Traffic right-of-way question

[brad_d]

@Pygmy Rugger

The illustration (or rather, the law it demonstrates) seems kinda silly to me, because if both cars want to turn left into their respective outside lane, at the same time, they would hit each other. If they both chose the inside lane, no harm, no foul.

That illustration does look like a recipe for a head-on, but the maneuver you describe happens all the time in practice, without incident. I think it’s just a crappy drawing. Or, rather, a poor illustration of the actual lines drivers turning left take.

In many intersections, there’s a visible area in the very middle where dust and other crap tends to collect, because no one drives over that patch of pavement when they go through - no matter what they’re doing. Left-turning cars from opposite directions have an ample buffer between them, no matter which lane they are aiming for.

[lowbrass]

@brad_d

That illustration does look like a recipe for a head-on, but the maneuver you describe happens all the time in practice, without incident. I think it’s just a crappy drawing. Or, rather, a poor illustration of the actual lines drivers turning left take.

I think that’s exactly right. Not only that, but to worry about whether two left-turning cars coming from opposite directions would collide is to believe that drivers have no common sense whatsoever. I have been in situations where to continue on the same trajectory would result in a collision with the oncoming car; what happened was that we both made our left turns slightly sharper to avoid the collision. I think there’s a certain amount of assumption in the law that people have brains.

[DSYoungEsq]

@brad_d

That illustration does look like a recipe for a head-on, but the maneuver you describe happens all the time in practice, without incident. I think it’s just a crappy drawing. Or, rather, a poor illustration of the actual lines drivers turning left take.

In many intersections, there’s a visible area in the very middle where dust and other crap tends to collect, because no one drives over that patch of pavement when they go through - no matter what they’re doing. Left-turning cars from opposite directions have an ample buffer between them, no matter which lane they are aiming for.

Part of the reason that the illustration appears to promote a head on collision is that the cars are not in left-hand turn lanes, but, rather, in the left lane of a four lane street. When you start from positions essentially directly opposite, it’s less likely to run head on into the cars turning from the other direction.

[TYOV]

The only way to be sure is to wait the 30 seconds for the green arrow to go red and give you the green light to turn right. Of course, look out for pedestrians crossing.

[Meeko]

In Georgia, and perhaps elsewhere, the “Left Turn Arrow” equates to “Protected left turn”. As in, if you are turning left, and you have an actual arrow signal, you have the right of way for the duration that the light is illuminated.

If you have right of way, it follows someone does not. Therefore, I don’t think that if a traffic signal (if working correctly) offers “right of way”, another light or flow of traffic will contradict that at the same time.

The OP is interesting, and would appear to work if all cars / drivers were perfectly syncronized. But humans aren’t. I don’t think such an example would exist in practice.