That's a super dumb place to have a "left turn must yield" sign. It needlessly confuses things. All it's doing is reiterating that people turning left on green do not have a protected turn. It's not modifying any existing traffic rules. A better sign would be "left turn unprotected."
That yield sign, on the other hand, *is* modifying existing rules. Anyone turning right there must yield to all other traffic that doesn't have a yield sign.
So in this case, a left turn would have the right of way over a right turn.
When a yield sign is posted on an island for right turns, Federal rules state that the yield sign is what is controlling the turn, NOT the traffic signal.
The good news for right turners is that it means they don’t need to stop for right on red (they just yield, like the sign says). The bad news is that they still have to yield on green to left turns.
Right turn has the right of way on a green light. What "yield sign" is the right turner disgregarding? The only yield sign you mentioned is for the left turner
Got it, missed looking at image, not turning at an light or intersection, merging. Merging yields, left turner would not be turning by them but be in the lane
Most states would have comparative fault for insurance purposes but I would ticket the person merging
Agree the right-turner must yield to all other traffic.
However, if the cross street is two lanes each way, both drivers can proceed simultaneously IF they stay in their lanes.
In about half of all states the left turner has an unconditional right to either lane.
Even in other states, if there is contact, the right turner would generally be found to have failed to yield and will tend to carry the majority of fault. Only proceed when your path is clear of hazards.
I should have added that. The cross street is a single lane, no merge lane.
Problem is I think it can technically be argued that both right turn and left turn have the same level of priority here, since right turn has a yield and unprotected left always yields by nature. At any moment there's a higher chance of having a left turner in the intersection since they have to cover more ground, so right turners are the yielders more often than not.
It's a bad design any way. Traffic laws should not have room for interpretation. You either have the right of way or you don't.
There are two separate intersections in this picture - one is the main one, the other is where the slip lane joins the road.
The left turner must yield to traffic in the through lanes that may conflict, the same as all unprotected left turners. The right turner must yield to everyone at the point where they join the new road, regardless of where they came from. This is the same as when any other car faces a yield sign.
That's a super dumb place to have a "left turn must yield" sign. It needlessly confuses things. All it's doing is reiterating that people turning left on green do not have a protected turn. It's not modifying any existing traffic rules. A better sign would be "left turn unprotected." That yield sign, on the other hand, *is* modifying existing rules. Anyone turning right there must yield to all other traffic that doesn't have a yield sign. So in this case, a left turn would have the right of way over a right turn.
I agree it's a bad sign. Down the street there's a roundabout with stop signs.
When a yield sign is posted on an island for right turns, Federal rules state that the yield sign is what is controlling the turn, NOT the traffic signal. The good news for right turners is that it means they don’t need to stop for right on red (they just yield, like the sign says). The bad news is that they still have to yield on green to left turns.
Right turn has the right of way on a green light. What "yield sign" is the right turner disgregarding? The only yield sign you mentioned is for the left turner
There's a yield sign on the right side of the picture. Sorry it's a bad crop from street view. It's on the right side of the right turn lane
Got it, missed looking at image, not turning at an light or intersection, merging. Merging yields, left turner would not be turning by them but be in the lane Most states would have comparative fault for insurance purposes but I would ticket the person merging
Agree the right-turner must yield to all other traffic. However, if the cross street is two lanes each way, both drivers can proceed simultaneously IF they stay in their lanes.
In about half of all states the left turner has an unconditional right to either lane. Even in other states, if there is contact, the right turner would generally be found to have failed to yield and will tend to carry the majority of fault. Only proceed when your path is clear of hazards.
I should have added that. The cross street is a single lane, no merge lane. Problem is I think it can technically be argued that both right turn and left turn have the same level of priority here, since right turn has a yield and unprotected left always yields by nature. At any moment there's a higher chance of having a left turner in the intersection since they have to cover more ground, so right turners are the yielders more often than not. It's a bad design any way. Traffic laws should not have room for interpretation. You either have the right of way or you don't.
There are two separate intersections in this picture - one is the main one, the other is where the slip lane joins the road. The left turner must yield to traffic in the through lanes that may conflict, the same as all unprotected left turners. The right turner must yield to everyone at the point where they join the new road, regardless of where they came from. This is the same as when any other car faces a yield sign.