My stupid pet peeves.
- Thread starter Jackalope
- Start date
That's what I was referring to. I'll be that idiot to wave the other idiot on.
- 39,068
- 274
The person traveling straight in their lane of traffic unimpeded always has right of of way regardless. He is not impeded if the vehicle in front of him in his direction of travel has moved allowing him to continue straight.
So far everyone is stuck on two stopped vehicles turning left. The same applies if the vehicle across the intersection is stopped indicating a left turn waiting on two omcomming vehicles traveling at 20 mph. The lead vehicle indicates a left turn and starts turning without stopping. The vehicle behind him precedes straight. If the opposing vehicle turns in front of him he is 100% at fault for failing to yield. That's not aggressive. That's driving within your legal rights and marked lane.
No matter which way you slice the pie if someone turns into oncoming traffic they failed to yield. Hand signals, blinkers, what that other person was doing, has zero bearing on it. To assume a vehicle traveling straight who has a green light, shoukd yield to a vehicle turning left for any reason is beyond incorrect.
The same applies in the absence of a light. Say Two neighbors who live across from each other happen to be turning into their driveways at the same time. Neighbor A has a vehicle behind him called vehicle B. Neighbor A turns, neighbor C turns. Vehicle B continues straight and hit neighbor C. Neighbor C is 100% at fault for failing to yield regardless what neighbor A was doing. The exact same law applies at an intersection where straight traffic always has right of way under a green or yellow light.
The only way this changes is at a stop sign where right of way alternates depending on who reaches the line and stops first. That is the the only way a left turning vehicle will ever have right away over a vehicle going straight.
This is very similar to the incident I experienced yesterday. An oncoming vehicle was in the middle of the intersection indicating left. I was traveling straight, the light turned yellow and i continued straight as I had ample time. He started his left turn and I almost T-boned him. His arrogance assumed I should stop on yellow to allow him to make a left turn. He is woefully incorrect. The only right he has is to vacate the intersection when safe to do so. If that is after the light turns red then that is what it is. If he has a problem with that, then he is more than welcome to stay behind the line and wait for the next cycle of the light instead of sitting in the intersection.
Iowa_Buckeye
Smartest person here
How am incorrect? You did not answer my specific question (in post #267). I did not ask you to read me the law (believe me, I think we all know you do not turn left into 'oncoming' traffic, duh), I asked you who has the 'legal right' to turn left in this particular situation. Show me where you answer that, I sure can't find it? Not all the other situations you are bringing up. We are discussing this particular situation as it is the one Chad brought up. And remember, both guys turning left are unwilling to wave the other on. I am pretty sure Brock has it figured out, I am in the same camp.
Iowa_Buckeye
Smartest person here
Can't stand slobs who do not show pride or care for what they own.
A pic of my neighbors yard. Nice neighborhood, but I guess there is one in every crowd. Fuggin thistles and other weeds in their landscaping everywhere. The place looks deserted if you didn't know better. If you are too lazy to take care of it, why did you buy it???
A pic of my neighbors yard. Nice neighborhood, but I guess there is one in every crowd. Fuggin thistles and other weeds in their landscaping everywhere. The place looks deserted if you didn't know better. If you are too lazy to take care of it, why did you buy it???
- 39,068
- 274
I think the big piece you're missing is this. The only thing a vehicle as a right to do without consideration of traffic is go straight or make a right when they have the green. The only way a vehicle ever has the "right" to make a left without yielding is at a stopsign where its his turn via right of way, or with a green arrow instructig him to do so. Under any other situation he must yield to oncomming traffic, that includes traffic going straight or turning right.
If two vehicles reach an intersection at the same time, both turning left, neither had to "yield" to the other as they are not crossing paths, however that does not mean they don't have to yield to the traffic behind that other person as that traffic may be going straight or turning right well within their legal rights to do so.
To answer your specific question about two vehicles turning left with traffic behind them neither technically has right of way both must yield to traffic behind the other vehicles. Here is what the law will say when they show up to that accident. You were turning left, he was going straight, you are at fault. Most traffic laws are kept vague for this exact reason. It removes all room for debate in court.
Judge. What does the law say.
Prosecutor. "Left turning vehicles must yield"
Judge. Mr so in so. We're you turning left.
You. Yes but.
Judge. No but. You are at fault.
Iowa_Buckeye
Smartest person here
Man Joe, you should run for political office!!! You spun your answer to kind of agree with both Brock and I and Chad! :smiley_clap:
Still not sure how you don't have to yield for the traffic you are competing the intersection with (same scenario, all parties are all stopped here), but have to yield to the traffic BEHIND them???? WTF? Would be gridlock if they are going straight!!
And since we are having traffic education tonight, this statement is not true:
And don't think it will be so cut and dry in court. Pretty much the only way you would hit the left turning car (unless they are pussy-footing it) is if you stepped on it. Then things like exhibition of speed and improper acceleration come into play. The investigating offer has the final say, and they would prefer to ticket the asshole.
Still not sure how you don't have to yield for the traffic you are competing the intersection with (same scenario, all parties are all stopped here), but have to yield to the traffic BEHIND them???? WTF? Would be gridlock if they are going straight!!
And since we are having traffic education tonight, this statement is not true:
Not true where two cross-traffic vehicles come to a 4 way stop at the same time. The one on the right always has the right of way, even if they are turning left and the one of the left is going straight (or left).
And don't think it will be so cut and dry in court. Pretty much the only way you would hit the left turning car (unless they are pussy-footing it) is if you stepped on it. Then things like exhibition of speed and improper acceleration come into play. The investigating offer has the final say, and they would prefer to ticket the asshole.
- 25,127
- 261
Joe, you are incorrect but I appreciate your effort. In a single line of traffic, a vehicle in front of you, you are not to pass on the right side You pass on the right and collide with a vehicle turn left from the other direction, you are at fault.
- 39,068
- 274
Nobody said pass on the right. If the vehicle in front of you turns and you continue straight into a vehicle that entered your lane then that vehicle is at fault.
The vehicle in front of you has turned out of your way and into the oncomming lane allowing you to continue straight. The vehicle across from you has entered your lane and did not yield.
In the illustration below you are the red line continuing straight in your lane after the white vehicle in front of you has moved from your lane of travel. The blue vehicle is 100% at fault.
- 39,068
- 274
I've done no such of a thing. And yes that is exactly what the law says. All traffic turning left into an oncomming lane must yield to oncomming traffic, that INCLUDES the traffic behind them.
And you're confusing yourself now. If two opposing vehicles come to a stop sign at the same exact time there is no such thing as the vehicle on the right. You are across from each other. You are both to the right of each other. The person who has the right of way in that scenario is the one who is not entering the others lane of travel. So if one is going straight and the other is turning left the left turning vehicle must yield the right of way.
As I showed Brock in the above illustration it is entirely possible to hit a vehicle that turned into your lane after the vehicle that was in front of you has turned out of your way.
- 39,068
- 274
I'll go ahead and put this to bed however with the actual law.
Ohio Revised Code. 4511.42 Right-of-way rule when turning left.
(A) The operator of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right of way to any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley approaching from the opposite direction, whenever the approaching vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley is within the intersection or so close to the intersection, alley, private road, or driveway as to constitute an immediate hazard.
It quite clearly says if an oncomming vehicle can hit you then you must yield. You might try to argue the term "immediate hazard" however getting hit by an oncomming vehicle pretty much proves he was an immediaye hazard that you failed to yield for.
Like I said earlier. The law is cut and dry for a reason.
Judge. Did you fail to yield?
You. No judge. He wasn't an immediate Hazzard.
Judge. He hit your ass in HIS lane, so he must have been an immediate Hazzard.
You. But but but.
Judge. You're 100% at fault.
Ohio Revised Code. 4511.42 Right-of-way rule when turning left.
(A) The operator of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right of way to any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley approaching from the opposite direction, whenever the approaching vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley is within the intersection or so close to the intersection, alley, private road, or driveway as to constitute an immediate hazard.
It quite clearly says if an oncomming vehicle can hit you then you must yield. You might try to argue the term "immediate hazard" however getting hit by an oncomming vehicle pretty much proves he was an immediaye hazard that you failed to yield for.
Like I said earlier. The law is cut and dry for a reason.
Judge. Did you fail to yield?
You. No judge. He wasn't an immediate Hazzard.
Judge. He hit your ass in HIS lane, so he must have been an immediate Hazzard.
You. But but but.
Judge. You're 100% at fault.
It pisses me off that ODOT doesn't clean up road kills anymore. So you gotta drive by the roadkill for 2 weeks stinking to high hell.
- 39,068
- 274
And just in case you're wondering. The law is the same in Iowa.
321.320
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.
321.320
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.
Iowa_Buckeye
Smartest person here
Not confused, you need to re-read my post. I said cross-traffic and not opposing. Since you had used the word 'only'.
Not to speak for Brock, but I think he was meaning the only way you would hit the car is if you passed on the right. Else they would have cleared the intersection while the lead cars were making their left turns. Better hope there is not a camera on the intersection if you try and start making you living on this.
And I hope your test turns out how you like it!