Why can't people get this intersection right?

[fwydriver405]

I just realized...Looking at the GSV for the intersection in the OP, there isn't a right turn arrow on the mast arm, which is surely the first place drivers will look for guidance on what they're allowed to do.  The signal installed by IDOT fails IDOT's minimum requirements for signal indications: every movement represented must have at least two indications pointed at the approach from which the movement originates.  Perhaps we should default to considering whether the traffic infrastructure is faulty before chastising drivers?  The signal does a poor job of communicating what to do.  The signage is nice, but people coming to a signal are going to look to the signal first and the signage second, when determining who has the right of way.

Look at this!  Only one right arrow, and it's on the near right corner of the intersection?  That's definitely not adequate in Illinois.  Every other example of a permanent green right arrow I've seen in Illinois has at least two.  To fix this blunder easily, make the rightmost signal head on the mast arm a 4-section head with a green right arrow that's always on (or add a 4-section head to the right of the three installed).
https://goo.gl/maps/mraFaYf1wEgL5H4u8

I don't see how that helps in this case.  That right arrow would be over a straight-only lane, which wouldn't make sense there and would be out of the line of sight for those making a right turn in the right lane.

The reality is no signals are really needed for the right turn movement. The single arrow provided is just to help with guidance to keep traffic moving in that lane.  Most motorists are stopping because they want to immediately merge over to the left; not because they're confused with if they have the right of way.

Could another solution be to put an additional right turn lane (or at this location, make the thru lane, thru/right)? I was thinking that additional right turn option would prevent the need to have drivers from the slip lane dive bomb multiple lanes to get into the left lanes. Though this is a circle, this setup is used at Route 16 in Revere MA near Route 99.

[Crash_It]

I just realized...Looking at the GSV for the intersection in the OP, there isn't a right turn arrow on the mast arm, which is surely the first place drivers will look for guidance on what they're allowed to do.  The signal installed by IDOT fails IDOT's minimum requirements for signal indications: every movement represented must have at least two indications pointed at the approach from which the movement originates.  Perhaps we should default to considering whether the traffic infrastructure is faulty before chastising drivers?  The signal does a poor job of communicating what to do.  The signage is nice, but people coming to a signal are going to look to the signal first and the signage second, when determining who has the right of way.

Look at this!  Only one right arrow, and it's on the near right corner of the intersection?  That's definitely not adequate in Illinois.  Every other example of a permanent green right arrow I've seen in Illinois has at least two.  To fix this blunder easily, make the rightmost signal head on the mast arm a 4-section head with a green right arrow that's always on (or add a 4-section head to the right of the three installed).
https://goo.gl/maps/mraFaYf1wEgL5H4u8

Going to add to this... looking through GSV in previous years it appears the 4-section R-Y-G-GA(/YA?) signal head was added sometime in 2017, at the same time the yellow reflective tape was added onto the signal on the mast arm. Just out of curiosity, was there a problem with drivers stopping when that signal was just a R-Y-G head pre-2017?

I imagine that it was likely worse then, I didn't start traversing the intersection until this past summer when I met my gf.

I would also like to know if this intersection closer to home in South Portland ME also suffers from the same design flaw as mentioned in reply #147. If there's a YIELD sign at the end of the ramp, then what is the purpose of the right turn signal at this location? Which traffic control device has priority, the signal or YIELD sign? The stopping issue like the intersection in IL isn't prevalent here and there's no marked stop line for such signal for the right turn (unless you want to count the end of the slip lane the theoretical stop line).

That one is easy, if the arrow is red you yield, if not then you can go. Similar as this here


Park City, Illinois
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NJaA6pKs5yowaj7R8

[mrsman]

I just realized...Looking at the GSV for the intersection in the OP, there isn't a right turn arrow on the mast arm, which is surely the first place drivers will look for guidance on what they're allowed to do.  The signal installed by IDOT fails IDOT's minimum requirements for signal indications: every movement represented must have at least two indications pointed at the approach from which the movement originates.  Perhaps we should default to considering whether the traffic infrastructure is faulty before chastising drivers?  The signal does a poor job of communicating what to do.  The signage is nice, but people coming to a signal are going to look to the signal first and the signage second, when determining who has the right of way.

Look at this!  Only one right arrow, and it's on the near right corner of the intersection?  That's definitely not adequate in Illinois.  Every other example of a permanent green right arrow I've seen in Illinois has at least two.  To fix this blunder easily, make the rightmost signal head on the mast arm a 4-section head with a green right arrow that's always on (or add a 4-section head to the right of the three installed).
https://goo.gl/maps/mraFaYf1wEgL5H4u8

I don't see how that helps in this case.  That right arrow would be over a straight-only lane, which wouldn't make sense there and would be out of the line of sight for those making a right turn in the right lane.

The reality is no signals are really needed for the right turn movement. The single arrow provided is just to help with guidance to keep traffic moving in that lane.  Most motorists are stopping because they want to immediately merge over to the left; not because they're confused with if they have the right of way.

Could another solution be to put an additional right turn lane (or at this location, make the thru lane, thru/right)? I was thinking that additional right turn option would prevent the need to have drivers from the slip lane dive bomb multiple lanes to get into the left lanes. Though this is a circle, this setup is used at Route 16 in Revere MA near Route 99.

I do like your solution.  It separates Crash_It from the people that he is annoyed with.

In all seriousness, there are solutions to this issue.  I am actually more concerned with the use of the green right arrow somehow indicating that this is a protected right turn.  In most cases where a right turn arrow is displayed the right turn is protected from all/most traffic with the possible exception of u-turning traffic who have a concurrent protected left signal.  Here, the right turn is only protected IF YOU MAKE YOUR RIGHT TURN AND STAY IN THE RIGHTMOST LANE.  For much of the time, cross traffic has the right of way in the other two lanes.  I know that IL tends to be pretty strict about turning into the rightmost lane, but from the perspective of an unfamiliar driver, you shouldn't indicate that this turn is fully protected, because it really is not.

In my area, we have a similar intersection with a free right turn into the right lane at all times (except for pedestrian crossings but few pedestrians exist here).  I don't notice any problems that Crash_It has for several reasons.  One, the right lane continues for several miles and drivers could conceivably drive on it for a long time.  Two, the next few blocks are relatively minor streets so very few drivers need to merge over to make an immediate left turn.  Three, the yellow sign (partially covered by the tree) indicates the free right turn so drivers understand they have a free turn onto the right lane, independent of the traffic signal indication.


https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0756831,-76.9939731,3a,75y,247.89h,80.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEC1SVef9nyeTra7IiYd93w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[Scott5114]

As far as loving across multiple lanes at one time, that's an issue

Nah, that's just inclusiveness.

[jeffandnicole]

As far as loving across multiple lanes at one time, that's an issue

Nah, that's just inclusiveness.

I can't stand typing on a cell phone...

[Plutonic Panda]

As far as loving across multiple lanes at one time, that's an issue

Nah, that's just inclusiveness.

I can't stand typing on a cell phone...

I'm with you 100 percent. I absolutely hate typing on phones and I can't the amount of times I've tried to rewrite a word only to mess it up 3-4 times in a row or have autocorrect change my word to duck. but seriously I do not like typing on phones. I'm one of those weirdos in my age group who hates texting.

[Max Rockatansky]

As far as loving across multiple lanes at one time, that's an issue

Nah, that's just inclusiveness.

I can't stand typing on a cell phone...

I'm with you 100 percent. I absolutely hate typing on phones and I can't the amount of times I've tried to rewrite a word only to mess it up 3-4 times in a row or have autocorrect change my word to duck. but seriously I do not like typing on phones. I'm one of those weirdos in my age group who hates texting.

The only time I found it somewhat easy was with my old work Black Berry.  The actual physical keyboard was very helpful compared to the often glitchy touch screens.  Nothing any cell phone can do is going to replace the speed and ease of using a keyboard with proper typing position though. 

Count me as someone also as someone who doesn't like texting.  I didn't even learn how until text until 2010 after I had a work phone for a year. 

[jakeroot]

To get back on track:

My fix for Illini/Troy in Glen Carbon would be:

(1) repaint the markings;

(2) install flexiposts along the gore point to discourage driving through the gore area and reinforce the add-lane situation;

(3) allow right turns at the signal by changing the through lane to a right turn only lane (very common in WA as highlighted by mrsman);

(4) add a pedestrian crossing to the slip lane with pedestrian warning sign and RRFBs;

(5a) change near-side signal to five-section right turn signal, duplicate two more times on far side of intersection (to allow right turn overlap for new right turn lane);

(5b) add a "this lane [45-degree down/left arrow]" below near side signal to reinforce that signal not applying to slip lane;

(6) finally, change the left lane into a left/straight lane and convert the intersection to permissive-only, or install an advanced green left arrow for that movement.

That final change would allow two permanent right turn lanes with only some island reconstruction required (in addition to other things I've mentioned).

[jeffandnicole]

Seems like a lot when the result of the problem is a few seconds of delay.

Remember, we're dealing with someone who has the mindset of going thru a red light is ok if he is behind a slower vehicle that made the light.

[jakeroot]

Seems like a lot when the result of the problem is a few seconds of delay.

Remember, we're dealing with someone who has the mindset of going thru a red light is ok if he is behind a slower vehicle that made the light.

I made a huge list but it's not actually that much.

To give credit where it's due: this kind of intersection design is not wise if you're going to permit free lefts from a road. Slip lanes are fine, but they should not be add-lanes. Changing this to a regular yield would be the quickest change and would permit traffic to immediately begin turning into any lane they wish.

[Crash_It]

To get back on track:

My fix for Illini/Troy in Glen Carbon would be:

(1) repaint the markings;

(2) install flexiposts along the gore point to discourage driving through the gore area and reinforce the add-lane situation;

(3) allow right turns at the signal by changing the through lane to a right turn only lane (very common in WA as highlighted by mrsman);

(4) add a pedestrian crossing to the slip lane with pedestrian warning sign and RRFBs;

(5a) change near-side signal to five-section right turn signal, duplicate two more times on far side of intersection (to allow right turn overlap for new right turn lane);

(5b) add a "this lane [45-degree down/left arrow]" below near side signal to reinforce that signal not applying to slip lane;

(6) finally, change the left lane into a left/straight lane and convert the intersection to permissive-only, or install an advanced green left arrow for that movement.

That final change would allow two permanent right turn lanes with only some island reconstruction required (in addition to other things I've mentioned).

There's absolutely no reason to turn left after immediately making that right to access those places because one can either
1) go straight prior to that point or
2) turn at the intersection where there's a Walgreen's, that will give access to the same frontage road that going straight or immediately turning left would.

Converting it to a RTOR setup is totally unnecessary.
People are just being selfish and stupid.

[jakeroot]

To get back on track:

My fix for Illini/Troy in Glen Carbon would be:

(1) repaint the markings;

(2) install flexiposts along the gore point to discourage driving through the gore area and reinforce the add-lane situation;

(3) allow right turns at the signal by changing the through lane to a right turn only lane (very common in WA as highlighted by mrsman);

(4) add a pedestrian crossing to the slip lane with pedestrian warning sign and RRFBs;

(5a) change near-side signal to five-section right turn signal, duplicate two more times on far side of intersection (to allow right turn overlap for new right turn lane);

(5b) add a "this lane [45-degree down/left arrow]" below near side signal to reinforce that signal not applying to slip lane;

(6) finally, change the left lane into a left/straight lane and convert the intersection to permissive-only, or install an advanced green left arrow for that movement.

That final change would allow two permanent right turn lanes with only some island reconstruction required (in addition to other things I've mentioned).

There's absolutely no reason to turn left after immediately making that right to access those places because one can either
1) go straight prior to that point or
2) turn at the intersection where there's a Walgreen's, that will give access to the same frontage road that going straight or immediately turning left would.

Converting it to a RTOR setup is totally unnecessary.
People are just being selfish and stupid.

I'm proposing RTOR in addition to the existing add-lane. Nothing would change for you except fewer drivers needing to change over immediately. You should be in favor of my proposal.

Simply changing signs is rarely effective. You need the change the built infrastructure.

It doesn't matter how it could be used: it's how it is used. The fact is that you can turn left at the next signal, and there is no existing provision to allow drivers to easily complete this maneuver. Thus, you are constantly dealing with drivers who are stopping instead of continuing on. So, the intersection should be reconstructed to either (A) make this maneuver impossible by installing raised dividers, or (B) allowing right turns at the signal in addition to those via the slip lane. Neither would be cheap and easy, per se, but the issues you're experiencing right now will persist until one of those things is changed.

[mrsman]

To get back on track:

My fix for Illini/Troy in Glen Carbon would be:

(1) repaint the markings;

(2) install flexiposts along the gore point to discourage driving through the gore area and reinforce the add-lane situation;

(3) allow right turns at the signal by changing the through lane to a right turn only lane (very common in WA as highlighted by mrsman);

(4) add a pedestrian crossing to the slip lane with pedestrian warning sign and RRFBs;

(5a) change near-side signal to five-section right turn signal, duplicate two more times on far side of intersection (to allow right turn overlap for new right turn lane);

(5b) add a "this lane [45-degree down/left arrow]" below near side signal to reinforce that signal not applying to slip lane;

(6) finally, change the left lane into a left/straight lane and convert the intersection to permissive-only, or install an advanced green left arrow for that movement.

That final change would allow two permanent right turn lanes with only some island reconstruction required (in addition to other things I've mentioned).

There's absolutely no reason to turn left after immediately making that right to access those places because one can either
1) go straight prior to that point or
2) turn at the intersection where there's a Walgreen's, that will give access to the same frontage road that going straight or immediately turning left would.

Converting it to a RTOR setup is totally unnecessary.
People are just being selfish and stupid.

I'm proposing RTOR in addition to the existing add-lane. Nothing would change for you except fewer drivers needing to change over immediately. You should be in favor of my proposal.

Simply changing signs is rarely effective. You need the change the built infrastructure.

It doesn't matter how it could be used: it's how it is used. The fact is that you can turn left at the next signal, and there is no existing provision to allow drivers to easily complete this maneuver. Thus, you are constantly dealing with drivers who are stopping instead of continuing on. So, the intersection should be reconstructed to either (A) make this maneuver impossible by installing raised dividers, or (B) allowing right turns at the signal in addition to those via the slip lane. Neither would be cheap and easy, per se, but the issues you're experiencing right now will persist until one of those things is changed.

The infrastructure to fix this is probably not terribly expensive.  Yes, all of the things that jakeroot identified would be nice to have, but all that would be needed is simply to allow the right lane at the intersection to go both straight and right.  A simple change in signage and maybe painting the pavement.  Any drivers who are too timid to make right turn at the gore lane, would probably feel more comfortable waiting for the green light anyway to make their turn from Illini to Troy.  They can use Illini's middle lane for that.   Those who want to have the ability of a continuous turn will use the existing right lane and can make the turn without stopping.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Why did you use something as awesome as Chrono Trigger music in that video? 

[Crash_It]

Why did you use something as awesome as Chrono Trigger music in that video? 

Because the relief that's coming is a happy breath of fresh air. I did it again for this video


https://youtu.be/rwnm2iYyUdc

[paulthemapguy]

I just realized...Looking at the GSV for the intersection in the OP, there isn't a right turn arrow on the mast arm, which is surely the first place drivers will look for guidance on what they're allowed to do.  The signal installed by IDOT fails IDOT's minimum requirements for signal indications: every movement represented must have at least two indications pointed at the approach from which the movement originates.  Perhaps we should default to considering whether the traffic infrastructure is faulty before chastising drivers?  The signal does a poor job of communicating what to do.  The signage is nice, but people coming to a signal are going to look to the signal first and the signage second, when determining who has the right of way.

Look at this!  Only one right arrow, and it's on the near right corner of the intersection?  That's definitely not adequate in Illinois.  Every other example of a permanent green right arrow I've seen in Illinois has at least two.  To fix this blunder easily, make the rightmost signal head on the mast arm a 4-section head with a green right arrow that's always on (or add a 4-section head to the right of the three installed).
https://goo.gl/maps/mraFaYf1wEgL5H4u8

I don't see how that helps in this case.  That right arrow would be over a straight-only lane, which wouldn't make sense there and would be out of the line of sight for those making a right turn in the right lane.

The reality is no signals are really needed for the right turn movement. The single arrow provided is just to help with guidance to keep traffic moving in that lane.  Most motorists are stopping because they want to immediately merge over to the left; not because they're confused with if they have the right of way.

You're wrong in that the signal would be out of sight of those making a right turn in the right lane.  The people in that right lane are not 4 feet from the signal and wouldn't need to crane their neck left or right to see it.  Plus, since people aren't stopping, the critical time for people to see such a signal would be in advance of reaching the intersection.  So if they see that green arrow from 100 or 200 feet away, that's all the driver would need to understand that they don't need to stop.

I'm coming from a perspective of catering to what Illinoisans would expect.  I imagine someone from somewhere else would have different basic expectations on how a signal would communicate to drivers.  Illinois isn't a state that puts up right turn yield signs and considers right turns to be separate from signals (except for a few rare exceptions cited recently).  If the channelizing island for the right turn is large enough, people will figure out that they should consider the right turn movement to be like an exit ramp where people always have the right-of-way.  But in situations where it's vague whether the channelizing island is large enough, extra clarification is a great idea to minimize confusion and crashes ensuing from said confusion.

If people are making the turn, and then trying to merge all the way left across two thru lanes to make an immediate left turn, then I don't blame the OP for getting frustrated and honking at them.  If drivers can't figure out that it's much safer to go straight at the light and go south through the shopping center, they're dirtbags.

[jeffandnicole]

I just realized...Looking at the GSV for the intersection in the OP, there isn't a right turn arrow on the mast arm, which is surely the first place drivers will look for guidance on what they're allowed to do.  The signal installed by IDOT fails IDOT's minimum requirements for signal indications: every movement represented must have at least two indications pointed at the approach from which the movement originates.  Perhaps we should default to considering whether the traffic infrastructure is faulty before chastising drivers?  The signal does a poor job of communicating what to do.  The signage is nice, but people coming to a signal are going to look to the signal first and the signage second, when determining who has the right of way.

Look at this!  Only one right arrow, and it's on the near right corner of the intersection?  That's definitely not adequate in Illinois.  Every other example of a permanent green right arrow I've seen in Illinois has at least two.  To fix this blunder easily, make the rightmost signal head on the mast arm a 4-section head with a green right arrow that's always on (or add a 4-section head to the right of the three installed).
https://goo.gl/maps/mraFaYf1wEgL5H4u8

I don't see how that helps in this case.  That right arrow would be over a straight-only lane, which wouldn't make sense there and would be out of the line of sight for those making a right turn in the right lane.

The reality is no signals are really needed for the right turn movement. The single arrow provided is just to help with guidance to keep traffic moving in that lane.  Most motorists are stopping because they want to immediately merge over to the left; not because they're confused with if they have the right of way.

You're wrong in that the signal would be out of sight of those making a right turn in the right lane.  The people in that right lane are not 4 feet from the signal and wouldn't need to crane their neck left or right to see it.  Plus, since people aren't stopping, the critical time for people to see such a signal would be in advance of reaching the intersection.  So if they see that green arrow from 100 or 200 feet away, that's all the driver would need to understand that they don't need to stop.

I'm coming from a perspective of catering to what Illinoisans would expect.  I imagine someone from somewhere else would have different basic expectations on how a signal would communicate to drivers.  Illinois isn't a state that puts up right turn yield signs and considers right turns to be separate from signals (except for a few rare exceptions cited recently).  If the channelizing island for the right turn is large enough, people will figure out that they should consider the right turn movement to be like an exit ramp where people always have the right-of-way.  But in situations where it's vague whether the channelizing island is large enough, extra clarification is a great idea to minimize confusion and crashes ensuing from said confusion.

If people are making the turn, and then trying to merge all the way left across two thru lanes to make an immediate left turn, then I don't blame the OP for getting frustrated and honking at them.  If drivers can't figure out that it's much safer to go straight at the light and go south through the shopping center, they're dirtbags.

But they're not stopping before they make the right turn...they're stopping *after* they make the turn,  where the lights would be out of view. So they're aware they can keep moving.  It appears that lane is relatively short, so some people may be hesitant to continue if they feel they can't merge in time.

Obviously, the only true test is to see how the same driver would react when they make the turn without traffic on the cross street.

[wtd67]

The subject of this thread is "Why can't people get this intersection right?".  Two reasons, poor signage and they are not common.  In 99.9% of right turns at intersections, you have to slow down and many times stop.  I barely saw the green arrow, but I also saw a car going through the intersection at the same time.  If I didn't know the intersection, I would have stopped as well.

The person who shot the video escalated this whole incident for video purposes and has a major road rage problem.  First, he lays on the horn for a very long time, yells at the driver (whether they heard them or not), then cuts the driver off.  Many people relate that behavior as road rage.  Someone running up to the back of a car laying down the horn like he did probably scared the driver and they immediately stopped as they did know what was going on and then they tried to get out of the way by crossing over the line. 

If I were the judge, I would give the minivan a warning and the person that shot the video at least two tickets, one for cutting off the driver and another for road rage. 

[vdeane]

Why did you use something as awesome as Chrono Trigger music in that video? 

Because the relief that's coming is a happy breath of fresh air. I did it again for this video


https://youtu.be/rwnm2iYyUdc

A lot of these look like you're lingering in the left lane after passing.  When you say you want to "see what they do", it looks like you're provoking them so you can have some content for your videos.

[jeffandnicole]

Why did you use something as awesome as Chrono Trigger music in that video? 

Because the relief that's coming is a happy breath of fresh air. I did it again for this video


https://youtu.be/rwnm2iYyUdc

A lot of these look like you're lingering in the left lane after passing.  When you say you want to "see what they do", it looks like you're provoking them so you can have some content for your videos.

I really have no words for his video.  He calls it road-rage, he calls every driver "butthurt", yet it appears he causes nearly every issue and is butthurt over everything.  At the 9:55 - 11:30 mark, he flashes his headlights for a driver driving "at or below the speed limit"...then complains when the driver is behind him, yet that driver never flashes his headlights in return.

The exchange at the McDonalds?  Dude...it doesn't matter who's screen turns off first.  It's a zipper merge.   Besides "I was first...I was first...I was first..."  Seriously? 

And the passing just before the construction zone?  Absolutely uncalled for.  You know that construction zone is coming up, and workers may have been right at that lane ending point, taking up or removing those signs.

[Crash_It]

The subject of this thread is "Why can't people get this intersection right?".  Two reasons, poor signage and they are not common.  In 99.9% of right turns at intersections, you have to slow down and many times stop.  I barely saw the green arrow, but I also saw a car going through the intersection at the same time.  If I didn't know the intersection, I would have stopped as well.

The person who shot the video escalated this whole incident for video purposes and has a major road rage problem.  First, he lays on the horn for a very long time, yells at the driver (whether they heard them or not), then cuts the driver off.  Many people relate that behavior as road rage.  Someone running up to the back of a car laying down the horn like he did probably scared the driver and they immediately stopped as they did know what was going on and then they tried to get out of the way by crossing over the line. 

If I were the judge, I would give the minivan a warning and the person that shot the video at least two tickets, one for cutting off the driver and another for road rage.

There was no road rage on my behalf, the driver was unlawfully stopped there end of story. The cop even agreed with my honking in the original of that video and initially didn't want to give the ticket.

[NWI_Irish96]

The subject of this thread is "Why can't people get this intersection right?".  Two reasons, poor signage and they are not common.  In 99.9% of right turns at intersections, you have to slow down and many times stop.  I barely saw the green arrow, but I also saw a car going through the intersection at the same time.  If I didn't know the intersection, I would have stopped as well.

The person who shot the video escalated this whole incident for video purposes and has a major road rage problem.  First, he lays on the horn for a very long time, yells at the driver (whether they heard them or not), then cuts the driver off.  Many people relate that behavior as road rage.  Someone running up to the back of a car laying down the horn like he did probably scared the driver and they immediately stopped as they did know what was going on and then they tried to get out of the way by crossing over the line. 

If I were the judge, I would give the minivan a warning and the person that shot the video at least two tickets, one for cutting off the driver and another for road rage.

There was no road rage on my behalf, the driver was unlawfully stopped there end of story. The cop even agreed with my honking in the original of that video and initially didn't want to give the ticket.

Beyond a brief tap on the horn, you don't have the right to engage in any of that behavior toward another driver who is stopped illegally. It's not a felony. You don't have the right to tailgate them, blare your horn, or cut them off. That behavior is never warranted.

[Crash_It]

The subject of this thread is "Why can't people get this intersection right?".  Two reasons, poor signage and they are not common.  In 99.9% of right turns at intersections, you have to slow down and many times stop.  I barely saw the green arrow, but I also saw a car going through the intersection at the same time.  If I didn't know the intersection, I would have stopped as well.

The person who shot the video escalated this whole incident for video purposes and has a major road rage problem.  First, he lays on the horn for a very long time, yells at the driver (whether they heard them or not), then cuts the driver off.  Many people relate that behavior as road rage.  Someone running up to the back of a car laying down the horn like he did probably scared the driver and they immediately stopped as they did know what was going on and then they tried to get out of the way by crossing over the line. 

If I were the judge, I would give the minivan a warning and the person that shot the video at least two tickets, one for cutting off the driver and another for road rage.

There was no road rage on my behalf, the driver was unlawfully stopped there end of story. The cop even agreed with my honking in the original of that video and initially didn't want to give the ticket.

Beyond a brief tap on the horn, you don't have the right to engage in any of that behavior toward another driver who is stopped illegally. It's not a felony. You don't have the right to tailgate them, blare your horn, or cut them off. That behavior is never warranted.

I didn't do any of the former

[hbelkins]

Read this thread for the first time, and am amazed that there was only one purple-text comment, a number of personal attacks were allowed to let stand despite a moderator's participation in this discussion, and that it hasn't been locked yet.

Having said that, a simple signage solution can found in Pikeville, Ky. At the beginning of the right-turn lane, and also at the point where a merge would occur, there is this...

https://goo.gl/maps/uQQVikwsgLS9Bxnw6

In case you can't read it in the imagery, the sign says "Lane Continues Stop Not Required."

Pretty straightforward, if you ask me. I've been through that intersection many times and do not ever recall an issue with a driver stopping in the continuing added lane.

The "added lane" merge sign could also be helpful. (The W4-6.)

[1995hoo]

The subject of this thread is "Why can't people get this intersection right?".  Two reasons, poor signage and they are not common.  In 99.9% of right turns at intersections, you have to slow down and many times stop.  I barely saw the green arrow, but I also saw a car going through the intersection at the same time.  If I didn't know the intersection, I would have stopped as well.

The person who shot the video escalated this whole incident for video purposes and has a major road rage problem.  First, he lays on the horn for a very long time, yells at the driver (whether they heard them or not), then cuts the driver off.  Many people relate that behavior as road rage.  Someone running up to the back of a car laying down the horn like he did probably scared the driver and they immediately stopped as they did know what was going on and then they tried to get out of the way by crossing over the line. 

If I were the judge, I would give the minivan a warning and the person that shot the video at least two tickets, one for cutting off the driver and another for road rage.

There was no road rage on my behalf, the driver was unlawfully stopped there end of story. The cop even agreed with my honking in the original of that video and initially didn't want to give the ticket.

Beyond a brief tap on the horn, you don't have the right to engage in any of that behavior toward another driver who is stopped illegally. It's not a felony. You don't have the right to tailgate them, blare your horn, or cut them off. That behavior is never warranted.

I didn't do any of the former

Hmmm. A careful read of cabiness42's post reveals that "the former" is "a brief tap on the horn" and "the latter" is "tailgate them, blare your horn, or cut them off."

So I'm guessing for once we can all agree with something Crash_It said: He definitely did not give "a brief tap on the horn"!