driving accident question, green light turn

In article <1105235264.783532ff8424081ffaf9c341b5c5d150@teran ews>,
Tim923 > wrote:

> This was something I had wondered for some time.
>
> Green light. Driver A wants to turn left into 2 lane road. Driver B
> is the oncoming car, wanting to turn (to his) right into the same 2
> lane road.
>
> Proper driving ettiquette has driver A turn into the left lane, while
> driver B should turn into the right lane, so neither has to stop. Is
> this ettiquette, or the law?
>
> Who's at fault if the drivers collide? I'm guessing the right-turner
> has some advantage in the law.

Check the DMV section of your state's web site for an authoritative
answer to your question.

Tim923 wrote:
> This was something I had wondered for some time.
>
> Green light. Driver A wants to turn left into 2 lane road. Driver B
> is the oncoming car, wanting to turn (to his) right into the same 2
> lane road.
>
> Proper driving ettiquette has driver A turn into the left lane, while
> driver B should turn into the right lane, so neither has to stop. Is
> this ettiquette, or the law?
>
> Who's at fault if the drivers collide? I'm guessing the right-turner
> has some advantage in the law.

At least here in CA, the right turner has right of way.

It's probably different in the one or two states where the left turner
is required to go into the left lane.

Tim923 wrote:
> This was something I had wondered for some time.
>
> Green light. Driver A wants to turn left into 2 lane road. Driver B
> is the oncoming car, wanting to turn (to his) right into the same 2
> lane road.
>
> Proper driving ettiquette has driver A turn into the left lane, while
> driver B should turn into the right lane, so neither has to stop. Is
> this ettiquette, or the law?
>
> Who's at fault if the drivers collide? I'm guessing the right-turner
> has some advantage in the law.

At least here in CA, the right turner has right of way.

It's probably different in the one or two states where the left turner
is required to go into the left lane.

John David Galt wrote:
> Tim923 wrote:
>
>> This was something I had wondered for some time.
>>
>> Green light. Driver A wants to turn left into 2 lane road. Driver B
>> is the oncoming car, wanting to turn (to his) right into the same 2
>> lane road.
>>
>> Proper driving ettiquette has driver A turn into the left lane, while
>> driver B should turn into the right lane, so neither has to stop. Is
>> this ettiquette, or the law?
>>
>> Who's at fault if the drivers collide? I'm guessing the right-turner
>> has some advantage in the law.
>
>
> At least here in CA, the right turner has right of way.
>
> It's probably different in the one or two states where the left turner
> is required to go into the left lane.

Oh, and there is no etiquette rule requiring a turn into the left lane.
Not even in those places.

John David Galt wrote:
> Tim923 wrote:
>
>> This was something I had wondered for some time.
>>
>> Green light. Driver A wants to turn left into 2 lane road. Driver B
>> is the oncoming car, wanting to turn (to his) right into the same 2
>> lane road.
>>
>> Proper driving ettiquette has driver A turn into the left lane, while
>> driver B should turn into the right lane, so neither has to stop. Is
>> this ettiquette, or the law?
>>
>> Who's at fault if the drivers collide? I'm guessing the right-turner
>> has some advantage in the law.
>
>
> At least here in CA, the right turner has right of way.
>
> It's probably different in the one or two states where the left turner
> is required to go into the left lane.

Oh, and there is no etiquette rule requiring a turn into the left lane.
Not even in those places.

Timothy J. Lee wrote:

> In some states, but not in others (unfortunately, whether it is the
> law tends not to be signed on the road, so visitors may not realize
> that the law differs from their home state).

That, IMNSHO, is one of the things that is VERY BADLY BROKEN about
US motoring law.

The four dozen contiguous states should jolly well have a SINGLE set
of rules.

Arguments about autonomy of the states seem (to me, at least) to be
balderdash in this situation: the *people* should be able to learn
one set of rules and not be concerned about differences unless and
until they cross the *national* border into Canada or Mexico.

The whole idea of "right turn on red" seems perverse to me (a red
light should be, quite simply, a "stop" signal). That said, if
some states or cities choose to permit it then there should be a
*nationally standard* sign (or, better, something like a flashing
amber arrow signal) posted at *every* junction where it is allowed.

Timothy J. Lee wrote:

> In some states, but not in others (unfortunately, whether it is the
> law tends not to be signed on the road, so visitors may not realize
> that the law differs from their home state).

That, IMNSHO, is one of the things that is VERY BADLY BROKEN about
US motoring law.

The four dozen contiguous states should jolly well have a SINGLE set
of rules.

Arguments about autonomy of the states seem (to me, at least) to be
balderdash in this situation: the *people* should be able to learn
one set of rules and not be concerned about differences unless and
until they cross the *national* border into Canada or Mexico.

The whole idea of "right turn on red" seems perverse to me (a red
light should be, quite simply, a "stop" signal). That said, if
some states or cities choose to permit it then there should be a
*nationally standard* sign (or, better, something like a flashing
amber arrow signal) posted at *every* junction where it is allowed.

Robert Briggs wrote:
> Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
> > In some states, but not in others (unfortunately, whether it is the
> > law tends not to be signed on the road, so visitors may not realize
> > that the law differs from their home state).
>
> That, IMNSHO, is one of the things that is VERY BADLY BROKEN about
> US motoring law.
>
> The four dozen contiguous states should jolly well have a SINGLE set
> of rules.
>
> Arguments about autonomy of the states seem (to me, at least) to be
> balderdash in this situation: the *people* should be able to learn
> one set of rules and not be concerned about differences unless and
> until they cross the *national* border into Canada or Mexico.

Damn. Ruthlessly logical. Sensible. You're right.

The closest thing we *do* have is the MUTCD and even that is butchered
in many states who pick and choose which parts they like.

> The whole idea of "right turn on red" seems perverse to me (a red
> light should be, quite simply, a "stop" signal). That said, if
> some states or cities choose to permit it then there should be a
> *nationally standard* sign (or, better, something like a flashing
> amber arrow signal) posted at *every* junction where it is allowed.

Here's where you would have been right until the late '70s, but no
longer. A 'right turn on red after stop' is so universal in the US (Is
there *anywhere* it's still illegal?) that it *is* the default
practice. In the small minority of intersections where it is
*prohibited*, you will find signs saying so.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that - fast)

Robert Briggs wrote:
> Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>
> > In some states, but not in others (unfortunately, whether it is the
> > law tends not to be signed on the road, so visitors may not realize
> > that the law differs from their home state).
>
> That, IMNSHO, is one of the things that is VERY BADLY BROKEN about
> US motoring law.
>
> The four dozen contiguous states should jolly well have a SINGLE set
> of rules.
>
> Arguments about autonomy of the states seem (to me, at least) to be
> balderdash in this situation: the *people* should be able to learn
> one set of rules and not be concerned about differences unless and
> until they cross the *national* border into Canada or Mexico.

Damn. Ruthlessly logical. Sensible. You're right.

The closest thing we *do* have is the MUTCD and even that is butchered
in many states who pick and choose which parts they like.

> The whole idea of "right turn on red" seems perverse to me (a red
> light should be, quite simply, a "stop" signal). That said, if
> some states or cities choose to permit it then there should be a
> *nationally standard* sign (or, better, something like a flashing
> amber arrow signal) posted at *every* junction where it is allowed.

Here's where you would have been right until the late '70s, but no
longer. A 'right turn on red after stop' is so universal in the US (Is
there *anywhere* it's still illegal?) that it *is* the default
practice. In the small minority of intersections where it is
*prohibited*, you will find signs saying so.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Been there; done that - fast)

Robert Briggs wrote:
> The whole idea of "right turn on red" seems perverse to me (a red
> light should be, quite simply, a "stop" signal). That said, if
> some states or cities choose to permit it then there should be a
> *nationally standard* sign (or, better, something like a flashing
> amber arrow signal) posted at *every* junction where it is allowed.

There is already such a national standard: a sign is required at
each intersection where the turn is NOT allowed (except in New York
City, which got an exemption for political reasons).

I agree that all such differences should be signed. However, we do
a better job of that than Canada, where oddities such as flashing
green lights mean different things in different provinces.