Minor things that bother you

[J N Winkler]

There's a common belief that it's illegal to change lanes in an intersection.

I think it is illegal in Kansas (and probably also other UVC direct adopters).  This is also not quite the same issue as failure to turn into the nearest lane, since it also applies to traffic going straight across the mouth of an intersection, such as of a side street.

For example, in Texas you are allowed to turn left onto a multi-lane road and enter any lane that is open for traffic moving in that direction.  I recall a possibly different show in which one of the high-ups in CHP, I think the commissioner or whatever he is, talked about traffic laws (there is no "fast lane," the speed limit is the same in all lanes).  Considering where most television shows are made, California laws are most likely to be the ones discussed.

I have read that there are five states out of the 50--Texas, California, and Missouri being three of them--that have no requirement to turn into the nearest lane.  Most UVC direct adopters do.

California law is more permissive in some regards (no turn into nearest lane requirement, motorcycle lane splitting allowed) and more restrictive in others (no turning across painted islands).

In theory, if people would turn into the correct lane it would allow greater efficiency insofar as people could turn right on red while people coming the other way are turning left—at least, it would allow that at intersections where the "destination road" has enough lanes that no turns "should" come in conflict with each other, or at intersections where turns on red are restricted from one lane.

Theory is one thing and reality is another.  Defensive driving often involves accepting frictional loss in order to steer clear of other drivers' lawbreaking.  In the case you describe, I wait until there is no left-turning traffic before I turn right, because the turn-into-nearest-lane rule by itself will not protect me from another driver who illegally turns left into the right lane in order to access a traffic generator on that side.

[wxfree]

There's a common belief that it's illegal to change lanes in an intersection.  I think it's one of the violations Jim Carrey's dishonest character admits to in "Liar Liar."  His character is a lawyer, which fits with the lying theme, and presumably knows a little about the law, but maybe the writers don't.  I remember a television show years ago in which this matter was addressed, and it was stated that no such law exists.  Of course, that can vary by state.  For example, in Texas you are allowed to turn left onto a multi-lane road and enter any lane that is open for traffic moving in that direction.  I recall a possibly different show in which one of the high-ups in CHP, I think the commissioner or whatever he is, talked about traffic laws (there is no "fast lane," the speed limit is the same in all lanes).  Considering where most television shows are made, California laws are most likely to be the ones discussed.

....

What happens in Texas when there are multiple turn lanes turning in the same direction, such as in the example I linked above (which is in Virginia)? Surely the driver in the far right lane cannot just cut over to the left if there is someone else turning right from the next lane over, for example, just because state law may not require turning into the "closest" lane. That is, it seems that the driver in the second lane would be entitled to occupy the second lane such that the guy in the curb lane could be cited for failure to yield, at a minimum.

That falls under the section on traffic control devices that alter the prescribed movements.  If multiple lanes are marked, it isn't illegal to change lanes in the intersection.  The proposed legislation would have required staying in the same lane through the turn.  Changing lanes in an unsafe manner is prohibited in 545.060, so that would cover causing conflicts with other vehicles.

In my view, having multiple lanes turning in an intersection is a special situation in which changing lanes should be illegal.  There are challenges related to following the proper curve and keeping track of other vehicles and you should stay on one course until things straighten out.  The legislature had multiple opportunities to make this change, but declined to.  I haven't seen such a bill proposed in the current session.

[wanderer2575]

Michigan Lefts screw up the whole mess. You go through the crossover and if you are supposed to go into the leftmost lane, you then have to lane change one or more times to the right to complete your turn. Someone in a car with self-driving mode made a video a couple years ago and the car had to struggle to cross 3 lanes of traffic to get to the far right.

In a Michigan Left there will no opposing traffic turning left as you are turning right, so turning into other than the nearest lane isn't a big deal.

In theory, if people would turn into the correct lane it would allow greater efficiency insofar as people could turn right on red while people coming the other way are turning left—at least, it would allow that at intersections where the "destination road" has enough lanes that no turns "should" come in conflict with each other, or at intersections where turns on red are restricted from one lane.

Theory is one thing and reality is another.  Defensive driving often involves accepting frictional loss in order to steer clear of other drivers' lawbreaking.  In the case you describe, I wait until there is no left-turning traffic before I turn right, because the turn-into-nearest-lane rule by itself will not protect me from another driver who illegally turns left into the right lane in order to access a traffic generator on that side.

Also will not protect you and me from a left-turning driver making a "banana turn" and overshooting the intended left lane because of his/her inability to square up a turn and maneuver the vehicle directly into that lane.

[kphoger]

There's a common belief that it's illegal to change lanes in an intersection.

I think it is illegal in Kansas (and probably also other UVC direct adopters).

This is what I remembered too, but apparently we remember incorrectly.  I cannot find any statute within the UVC or KSA Chapter 8 that prohibits changing lanes within an intersection.  Can you provide any reference?

[wanderer2575]

Seminar/webinar speakers who insert "you know" after every third word.  I'm listening right now to a webinar speaker doing that and I'm ready to tear out my hair.

[CtrlAltDel]

So, it seems that I am one of those drivers that annoy some of you here in that I think it's perfectly fine to turn into any lane and not the nearest one. It's not even a thing I think about or not. I just turn into the lane I need.

An exception would be with dual turn lanes. Then, you have to follow the markings. But not with a one-lane turn lane onto a multilane road.

[1995hoo]

In theory, if people would turn into the correct lane it would allow greater efficiency insofar as people could turn right on red while people coming the other way are turning left—at least, it would allow that at intersections where the "destination road" has enough lanes that no turns "should" come in conflict with each other, or at intersections where turns on red are restricted from one lane.

Theory is one thing and reality is another.  Defensive driving often involves accepting frictional loss in order to steer clear of other drivers' lawbreaking.  In the case you describe, I wait until there is no left-turning traffic before I turn right, because the turn-into-nearest-lane rule by itself will not protect me from another driver who illegally turns left into the right lane in order to access a traffic generator on that side.

Of course. If you notice, later in the paragraph you quoted (in a part you deleted in the quote), I noted that "in practice" what should happen in theory does not actually happen most of the time. I recall one general exception to that—when I first moved to my current residence, the traffic light leaving my neighborhood (and the corresponding light for traffic coming the other way) didn't have left-turn arrows, but most of the traffic from our side turned left and from the other side turned right (the destination street has two lanes). Pretty much everyone who lived here knew that you'd never get through the light if you waited, so pretty much everyone turned into the correct lanes. (There are now turn arrows and that courtesy disappeared.) But that was just about the only place I can recall most people respecting lane discipline in that situation.

[GaryV]

In a Michigan Left there will no opposing traffic turning left as you are turning right

Correct, there shouldn't be - except for any driveways entering from the opposite side of the road, which sometimes does happen.

My point was that if there is a "first legal lane" requirement, having once gone through the crossover you are now in the lane farthest from where you want to go.

[JayhawkCO]

... 6/5 ... fuck ...

69ing is like fractions.

Get it?

Nobody?  Nobody has heard this one?  OK, OK...

69ing is like fractions.  If the bigger one is on top, then it's improper.

When you play poker, lots of starting hands have nicknames. AA is Pocket Rockets, AK is Big Slick. 69 is Dinner For Two.

[thspfc]

... 6/5 ... fuck ...

69ing is like fractions.

Get it?

Nobody?  Nobody has heard this one?  OK, OK...

69ing is like fractions.  If the bigger one is on top, then it's improper.

When you play poker, lots of starting hands have nicknames. AA is Pocket Rockets, AK is Big Slick. 69 is Dinner For Two.

When in college playing for an average pot of about $2.75, 69 suited is basically a mandatory all-in. I have never heard that moniker though.

[JayhawkCO]

... 6/5 ... fuck ...

69ing is like fractions.

Get it?

Nobody?  Nobody has heard this one?  OK, OK...

69ing is like fractions.  If the bigger one is on top, then it's improper.

When you play poker, lots of starting hands have nicknames. AA is Pocket Rockets, AK is Big Slick. 69 is Dinner For Two.

When in college playing for an average pot of about $2.75, 69 suited is basically a mandatory all-in. I have never heard that moniker though.

I've heard it more often in Omaha, where 6699 is Dinner for Four.

[wxfree]

On the matter of turning, I remember being taught that you must turn right into the right lane, and that the same was not true for a left turn.  The statutes don't indicate such a requirement regarding lanes for right turns.  However, there is another subsection that I knew about without realizing its significance.  It's one of the few laws I don't always follow strictly.

Texas Transportation Code Section 545.101 directs making turns.  Subsections a and d have relevant provisions.  When turning right, you must approach and make the turn as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.  Fully interpreted, if there are shoulders, you must turn right from the shoulder and onto the shoulder, then after the turn is completed you can move left into the lane.  I don't always do that.  If most drivers turn right from a lane, then getting onto the shoulder gets in their way.  Even though they're technically wrong, your first responsibility is to avoid conflicts and collisions, not adherence to regulations.  Turning onto a highway with shoulders, to me going onto the shoulder and then moving to the lane, making one maneuver into two, seems wrong.  In town, shoulders are often parking lanes and driving in them seems wrong.

Subsection d relates to left turns, and requires using the far left portion of the road when turning from a one-way to a one-way.  That situation is uncommon outside downtown areas, and such areas are, in my experience, more often good places to hang to the edge of the road when turning because of tight roads.

Given this information, I would say that a right turn into the right lane is required.  It isn't explicit, but it's implied in the requirement to stick to the right edge.  The use of the shoulder is required if there is one.  Left turns into left lanes are required at intersections between two one-way roads.  I don't really like that edge of the road requirement, as it's one of the things that makes sense in theory but in practice it makes things more complex and messy.  Basically no one remembers that from driver training.  Even I didn't, and I'm obsessed with things like this.  I had to look it up again.

[mgk920]

The two button switches on your computer's mouse ('right and left click') picking up very tiny bits of dirt and/or oxide that cause them to, at random times, 'double click' or more.  SERIOUSLY annoying!

 

Mike

[Rothman]

This thread explains a lot about people turning left from the leftmost left turn lane and moving over to collide with people turning left next to them.

[webny99]

So, it seems that I am one of those drivers that annoy some of you here in that I think it's perfectly fine to turn into any lane and not the nearest one. It's not even a thing I think about or not. I just turn into the lane I need.

An exception would be with dual turn lanes. Then, you have to follow the markings. But not with a one-lane turn lane onto a multilane road.

I for one am not going to enforce that anyone must turn into the nearest lane, but it is still good practice for a whole bunch of reasons. Most importantly, it is safer because it is predictable to other drivers and helps reduce potential for lane conflicts. It also helps promote efficient traffic flow, particularly for left turning traffic. When right turners are turning into different lanes randomly, it creates uncertainty for left turners and encourages them to wait until there are no right turners approaching, which reduces the throughput of the left turn. If right turners consistently turned into the rightmost lane, dual turns would be more widely accepted and backups for left turns would be reduced (significantly so in some cases). I would honestly like to see this more widely enforced with lane markings, even for single turn lanes.

I understand there are some exceptions, like if you're making a quick left turn after turning right or vice versa. But turning right into the far left lane just because you want to zoom by other traffic and are too lazy to get up to speed first and merge later is not only sloppy driving practice, it's annoying to those waiting to turn left who could have turned into that lane.

[Scott5114]

The two button switches on your computer's mouse ('right and left click') picking up very tiny bits of dirt and/or oxide that cause them to, at random times, 'double click' or more.  SERIOUSLY annoying!

 

Mike

When this starts happening is normally when I replace my mouse.

Since 2022 I've been using gaming mice that use laser-activated switches rather than mechanical ones. They're more expensive but they seem to last longer—I still have the mouse from 2022, after several successive years of annual mouse replacements. (I work from home so my mouse is very heavily used.)

[CtrlAltDel]

Texas Transportation Code Section 545.101 directs making turns.  Subsections a and d have relevant provisions.  When turning right, you must approach and make the turn as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.  Fully interpreted, if there are shoulders, you must turn right from the shoulder and onto the shoulder, then after the turn is completed you can move left into the lane.

Note, though, the definition provided in Section 541.302 (emphasis mine):

"Roadway" means the portion of a highway, other than the berm or shoulder, that is improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. If a highway includes at least two separate roadways, the term applies to each roadway separately.

Which is nice, since there is simply no way I would turn from a shoulder onto a shoulder in the ordinary course of things.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

In theory, if people would turn into the correct lane it would allow greater efficiency insofar as people could turn right on red while people coming the other way are turning left—at least, it would allow that at intersections where the "destination road" has enough lanes that no turns "should" come in conflict with each other, or at intersections where turns on red are restricted from one lane.

I've always approached this with the expectation that a red light is a red light. A motorist has no right to turn on red. If there is opposing left turn traffic with a green arrow, the RTOR traffic should not be moving for any reason, no different than when there is traffic on the crossroad with the green.

[wxfree]

Texas Transportation Code Section 545.101 directs making turns.  Subsections a and d have relevant provisions.  When turning right, you must approach and make the turn as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.  Fully interpreted, if there are shoulders, you must turn right from the shoulder and onto the shoulder, then after the turn is completed you can move left into the lane.

Note, though, the definition provided in Section 541.302 (emphasis mine):

"Roadway" means the portion of a highway, other than the berm or shoulder, that is improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. If a highway includes at least two separate roadways, the term applies to each roadway separately.

Which is nice, since there is simply no way I would turn from a shoulder onto a shoulder in the ordinary course of things.

That's a very important definition.  For some reason it didn't click because I was reading the section about driving on a shoulder and it referred to "an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway."  That distinction put the narrower definition of a roadway, which applies to the entire subtitle, out of my mind.  (I was seeing the shoulder as part of the roadway but not the main traveled portion.)

Reinterpreting, assuming the presence of a shoulder, a right turn must be approached and made at the right edge of the roadway, just left of the shoulder.  This requires turning right into the right lane.  Left turns must be into the left lane when from and to one-way roads.

[vdeane]

I had an issue with someone trying to turn left from the right lane while heading south on US 9 today (approximately here; or was it the next light?).  I was in the right lane, with two cars in front a bit ahead, when the lead car slows down to turn right.  The car behind him seemed content to wait, so I moved left to pass them (them slowing down lasted long enough that I was catching up to them fast, even though they were a quarter mile away when this started).  Middle car then decides, when both of us were right on top of the intersection (they were like one car length away, I was a few more back), to abruptly swerve into the left lane to make a left turn, forcing me to slam on my breaks.  I couldn't stop in time, so I had to swerve around him, and nearly slid off the road since it was 17 and yesterday had a rain to snow storm and the roads haven't dried out yet.  Unfortunately, I was too busy trying to not crash to blare my horn at them.

[CtrlAltDel]

I had an issue with someone trying to turn left from the right lane while heading south on US 9 today (approximately here; or was it the next light?).  I was in the right lane, with two cars in front a bit ahead, when the lead car slows down to turn right.  The car behind him seemed content to wait, so I moved left to pass them (them slowing down lasted long enough that I was catching up to them fast, even though they were a quarter mile away when this started).  Middle car then decides, when both of us were right on top of the intersection (they were like one car length away, I was a few more back), to abruptly swerve into the left lane to make a left turn, forcing me to slam on my breaks.  I couldn't stop in time, so I had to swerve around him, and nearly slid off the road since it was 17 and yesterday had a rain to snow storm and the roads haven't dried out yet.  Unfortunately, I was too busy trying to not crash to blare my horn at them.

I'm saddened to hear this, but I'm happy that you're okay.

[kernals12]

The number of tidal estuaries that are erroneously referred to as rivers.

[Scott5114]

The number of tidal estuaries that are erroneously referred to as rivers.

I'm more bothered by the number of washes Arizona erroneously refers to as rivers.

[algorerhythms]

The number of tidal estuaries that are erroneously referred to as rivers.

I'm more bothered by the number of washes Arizona erroneously refers to as rivers.

That figured in to an attempted escape by Nazi POWs in Arizona during WWII, because their plan assumed the blue lines on the map were actually rivers with water in them.

[Max Rockatansky]

The number of tidal estuaries that are erroneously referred to as rivers.

I'm more bothered by the number of washes Arizona erroneously refers to as rivers.

That figured in to an attempted escape by Nazi POWs in Arizona during WWII, because their plan assumed the blue lines on the map were actually rivers with water in them.

The Salt River Project threw a wrench in those plans.