Necessary to yield when continuing through on a weave lane?

[briantroutman]

I regularly encounter a few interchanges where I continue through on a "weave lane" –exiting and exiting without actually touching any of the freeway's primary travel lanes. I'm sure most of you have been in the same situation at least a few times if not often.

If you were in the blue car pictured above and continuing straight through to the exit, would you be required to yield to the red car? Would the answer change in the presence or absence of a yield sign?

[DaBigE]

Short answer: The blue car should not have to yield to the red car.

I would think anytime a vehicle changes lanes, the vehicle changing lanes would have to yield to the traffic already in the destination lane. How that theory meshes with state statutes may vary. The presence of a Yield sign would make things all the more confusing because who are you yielding to? They're entering into your lane in this case.

Regardless, this weaving maneuver/lane setup is why I dislike most cloverleaf interchanges.

[Buffaboy]

What about in a scenario like this?

[briantroutman]

What about in a scenario like this?

That would appear to be a different case because there is no "weave lane" . The on-ramp abruptly ends, forcing you to merge with the right through lane. So in that situation, the entering vehicle would be required to yield.

[Mr_Northside]

Short answer: The blue car should not have to yield to the red car.

I agree, the blue car is occupying the lane, and therefore should not have to yield (it would also be awkward in this example since it is already ahead of the red car)

I would think anytime a vehicle changes lanes, the vehicle changing lanes would have to yield to the traffic already in the destination lane. How that theory meshes with state statutes may vary. The presence of a Yield sign would make things all the more confusing because who are you yielding to? They're entering into your lane in this case.

A situation like this comes to mind - it's not at an interchange, but the NB on-ramp from Babcock Blvd becomes McKnight Rd's third lane.  It seems like this should be the Lane Adds sign, but it's a Yield sign - and I'm pretty sure this is at least the second generation yield sign.  There are businesses shortly after this, so I'm not sure if this is intentional, guiding traffic coming up the ramp to yield to traffic on McKnight that is gonna cut into that lane right away, of if it's just the wrong sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/LkmPpkjqqbR2

[Brandon]

I regularly encounter a few interchanges where I continue through on a "weave lane" –exiting and exiting without actually touching any of the freeway's primary travel lanes. I'm sure most of you have been in the same situation at least a few times if not often.

If you were in the blue car pictured above and continuing straight through to the exit, would you be required to yield to the red car? Would the answer change in the presence or absence of a yield sign?

The red car must either slow down to get behind the blue car, or speed up to get ahead of the blue car.  Either way, the blue car is occupying the lane and needs to do nothing other than maintain speed.

[Duke87]

If there is a yield sign at the end of the ramp, then the blue car must yield. If a crash occurs, the blue car is at fault for failing to do so.

If there isn't, apply common sense. I'd say normally the blue car should not yield, but I won't make this an absolute statement since there are situations where the blue car yielding might for the red car mean the difference between making it off the exit and being forced to miss it. If there is heavy weaving traffic, if the distance between the onramp and offramp is very short, etc. The red car would, however, be at fault were a crash to occur regardless of any of the circumstances.

[kphoger]

I always ignore the Yield sign in those situations, although I do keep my eyes peeled when entering the roadway, just in case.

[Rothman]

I always ignore the Yield sign in those situations, although I do keep my eyes peeled when entering the roadway, just in case.

Sounds like you're yielding while ignoring.

[1995hoo]

Obviously, if there is a yield sign (which I've pretty much invariably seen in this situation), the blue car yields.

I know some people who think the red car should always yield because the blue car would, in most cases, be trying to accelerate up to highway speed. But it seems to me it's more of a hazard for the red car to have to slow down in a lane of thru traffic, potentially causing other following traffic to have to brake as well. In the situation shown above, if I were driving the blue car and there were no yield sign, I'd probably decide whether to yield based on my speed versus the red car's speed. It wouldn't make much sense for me to speed up knowing I'm going to go around another loop ramp, so whether I'd yield would probably depend on how fast the red car was going and whether he needed room to slow down.

[jeffandnicole]

Sounds like we have a bunch of people that want to cause traffic congestion.

The blue car should yield because he's on the slower ramp. The red car, if forced to yield, could cause traffic behind him to slow up...which will cause the accordion effect and jam the main highway. 

Another thing to consider: There's an assumption that the blue car coming up the ramp is going to enter the highway.  If the red car slows up waiting for the blue car to enter the highway, which it doesn't intend to do, the red car may slow way down, further causing other vehicles on the highway to quickly slow down, increasing the likelihood of an accident.

[johndoe]

To me anytime lanes come together it should either result in a yield OR added lane width(s).  IMO it would make more sense to use yield signs only where a lane is ending (i.e. immediately entering another lane) and there is a good possibility of traffic needing to come to a complete stop.  For this reason, I'm not a fan of yield signs where traffic should be attempting to change lanes at higher speeds.

It's common to see a driver hit the brakes at the gore as opposed to using the entire acceleration/weaving length to find a gap, and I wonder if it's at least partially because of the yield sign.  Weaving is way easier/safer at lower speed differentials. 

[kphoger]

I always ignore the Yield sign in those situations, although I do keep my eyes peeled when entering the roadway, just in case.

Sounds like you're yielding while ignoring.

No, not at all. I keep my eyes peeled just in case the other car starts to actually change lanes directly into mine. I actually deal with this very lane configuration daily, although in my case I am not merging onto the main roadway but rather immediately exiting--as is nearly all the traffic already on the main road. I think maybe there used to be a Yield sign there, but there's certainly not one there now.

I only yield in this situation if my direction of travel actually has my lane tapering out as a merge. Where the lane continues or if I'm not intending to cross a lane line, I see no need to give way, sign or no sign. People changing lanes can yield to me, as I'm not the one crossing a line.

I would be interested to know if the law actually speaks to this situation. Facing a Yield sign at which no actual vehicle paths conflict without changing lanes (which itself by law requires yielding), what exactly is one obligated to yield to?

[jeffandnicole]

I would be interested to know if the law actually speaks to this situation. Facing a Yield sign at which no actual vehicle paths conflict without changing lanes (which itself by law requires yielding), what exactly is one obligated to yield to?

The yield sign is in place to allow the main road the priority.  If there's a car wanting to exit from the highway, they are provided the priority to exit from the main road.  If you are on the ramp, you are on the slower vehicle in respect to those on the main road, and slower traffic is behind you which would have a better opportunity to stop and not cause congestion.

[kphoger]

IMO it would make more sense to use yield signs only where a lane is ending (i.e. immediately entering another lane) and there is a good possibility of traffic needing to come to a complete stop.  For this reason, I'm not a fan of yield signs where traffic should be attempting to change lanes at higher speeds.

This is precisely how I look at it. Yield signs are for crossing vehicle paths. The red and blue cars' paths only conflict if one or both of them changes lanes, and changing lanes is best accomplished in the usual way.

One of my pet peeves in driving is when people don't know to merge onto a highway from either an acceleration lane at an entrance ramp or from the loop ramp of a cloverleaf. Rather than speeding up to near the speed of traffic and simply changing lanes, they find it more prudent to come to a dead stop and then enter traffic at 2 mph. The same holds true for non-highway situations that involve this configuration. No Yield sign should be used here, and yielding should only be expected when changing lanes.

[kphoger]

I would be interested to know if the law actually speaks to this situation. Facing a Yield sign at which no actual vehicle paths conflict without changing lanes (which itself by law requires yielding), what exactly is one obligated to yield to?

The yield sign is in place to allow the main road the priority.  If there's a car wanting to exit from the highway, they are provided the priority to exit from the main road.  If you are on the ramp, you are on the slower vehicle in respect to those on the main road, and slower traffic is behind you which would have a better opportunity to stop and not cause congestion.

But that is interpretation. Is there written legal code to back that up?

[hbelkins]

Another thing to consider: There's an assumption that the blue car coming up the ramp is going to enter the highway.

If the blue car intends to merge left, then it should have its left turn signal on. If it intends to take the next ramp, it should have its right signal on.

[jeffandnicole]

I would be interested to know if the law actually speaks to this situation. Facing a Yield sign at which no actual vehicle paths conflict without changing lanes (which itself by law requires yielding), what exactly is one obligated to yield to?

The yield sign is in place to allow the main road the priority.  If there's a car wanting to exit from the highway, they are provided the priority to exit from the main road.  If you are on the ramp, you are on the slower vehicle in respect to those on the main road, and slower traffic is behind you which would have a better opportunity to stop and not cause congestion.

But that is interpretation. Is there written legal code to back that up?

Of course there is.  Yielding by definition is to give way to others.  So if there's a yield sign present, you have to slow up in order to allow others to proceed.  If necessary, you stop.

[johndoe]

IMO there is usually plenty of space to merge/weave later; not panic brake and change lanes immediately at the Gore.  That's why I would prefer to omit the yield sign.

[kphoger]

I would be interested to know if the law actually speaks to this situation. Facing a Yield sign at which no actual vehicle paths conflict without changing lanes (which itself by law requires yielding), what exactly is one obligated to yield to?

The yield sign is in place to allow the main road the priority.  If there's a car wanting to exit from the highway, they are provided the priority to exit from the main road.  If you are on the ramp, you are on the slower vehicle in respect to those on the main road, and slower traffic is behind you which would have a better opportunity to stop and not cause congestion.

But that is interpretation. Is there written legal code to back that up?

Of course there is.  Yielding by definition is to give way to others.  So if there's a yield sign present, you have to slow up in order to allow others to proceed.  If necessary, you stop.

But my argument is that, in this scenario, there are no vehicles that actually "constitute an immediate hazard" (which is how the law regarding Yield signs is worded), because all traffic approaching on the main road is bound by other laws to prevent such immediate hazard. For example (using Illinois' vehicle code)...

"At an intersection where where traffic lanes are provided for merging traffic the driver of each vehicle on the converging roadways is required to adjust his vehicular speed and lateral position so as to avoid a collision with another vehicle." [625 ILCS 5/11-905]

" A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety." [625 ILCS 5/11-709(a)]

These two laws together require the red car to give way to the blue car just as they require the blue to give way to the red. This, ideally, is how merging should work: like a zipper. What I fail to see is how the presence of a Yield sign imposes additional restrictions on the movement of the blue car. To my thinking, the sign merely points out a responsibility already placed upon the driver by the laws mentioned above--laws which pertain equally to both drivers fundamentally.

[kphoger]

Name one other instance in which a Yield sign means "Give way to traffic whose path does not conflict with yours". As I've said, the only conflict arises if one or both vehicles changes lanes; without changing lanes, no yielding is necessary. And, when changing lanes, the legal onus is just as strong as when facing a Yield sign.

(625 ILCS 5/11-804) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-804)
    (a) No person may ... turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.

(625 ILCS 5/11-904) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-904)
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign ... after slowing or stopping ... shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection.

And so, if both vehicles approach the location at approximately the same time, then the driver on the through road cannot change lanes without first ensuring it can be done with reasonable safety, and the entering vehicle cannot proceed past the Yield sign without first ensuring no vehicle constitutes an immediate hazard. Six one way, half a dozen the other.

And I do, at least seven days a week, find myself at this exact setup (minus the Yield sign), entering and immediately exiting again, i.e. on a trajectory that does not conflict with any other vehicle's except those which change lanes to exit with me, i.e. with no vehicles constituting an immediate hazard.

[kphoger]

There is no such thing as "traffic entering freely into the turn pocket". All traffic wishing to enter the turn pocket must change lanes in order to do so, and by law changing lanes requires a driver to yield to traffic already in that lane. I, on the other hand, never change lanes and am in the turn pocket from the very first inch of its existence.

[Mergingtraffic]

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2067803,-73.1921178,152m/data=!3m1!1e3

Is this a similiar senario?  The 2-lane on-ramp to Chopsey Hill Rd has a YIELD sign. I've always thought it was dumb to have one there.