for such an impatient city, Chicago drivers are pretty mellow about turns on red being delayed to ignorance or spaciness or timidness. It may seem bizarro to you, but it sounds perfectly normal (if a little irritating) to me.
I agree with this. I’ve been stuck behind people with their right turn signals on in the right lane and, while I may grump aloud to myself why they don’t take the goddamn turn on red like the rest of civilized Chicago society does, I will not honk the horn, because I have been brought up to understand that right turns on red are permitted, but not required.
Part of the confusion may be that Illinois was a state that for a very long time did not permit right-on-red. I’m not sure when the law was changed, I think sometime when I was a teenager or just before (I’m 46). I do remember catching some discussion about this around my house sometime what I was growing up, but my google-fu isn’t turning up a year when the law changed, except that it was sometime in the 70’s. Also in Illinois, some vehicles such as school buses are not allowed to do right-on-red under any circumstances. So there may be people a little older than me that still aren’t sure if a given turn is legal, so they just wait for green.
Which idea I never expressed. I said nothing at all about choosing to wait while intending to turn. Nada. Zilch. The only idea I expressed was that being in a lane where turns are permitted does not require one to turn. And since the OP is *about *being in a lane where turns are permitted, but going straight anyway, and specifically **not **about turning from a lane where turns are permitted, I have absolutely no idea where you came up with your interpretation, or why you would refer to such a rule as the most bizarre you had ever encountered.
Yeesh. Once again, I was replying to YOU, not the OP.
If you are turning and are legally allowed to proceed (in this case because it’s right-on-red-permitted and there is nothing approaching on the side street but the mournful sound of coyotes in the distance), then surely you are OBLIGED TO PROCEED? That’s why it’s weird to me - it’s like getting a green light and thinking, “Meh, maybe in a minute or two. I’m comfy right here”.
I’ve never heard of a motorist in any traffic scenario choosing to wait when they have legal right of way. THAT to me is what’s odd - and rude and even possibly dangerous.
But it is NOT the law where TLD lives, so perhaps you meant “most places you know”? TLD is not an American. In his world, if you are planning on turning right, then a right turn on red when it is safe to go is mandatory, not optional. That’s what he’s saying. Honestly, I’m not seeing the problem in understanding him; it’s not that complicated a point.
And FWIW, TLD, even here if you’re squatting in the right-turn lane on red, people behind you will probably honk at you to get you to make the turn.
Yeesh yourself. Once again, it would oblige me if you would point out anywhere in this thread, previous to your response to me, where I referred to a motorist who intends to turn, but chooses not to turn, in a lane where such a turn is permitted. Failing that, will you please stop claiming to reply to a comment I never made?
What you said was “You do understand that right on red is allowed but not required, right?”
What you meant (I think) was “Right on red is allowed but not required, you can choose to go straight instead.”
What he read was “Right on red is allowed but not required, even if you’re planning on turning right.”
IOW, your meaning apparently was that “allowed” in your quote referenced either “turning right” or “going straight”. He read the “allowed” in your quote as referring to either “turning right on red” or “waiting and turning right on green.”
Frankly, I think the way he read it is the way most people would read it. Even if I’m wrong about that, certainly his reading is defensible; I too read it that same way and consequently misunderstood you.
At this point, AFAICT all TLD is doing is trying to explain to you why he misunderstood you. In the face of that, I honestly don’t get why you’re being so insistent that you were a model of clarity that could not possibly be misunderstood. You WEREN’T a model of clarity. You WERE in fact misunderstood, and not just by him. Unless you think he (and I) were/are willfully mischaracterizing what you said, it would seem more reasonable to chalk this up to a misunderstanding and let it go. At this point, your refusal to do so is puzzling, to say the least. This wasn’t a big deal, but it seems like you’re trying to make it one, and I’ll be damned if I can see why.