Left Turn on Red Permitted?
07-28-23, 04:59 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
The turn on Veterans Blvd seems to be a specific intersection called a "median U-Turn".
https://www.in.gov/indot/traffic-ope...edian-u-turns/
It's a U-turn (clearly) and there's a signal that controls it. It seems it could be a form of "signalized U-turn". The signal just isn't before it (and it's possible that these can have dedicated turn lanes).
The median allows cars to wait out of the through lane. It's not really much different than the picture you showed: both block cars from turning into traffic that has the right of way.
Anyway, if it's not a signalized U-turn. then it's a "left from a one-way street into a one-way street".
(c) Except when a sign prohibits a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, or to U-turn at a signalized U-turn after stopping as required by Subparagraph (a) or Subparagraph (b) of this Paragraph. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-28-23 at 05:07 PM.
07-28-23, 05:03 PM
#28
Junior Member
07-28-23, 05:11 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
It's a U-turn (clearly) and there's a signal that blocks people from turning into other traffic (clearly). There's nothing that indicates it's not a type of "signalized U-turn". Your picture isn't a definition (nor does it exclude other types of "signalized U-turns").
It's not really any different than the picture you showed except the median lets the signal be placed different: both signals block cars from turning into traffic that has the right of way.
This link (I provided earlier) https://www.in.gov/indot/traffic-ope...edian-u-turns/
Includes the following in discussing "median U-turns" (MUTs):
the U-turns are signal-controlled as well
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-29-23 at 08:33 AM.
07-28-23, 05:21 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
It's a U-turn (clearly) and there's a signal (on the U-Turn) .
Your picture of a signalized U-turn is a "front facing red" (which doesn't appear to be a term of art anyway).
You think this is confusing. It's not confusing.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-28-23 at 05:26 PM.
07-28-23, 05:27 PM
#32
Junior Member
07-28-23, 08:47 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,725
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5792 Post(s)
Liked 2,582 Times
in
1,432 Posts
It's illegal to "ignore the red".
The green light indicates that it's "safe" to go (you have the right of way).
The red light means you have to stop and you can go if there is no crossing traffic.
It's no different than a right on red.
It's a "signalized U-turn" and the LA law explicitly mentions it. It's not straight either. The stop bar is at a 45 degree angle. That is, you have to turn left after the light.
The quoted law isn't unclear. That's what I'm basing what I said on.
The green light indicates that it's "safe" to go (you have the right of way).
The red light means you have to stop and you can go if there is no crossing traffic.
It's no different than a right on red.
It's a "signalized U-turn" and the LA law explicitly mentions it. It's not straight either. The stop bar is at a 45 degree angle. That is, you have to turn left after the light.
The quoted law isn't unclear. That's what I'm basing what I said on.We each, along with others here gave voiced our OPINIONS, based on our interpretations of the situation.
Once it's all been said, there's no point in continuing to argue in circles.
Maybe, we'll one day hear from someone it the LA DOT, or one who got and fought a ticket thereby getting a judicial ruling, but until then, it's all been said.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
07-29-23, 07:36 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
You asked a question and I provided an answer. Either you didn't understand it or didn't like it. And, no, I didn't "repeat myself".
Repeating myself, it's not really any different than a right turn on left, which you just keep ignoring.
This is a ridiculous thing to say. This shows you don't know how the traffic law works at all.
But this is easy. We disagree, and both have made our opinions abundantly clear, so there's no point in argueing about it any farther. Folks are free to draw their conclusions with the understanding that those in certain areas may, one day, have to justify their interpretation to a judge.
If you think there is "no point in arguing about it further", why are you still arguing about it?
And people are quite free to point out why they think other people's opinions are flawed. Oddly, you keep ignoring what the LA law says.
Repeating myself, it's not really any different than a right turn on left, which you just keep ignoring.
This is a ridiculous thing to say. This shows you don't know how the traffic law works at all.
We each, along with others here gave voiced our OPINIONS, based on our interpretations of the situation.
Once it's all been said, there's no point in continuing to argue in circles.
Maybe, we'll one day hear from someone it the LA DOT, or one who got and fought a ticket thereby getting a judicial ruling, but until then, it's all been said.
Once it's all been said, there's no point in continuing to argue in circles.
Maybe, we'll one day hear from someone it the LA DOT, or one who got and fought a ticket thereby getting a judicial ruling, but until then, it's all been said.
And people are quite free to point out why they think other people's opinions are flawed. Oddly, you keep ignoring what the LA law says.
Last edited by njkayaker; 07-29-23 at 08:22 AM.
Likes For njkayaker:
07-29-23, 05:27 PM
#38
Along for the ride
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: PNW US
Posts: 235
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked 212 Times
in
107 Posts
Unless that caveat is given in the law, it would appear to be nothing more than your personal belief. This is clearly a U-turn though since the state's signage has declared it so.
07-30-23, 03:22 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,725
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5792 Post(s)
Liked 2,582 Times
in
1,432 Posts
However, it seems that you have some deep seated to be right, and for anyone who doesn't agree with you to be wrong. So feel free to keep parsing my posts to PROVE that I'm wrong. I obviously don't care about your OPINION and trust folks who can read to draw their own conclusions.
BTW- My argument, such as it was wasn't about the law, but whether this is a left turn vs. a left hand lane merge. Of course you disagree, and I accept that so no point in arguing it accept in a LA court of law. (should the need arise)
BTW- I've heen here on BF long enough to know you have to have the last word, so this is it for me, and feel free.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
Last edited by FBinNY; 07-30-23 at 03:25 AM.
07-30-23, 05:54 AM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3777 Post(s)
Liked 1,047 Times
in
791 Posts
P.S. If I'm understanding your question correctly.
07-30-23, 08:11 AM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
If it's legal for someone to do in a car, then absent specific restriction to the contrary, it's legal on a bike. (If it is wise can only be determined from traffic volume at a particular time).
For it to be legal on a bike in a way that is irrelevant to its legality or illegality in a car, there'd have to be something that granted specific authorization to cyclists uniquely. We have no such indications in the picture or thread. And provisions that treat the car laws as irrelevant are rarely found in the laws governing bicycle operation on roadways - instead what happens is that there's a contrasting sub-part of the the motor vehicle law which creates a bike exception, or there's a bike law that at least somewhat acknowledges the motor vehicle law it creates an exception from.
Besides: it's become quite clear that the fundamental disagreement concerns if the movement is or is not permitted in a car - and that is the only question where through careful research an answer that is a matter of traffic law and not personal speculation is likely to be found.
The bike question can only be usefully considered on top of knowledge of the car answer.
Or to put it another way, if you believe you already have the car answer, why is there even a bike question to ask?
The rest of the community cannot yet agree on the underlying car answer - and that is why there's discussion going on.
It may not be a legal standard, but in terms of language what I personally would look at is if the piece of paving facilitates only U-turns, or if there are additional legal maneuvers it enables - is there an intersection with a cross street, a gas station or truck stop, a parking lot, a rest area? Of course that gets complicated if there's a gated entrance to a state highway salt igloo or an ungated but posted farm track.
Last edited by UniChris; 07-30-23 at 09:35 AM.
07-30-23, 09:29 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Posts: 1,946
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3777 Post(s)
Liked 1,047 Times
in
791 Posts
Ok, then I guess I don't understand your question.
For clarification: I thought you stating that cars (such as the two red cars in your OP) were to stop at the Red Light and then were legally permitted to merge onto the one way road, when safe, even with the Red Light still illuminated.
And for the Question: I thought you were asking if it's legal for a cyclist to do the same thing.
.
For clarification: I thought you stating that cars (such as the two red cars in your OP) were to stop at the Red Light and then were legally permitted to merge onto the one way road, when safe, even with the Red Light still illuminated.
And for the Question: I thought you were asking if it's legal for a cyclist to do the same thing.
.
07-30-23, 09:57 AM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Northampton, MA
Posts: 1,909
Bikes: 36" Unicycle, winter knock-around hybrid bike
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 930 Post(s)
Liked 393 Times
in
282 Posts
Because there's still no agreement if the maneuver is legal in a car.
Hence no agreement if it's legal in a bike.
Hence no agreement if it's legal in a bike.
07-30-23, 05:20 PM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mich
Posts: 7,395
Bikes: RSO E-tire dropper fixie brifter
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 2,979 Times
in
1,920 Posts
07-31-23, 11:35 AM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
If only there was someone is Louisiana whose job was to answer questions about interpretations of law?
(That would be Jeff Landy’s office, the Attorney General.)
It’s also my experience my local rep and senator are great, as are a couple of reps and senators who specialize in bike law, who will answer such questions even for people who aren’t their constituents.
Or, you can ask here, and get both knowledgable answers and questionable answers.
-mr. bill
(That would be Jeff Landy’s office, the Attorney General.)
It’s also my experience my local rep and senator are great, as are a couple of reps and senators who specialize in bike law, who will answer such questions even for people who aren’t their constituents.
Or, you can ask here, and get both knowledgable answers and questionable answers.
-mr. bill
07-31-23, 11:40 AM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
The turn on Veterans Blvd seems to be a specific intersection called a "median U-Turn".
https://www.in.gov/indot/traffic-ope...edian-u-turns/
-mr. bill