Intersection right of Way Question

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

Sorry that was meant to represent an uncontrolled intersection. There are no signs for either driver. Yield to the right applies, regardless of the driver is going straight through or not.

Yes, exactly correct. However, in a situation where there are only two stop signs on opposite sides of an intersection, the person travelling straight through has the right of way.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Can someone link to the Pinner 4 way stop thing?

Here's where it all started. I remember it well.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...69#post2511869

Sorry Pinner. I'll give you credit for being a good sport about this each time it resurfaces, but you know that we'll never let it die!

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Why would the left hand turner be stuck for a long time? When the person going straight goes, the left hand turner enters the intersection at the same time and turns left when the straight-through car passes. If it's clear for one car, it should be clear for both.

At that point in time, the second car in the straight-through line would not have arrived at the intersection yet, so there should be no reason the left-turning vehicle would have to wait for multiple cars to pass.

It doesn't always work that way, however.

[REDVAN]

If there is a long line of cars coming from each way, then PERHAPS it'll alternate right of way.

Eg/ guy going straight goes, then guy turning, then another guy straight. HOWEVER, if traffic comes in the cross direction, and then space for the stopped guys comes again, then the straight gets to go first followed by a turner.

So the person going straight gets to go first, but not at the expense of ALL the left turners.

Makes sense? New rule. Write it up and put it on the news.

[SilverGS]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Why would the left hand turner be stuck for a long time? When the person going straight goes, the left hand turner enters the intersection at the same time and turns left when the straight-through car passes. If it's clear for one car, it should be clear for both.

At that point in time, the second car in the straight-through line would not have arrived at the intersection yet, so there should be no reason the left-turning vehicle would have to wait for multiple cars to pass.

Assuming that there is time for more than 1 car to get through. If only 1 car has time to make it through then the person going straight makes it and the left turner has to wait again giving time for another person going straight to show up on the other side and we get the same sitation once again.

Yes not a high chance of it happening but I have been in this situation before.

Honestly, when this situation occurs I just make sure I make eye contact with the other side and sometimes I go first sometimes they do. Not the most efficient but better than an accident.

Would like to know what the law states though. Any cops arround that can confirm?

[theg69]

I can think of instances where the person going straight does not have the right of way at an uncontrolled intersection. This happens at T-intersections that are uncontrolled. You always have to yield to the person on the right. I get annoyed when people just go simply because they think they are going straight and therefore have the right of way. I have actually brought the bloody handbook to my neighbor who honked me for braking at an uncontrolled intersection for a car at my right.

I then found out that most of my friends AND family had no idea that they had to yield at that intersection.

For people who don't know what i'm talking about (from the handbook itself):

Uncontrolled intersections
Uncontrolled intersections are ones that have no traffic signs and no traffic signal lights. This may also apply to an intersection commonly referred to as a "T" intersection. Other drivers might not be expecting traffic or pedestrians to cross their path and this could cause a collision.
Check for traffic approaching from your left and right when you are approaching an intersection without traffic signs or traffic signal lights. Slow down and be prepared to stop. Yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on your right.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Why would you treat it like a 4-way stop, when it isn't? If it were meant to be treated as a 4-way stop, they would have marked it as a 4-way stop.

Because it's very similar. And truly with this type of situation there are so many scenerios you can't give a set rule for this.

If you both are waiting at the same time then the person going straight has the right of way. If the person turning right is there first and is already proceeded into the intersection then they have the right of way.

Just because the person is turning doesn't mean that person going straight can just rush into the intersection to make it accross.

[Antithesis]

OK, that's fantastic theg69, but you are talking about an uncontrolled intersection (no lights or signs) while the rest of us are discussing a controlled intersection, where two roads meet, but there are only two stop signs that are opposite each other.

[photon]

http://www.roadrules.ca/content/right-way-two-way-stop

At a typical two way stop intersection, the road that is appreciably busier, i.e., the road without the stop signs is the through road with the right-of-way. In the interests of keeping traffic moving steadily, it makes sense that traffic on the smaller, less traveled road should yield to traffic on the more heavily traveled through road. When and how should the stopped driver proceed to cross or turn onto the through road? The driver at the stop sign must always yield to traffic on the through road. This means that the driver must wait until there is a break in the flow of traffic on the through road that is large enough to enable you to turn right —the easier turn because the driver is focused on one lane only—or left—the harder turn because the driver needs a break in the traffic flow in both directions. If a driver wants to cross the through road, the driver also needs a break in the traffic flow in both directions.

Once the gap in traffic on the through road is sufficient, left-turners must yield to drivers who wish to cross the intersection. If, however the left turner has started to make the turn and is already in the intersection, the other driver must yield.

From a lawyer fwiw...

Still I'd like to see something specific in an official handbook or traffic law or something.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by theg69

I can think of instances where the person going straight does not have the right of way at an uncontrolled intersection. This happens at T-intersections that are uncontrolled. You always have to yield to the person on the right. I get annoyed when people just go simply because they think they are going straight and therefore have the right of way. I have actually brought the bloody handbook to my neighbor who honked me for braking at an uncontrolled intersection for a car at my right.

I then found out that most of my friends AND family had no idea that they had to yield at that intersection.

For people who don't know what i'm talking about (from the handbook itself):

Uncontrolled intersections
Uncontrolled intersections are ones that have no traffic signs and no traffic signal lights. This may also apply to an intersection commonly referred to as a "T" intersection. Other drivers might not be expecting traffic or pedestrians to cross their path and this could cause a collision.
Check for traffic approaching from your left and right when you are approaching an intersection without traffic signs or traffic signal lights. Slow down and be prepared to stop. Yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on your right.

It doesn't even have to be a T intersection, ANYTIME that two vehicles are approaching an uncontrolled intersection at right angles to each other, the vehicle on the right has the right of way.

What is really annoying, is that you can't always tell immediately if traffic coming from other directions is facing a stop or yield sign. Therefore, you don't know if you are supposed to yield to another vehicle.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by photon

http://www.roadrules.ca/content/right-way-two-way-stop



From a lawyer fwiw...

Still I'd like to see something specific in an official handbook or traffic law or something.

Yeah, I did a google search and found that same link, but he doesn't back it up with anything from the law. I'm willing to be wrong on this one, I just want to see something specific from the law.

[Canada 02]

if there is no traffic on McIvor, would the car turning left still have to wait for the approaching car (who hasn't stopped yet) to go straight? Of course not.

So why would that right of way be revoked just because the cars had to wait for traffic on McIvor to clear.

[theg69]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

OK, that's fantastic theg69, but you are talking about an uncontrolled intersection (no lights or signs) while the rest of us are discussing a controlled intersection, where two roads meet, but there are only two stop signs that are opposite each other.

I know, I'm just finding the opportunity to bring forth a point that a lot of drivers really don't know much about. It's more for information and the sake of further education as since I drive through that type of intersection everyday... I would appreciate it if everyone drove through it properly.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

http://www.roadrules.ca/content/right-way-two-way-stop



From a lawyer fwiw...

Still I'd like to see something specific in an official handbook or traffic law or something.

Considering the source that's likely an accurate analysis, or at least one that's been succesful in court before, but it's still odd that the actual law appears to leave it as somewhat of a mystery.

[Antithesis]

Understood - realize my post came off not the best - apologies for that.

[Rathji]

I actually had this same situation with my wife on Sunday, we were pulling up to an intersection, intending on going straight and she let the other person who was turning left across our path go first.

I questioned her as to why, and she said she thought that's how it was.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I actually had this same situation with my wife on Sunday, we were pulling up to an intersection, intending on going straight and she let the other person who was turning left across our path go first.

I questioned her as to why, and she said she thought that's how it was.

Thats what you get for letting your wife drive

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Thats what you get for letting your wife drive

I also get to sleep, which I am a big fan of!

As for the original debate it is a complex issue that strings together a few basic traffic rules in differing manners because there are subtle differences in the situation which make it harder to understand.

There are 2 situations:

1) If you are going to continue straight and are currently stopped at the stop sign then you have the right of way over anyone who is stopped or about to stop at the opposing stop sign who intends on turning left.

2) Similarily, if you are approaching a stop sign, and intending on continuing straight through, and there is already a vehicle stopped at the opposing stop sign, which proceeds before you come to a complete stop, then that car has the right of way because once they have entered the intersection, they have the right of way (over you) even if you are going straight because as a vehicle at a stop sign, would have to yield to traffic already in the intersection.

If you think of it that way it really is quite simple.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

if there is no traffic on McIvor, would the car turning left still have to wait for the approaching car (who hasn't stopped yet) to go straight? Of course not.

So why would that right of way be revoked just because the cars had to wait for traffic on McIvor to clear.

in my mind going straight trumps turning.

if i twist the scenario a bit where myself and the left turner are now on mcivor and he is turning left in front of me, he has to wait for me to clear the intersection before he can turn safely.

in the original example i cited, if there was no traffic on mcivor, and he got to his stop sign before me, then he should proceed as i am pulling up to the stop sign and still need to come to a full stop before proceeding across mcivor.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

if there is no traffic on McIvor, would the car turning left still have to wait for the approaching car (who hasn't stopped yet) to go straight? Of course not.

So why would that right of way be revoked just because the cars had to wait for traffic on McIvor to clear.

The right of way does get revoked. That is exactly what happens. The key part is that if the other person hasnt' come to a complete stop yet - the car going straight - and as long as you are moving before they stop, then the car turning left maintains its right of way.

If the car turning left has yet to proceed when the guy going straight comes to a complete stop then the car turning left gives up its right of way because it did not proceed in time.