My wife just arbitrated a lawsuit over traffic accident, and asked me this question. Say you are heading west on a street, and as you approach an intersection, the traffic light facing you turns yellow and then red. If there is no sign saying “Oncoming traffic has longer green”, can you assume that the light controlling eastbound traffic changes colors at the same time?
In this case, the guy heading W was in the intersection, waiting to turn L. He said the light turned red, so he turned to clear the intersection. A eastbound driver coming from the west struck him as he turned. My wife’s question was, if she found the W-bound driver credible, could she assume the E-bound driver blew a red light.
I’d imagine one MIGHT be able to call the village/state, and find out how they are controlled. But we were just wondering if there is some general convention. FTR, she says yes, they do change at the same time. I say no - basically because I never trust anyone or anything to make sense while I drive!
Without knowing the traffic light pattern, you cannot assume anything, and neither driver should have, either. Both should have proceeded with more caution than they apparently did after seeing the yellow light.
It would certainly be a bad design which allowed Westbound, left-turning traffic to assume that the oncoming traffic would respect HIS red light. Without advisory signage, I cannot see highway engineers planning it to work this way. If they did, and you can prove it, I’d say the ambiguity absolves any driver.
Most traffic lights will be simple and switch both sides at the same time, but there’s no requirement for it or to have a sign indicating any difference in the timing. As the older traffic lights in this country get replaced and more and more new ones created they tend to have more complex timing. I’m not sure what your wife was arbitrating, the guy blocked the intersection and ran a red light.
I was taught a turning vehicle always yields the right of way to oncoming traffic. This is critical as one makes a left turn in front of oncoming traffic. Sitting in a controlled intersection I have no knowledge that oncoming traffic has a longer green than me. One should always err on the side of caution that an oncoming driver may not see their red light and blow the light, they may see the red light and deliberately blow the red light, or they may have a long green then me.
No, you can’t assume that. There are quite a few intersections around here where they do not change at the same time, and I don’t recall ever seeing a sign to indicate anything like “oncoming traffic has longer green”. It’s risky as hell to make an assumption like that.
Where turning is not separately controlled by a red arrow, it is legal to enter the junction and wait if you are turning left and the only thing preventing you from exiting the junction is oncoming traffic. And when you have already entered the junction like this, you have right of way to complete your turn even after the light turns red. The law works this way precisely to avoid the situation where the left-turning driver feels pressure to “guess” whether an oncoming car is planning to stop while worried about getting stranded in the middle of the intersection - he should always wait until he’s sure the oncoming traffic is stopping, whatever the lights say, then complete his turn.
However, I also don’t think there exist 4-way junctions with different straight-ahead green times in opposite directions without separate arrows to control left turns. It would obviously be very dangerous.
There is a traffic light on my to and from work that will stop traffic in, say, the westbound direction, to give the eastbound left turn lane a green arrow, while eastbound thru traffic still has green. So absolutely no guarantee that oncoming traffic has the same light that you do.
In the situation described in the OP, I think it’s highly likely the oncoming car ran a red light, but it’s not a sure thing. I suspect both drivers were in the wrong: the turner for failing to yield to oncoming traffic, and the other car for running a red light.
If they don’t turn at the same time, there should be a lighted arrow and a left turn lane. When I’m in the position of the westbound driver, I make damn sure that eastbound traffic is stopping before I complete my turn. I figure north/south drivers are going to have to wait for me regardless.
The car turning in front of the other car should have yielded even if the light there was red. It doesn’t sound like he was blocking the intersection but instead that he was claiming the intersection. I believe this is legal in all states. His problem was failing to yield to traffic going straight or turning right even if that car ran a red light. If the other car ran the red light, his negligence contributed to the accident. Who was more at fault sounds like a problem for arbitration.
I once nearly got a wrong ticket for running a red light because a cop assumed that lights changed in both directions even where they didn’t. I was waiting at an intersection with a green light because the lane across from me was congested and I didn’t want to block the box. There was a police officer stopped at a red light opposite me. It didn’t look like the traffic in front of me was going to move at all so I signaled and turned left to go a different way.
The officer pulled me over for running a red light. I noted that the lights aren’t timed the same and he couldn’t see my light, which was green. He then said I failed to yield to oncoming traffic. I said there was no oncoming traffic because he was waiting at a red light and that I had confirmed that he faced a red light in my mirror before I turned (I lied about that but I knew from being a pedestrian in the area how the light timing worked and that his light was red). We watched a light cycle and he confirmed that I was right about the timing. He then said that left turns were illegal from that intersection and pointed to an arrow in the bicycle lane on the right side that only pointed straight ahed. I tried not spout off that I would be doing worse if I had been driving in the bicycle lane but instead, I instead asked him to point to the signs or lane markings for my lane that indicated that I could not turn. Finally, he said that I had clipped the double yellow line while turning and that I had used the lane improperly. I just frowned but stopped talking. He was spitballing to find something he could write me up for. If he was hell bent on writing a ticket, I wasn’t going to be able to stop him. My wife heard the whole conversation so if I had to explain why I was contesting a ticket for improper lane usage, I had three examples in one interaction to call his powers of observation into question. He went back to his cruiser for about two seconds and then came out saying that I got “lucky” because he was just called to some major crime. He gave me my license back and pretended to speed off before turning his lights off at the end of the next block. He was a jerk who couldn’t admit he was wrong.
Are you claiming that westbound left turners are not separately controlled, and that a westbound left turner could be left stranded in the middle of the junction long after his light has turned red, still waiting for eastbound straight-on traffic to stop? Excuse my skepticism, but I have never seen this anywhere in decades of deriving. It would be extremely dangerous, and I don’t believe that junctions are ever set up this way.
And they must wait for you. You have right of way to complete your turn, whatever the light says. If a N/S driver accelerated away and hit you, they would be 100% at fault’ regardless of whether their light were green.
Not that you shouldn’t be cautious, of course, because many drivers seem to think that green just means hit the gas.
Thanks, all. I (and my wife) agree - both were likely somewhat at fault. The other 2 arbitrators found the turner at fault. My wife was exploring whether there was contributory fault by the other, as the turner had counterclaimed against the other.
He swears the light turned red. He saw his light turn red. Assumed HER light also turned red, and that he could turn. She swears her light was green. Very likely either - or both - or them were lying, or simply mistaken.
I figured the turner was primarily - if not exclusively at fault, simply because the presumption of liability on the turner. But if the other HAD blown a red light…
Sorta related topic - under IL law, you have the obligation to check whether you can safely cross an intersection - EVEN IF your light is green. You don’ tget to simply blow through at the posted speed limit…
I’ve know a couple of intersections where there were signs saying “Oncoming traffic has longer green.” Not common, tho. I agree, modern traffic lights seem to be becoming more complex and less “predictable.”
This came in while I was typing my example of exactly this case. I am guessing the reason the light turns red at different times in the intersection I described is because, opposite the police car in my example, the lane only has room for two cars before there is another red light that changes at essentially the same time. If the officer’s light had remained green for people his lane, cars would probably fill up the intersection and block the box when the light changed to let cross traffic through.
Why is there no left arrow on my side of that intersection while the opposing traffic has a red? There’s really no need for it. Although it’s hard to explain the weird intersection, there would almost always be a shorter and easier way to get to anywhere else without making that left turn. The only exception is if you were coming from my side and dropping someone off in one of the four or five houses along the short stubby block I started on or the short stubby block I ended on.
with “adaptive timing” signals which monitor traffic flow, you can’t really assume anything about what the oncoming drivers are seeing. A lot of intersections in my area will do things like in your situation (extended green to one direction,) or show a protected left (green arrow) to one direction first if there’s a backlog, etc.
one thing Michigan did- presumably to address situations like this- is to move to 4-element left turn signals (red/yellow/yellow/green.) In your wife’s situation, the guy driving W would have been given a flashing yellow arrow indicating that oncoming traffic was still flowing and to wait until clear to make the turn.
I would maintain that the turner was at fault, and it has nothing to do with lights. The rule I learned is never stop in an intersection. If you don’t have a clear safe route thru he intersection, don’t enter the intersection. If the turner hadn’t stoped in the intersection, he wouldn’t have had to ‘clear it’ on a red light (something else I learned not to do).
Even if the oncoming traffic did run a red light, the turner did too, by his own admission.
My guess is that if you could prove when the light changed, then they might assign partial blame to both drivers, with proportions dependent on the exact timing. Absent that, the only thing we know for sure is that the turning driver failed to yield.
You can buy a dashboard camera for a few bucks these days, I think it makes sense for everyone to have one.
weeelll… when I learned to drive, “asymmetrical” signal timings weren’t really commonplace- nor were dedicated left turn signals- and we were taught in driver’s ed that when making a left turn, edge out into the intersection a bit (~ half a car length) and wait for a clear opportunity to turn. and if the light turned red, wait for oncoming traffic to stop and clear the intersection.
however, you’re correct that the turner is still at fault because he didn’t verify oncoming cars were stopping before making his turn.
I’d also say that this is a failure in traffic engineering; when you have asymmetric thru greens like that, you really should also have a left turn signal which indicates that status to the turner. Whether a flashing red ball or a yellow arrow like Michigan to tell the person waiting to turn that he/she still must yield right-of-way.
The law says you can (and should) enter the intersection and wait if the only thing preventing you from completing your left turn is oncoming traffic. At busy junctions, this may be the only way to make a legal left turn. On the principle of acting predictably according to right of way, you are not making the roads safer by failing to do this.
One useful safety tip, though. Turn on your signal, but keep the wheel straight until the way is clear to complete your turn. This way, if somebody rear-ends you, you will not be pushed into oncoming traffic.
