2 lane road. That traffic has the right of way and there’s no stop signs.
There’s a 2 lane road that crosses and has stop signs. i.e. wait patiently to cross the main road.
Sometimes I’ll wait several minutes for a chance to turn left or cross over. Sometimes I’ll see a car approaching across from me. Invariably they show up just when there’s a break in traffic. They scoot across the intersection ruining my only chance of a left turn.
Is there any right of way rules here? Does the car that sat at the stop sign have right of way?
… are spaces so html won’t remove them.
…approaching car
-------------------…----------------------
2 way traffic
-------------------…----------------------
…my car
The person going straight through always has the right of way over the person turning, AFAIK. If you did not have to turn, you could both proceed togther. You both have the right to proceed when traffic on the crossraod is clear, but now you want to turn into his right of way and block him. You must wait for him to go straight. (Same as if there were no stop sign for your road.)
Obviously, the “no stop sign” traffic has right of way over both of you.
Why not cross at the same time and make a left just as you pass the other car? Surely you aren’t cutting it so close that the extra half second isn’t the difference between a collision or not. Or, you could cross straight, make a U-turn, and then make a right. This would almost certainly be faster than waiting another few minutes for a spot.
If you do make the left turn after the oncoming car has passed you, I’d say don’t turn your turn signal on - if I’m going straight through and someone is coming towards me with their turn signal on, I’m going to assume that they are going to drive straight into the side of me and it will really mess things up.
Oh yeah, my understanding is also the same as md2000’s - straight through traffic has the right of way over oncoming turners.
Ok, I thought maybe the 2 stop signs followed the rules of a 4 way stop sign. First car there has the right of way.
Guess not.
Either way the car across usually doesn’t stop at all. They do a “rolling stop” see the break in traffic and cross over. “rolling stop” isn’t legal but they happen all the time.
yes, but that’s the “two wrongs don’t make a right” rule then. Just because they don’t follow the rules does not mean you don’t have to. The cop will ticket both of you, and the insurance companies? It’s easier to blame the guy who cut off the straight through driver than to prove the straight through guy did not properly stop; you’re still at fault, but if there are no independent witnesses, he gets off without a ticket.
Overall base rule not in dispute: Traffic not subject to a traffic control device has the right of way over traffic which is subject to one. E.g., cars approaching a stop sign on a secondary road yield right of way to cars on the main highway.
As between two vehicles obeying traffic control devices at the same intersection, right of way belongs to the vehicle which clearly arrived at the intersection first.
As between two vehicles arriving at an intersection at approximately the same time (i.e., so the ‘clearly’ in #2 is not relevant), one will be to the other’s right, the other to the first vehicle’s left. The car to the right has the right of way.
A quick review of the Colorado statutes is notably silent on just this issue. Traffic from a subordinate roadway (with stop signs, or just fewer lanes, unpaved vs. paved, etc.) has to yield to the superior one–and I think we’re all in agreement there. As for how opposing traffic on the subordinate road have to interact? Only this: Left turning car is the red-headed stepchild.
Makes sense. The superior road could be 4 lanes in each direction with a center turn lane. Can you realistically expect two drivers to see each other across 9 lanes of busy traffic, and come to a mutual understanding of each other’s intent and senority at the intersection? Forget it–the lefty owes the greater duty of caution and thus the yield. Of course, Dr. Strangelove’s solution is tenable, as long as the lefty understands that if anything goes wrong, it mostly if not entirely his fault.
Just turn right and make a U turn at the next intersection. It’s always possible to have the right of way and STILL get creamed. And at the end of the day, not getting creamed should be every driver’s goal.
I wasn’t taught 2 (Washington State) and I’ve never seen anybody follow 2. A car turning right has right-of-way over a car going straight which has right-of-way over a car going left is how I learned it, and seems to be what happens in practice here. (Of course having right-of-way doesn’t prevent both cars from acting simultaneously, if the situation allows it.)
If you were turning left, and you believed you had right-of-way over a person opposing you but going straight because you reached the intersection first… well around here you’re going to cause an accident.
As far as 3 goes, that’s the rule for 4-way and 3-way stops, except it’s the LEFT-MOST car that goes first.
Yeah, absolutely. I probably wouldn’t use the technique if there were someone behind the initial crossing car–I’d want to use the turn signal for their benefit, but not for the initial car, essentially for the reason you state. I would also only do it in an intersection that I’m familiar with or has an obvious layout, in case I need to make a last-second course correction. Otherwise, I’d pick straight-U-right or right-U-straight.
I learned to drive in the state of New Jersey in the sixties. One thing that everyone told me at the time was that nobody ever has the right of way. You may be required to yield the right of way at certain times but you never** have** it.
Specifically, I was told over and over again that if I got into a traffic accident I should never announce to anyone that I had the right of way - because making that claim would automatically put me in a “partially my fault” situation.
One point worth mentioning from my original example.
If I’m sitting at the stop sign and the car opposite is approaching the stop sign. Then he’s required to stop. He can’t proceed from that stop sign until the intersection is clear. I should be able to make my left turn while he’s at the stop sign.
But, real life. I’d never risk it. Chances are he’ll do a rolling stop and blow right into the intersection. It’s not worth getting hammered.
I’d never even attempt a cross over intersection unless the main street was a 2 lane. 4 lane or 6 lane??? No way would I even think about crossing that kind of traffic without a light. It’s just too hard catching more than 2 lanes open and free of traffic.
This is correct only if the two cars arrive at the intersection at the same time. Otherwise if you had a steady stream of cars going straight, the guy going left would *never *be able to go.
This is correct, however there is an additional rule. If two opposing cars arrive at the same time the left-turner must yield (if they are both turning left then it’s a moot point).
This is not from actual traffic code but is from the Virginia Driver’s Handbook:
I believe this rule is consistent in all 50 states but I haven’t researched it.
And as noted, these rules specify who must yield, not who has right-of-way. You could be considered at fault if you cause an accident by insisting on exercising right-of-way.
I’m confused. Do you mean like at a four-way stop? First vehicle that arrives at the intersection has right of way. (Or, rather, you should yield to the first vehicle that arrives at the intersection.) In the case of a tie, the rightmost vehicle should be yielded to. If four vehicles arrive at exactly the same time, who the fuck knows what happens. I thought this was standard rules of the road everywhere in the US. It’s certainly followed here (in Chicago).
No I’m talking about the cross-street example in the OP.
A 4-way stop is treated differently. The only reason I brought up the 4-way stop thing (which I now realize was a mistake because I think I confused everybody) was to say that the Point 3 in that post I was replying to applies to 4-way stops but NOT the situation in the OP.
As someone else pointed out, in the OP situation there is no “left-most” or “right-most” car because the cars are 180 degrees apart.