Correct procedure here?

cormie

Just wondering about this one. If you're at lights and you're in the right of two lanes and there is room on your left for those who want to go straight ahead to do so, and the filter light for straight ahead goes green, but the round light is still red, what should you do?

Go straight ahead to the point where you would usually turn and not turn even if there is a gap?

Go straight ahead and turn when there is a gap?

or

Stay behind the line until the red light goes green and proceed to half way between the junction and wait for a gap?


The junction I'm thinking of is here

littlejukka

don't move until the light goes fully green. if it's just an arrow to go ahead, that's all you can legally do.

littlejukka

which direction were you coming from to that junction? people are incredibly dangerous there, particularly when the filter lights are left off to allow people to cross at pedestrian lights around the corner. the leeson street/canal junction is lethal for it as well.

Anan1

This, cormie, is your scariest post yet.

cormie

Haha, see the thing is with this junction with me coming from the West from Mespil Road to turn right onto Upper Baggot St, there are two lanes, the left being for straight ahead (I forget if there is no left turn but it shouldn't make a difference here anyway an the right being for right and straight (I think it's for straight also?). But the way the light sequence works is the straight ahead filter comes on first so all the cars in the left lane go straight down Mespil road and then a few seconds later, the round green light comes on. So I'm just wondering is it ok to go to the middle of the road with the green straight ahead arrow even though the green circle light hasn't come on yet, but will in a few seconds, so you're just saving a few seconds by going to the middle of the junction for when it's going to come on which will then allow you to turn right once safe.

Vikings

Hardly much point to save those few seconds though...

If the right turn only is red while straight is green it is usually for a reason, either traffic coming from the other direction still has a go ahead to turn left or there is pedestrians given the green light to cross from your right. Though its a yellow box and technically you could be there, you shouldnt as the light was red.

There's a similar junction in Lucan which does my nut in and works the same way.

littlejukka

cormie wrote: »

So I'm just wondering is it ok to go to the middle of the road with the green straight ahead arrow even though the green circle light hasn't come on yet, but will in a few seconds, so you're just saving a few seconds by going to the middle of the junction for when it's going to come on which will then allow you to turn right once safe.

no. stay behind the light until you get a green. no exceptions.

Esel

Anan1 wrote: »

This, cormie, is your scariest post yet.

Maybe the scariest, but definitely not the dumbest.

cast_iron

esel wrote: »

Maybe the scariest, but definitely not the dumbest.

His light is red and he knows that, but still wants to go as it's only a few metres.

Red means STOP, not pull into the junction ahead as some people know it'll change soon.

cormie

You see though, the right hand lane, which is for turning right AND going straight ahead, is the lane I'd be in, so technically, should I not be going straight ahead with a straight ahead arrow and then the red circle light should come into play when I'm about to turn right, but I'm on a red so can't, so have to wait for the green circle.

If the right hand lane was for right turn only then it would be obvious not to go until the green circle, but technically, that right hand lane is being given the go ahead to go straight.

Pherekydes

cormie wrote: »

If the right hand lane was for right turn only then it would be obvious not to go until the green circle, but technically, that right hand lane is being given the go ahead to go straight.

Yes, if you're going on straight. But if I'm to understand it, you're turning right, so the green straight ahead arrow doesn't apply to you.

Hagar

The right hand lane is for going straight OR turning right not AND turning right. You can't do both at the same time.

It's ludicrous to pretend that because you are going forward for part of the right hand turn that is the same as driving straight on.

Please tell me that this is a hypothetical question and you don't seriously think that it's OK.

cormie

Yes it's hypothetical. I like to question everything I'm unsure about on the road;)

And Hagar, yes I should have used OR and not AND, but I used "AND going straight", not "AND turning right", so there's a difference there, wasn't going to turn right, do a u turn and go back the way I would have gone had I not turned right;)

It's ludicrous to pretend that because you are going forward for part of the right hand turn that is the same as driving straight on.

But is it an illegal move to do so? It could be classed as "making progress" you're speeding up traffic by a few seconds and it could be seen that you're doing no different than somebody else who would be in that lane who wanted to go straight ahead. You'd be both proceeding to that point in the road only if you were going straight ahead, you'd also be going beyond it.

Hagar

You could also say it's "making progress" to edge forward against a red light if no other traffic is approaching from any direction. It won't hold up in court, but you can say it all the same.

cormie

I suppose the simplest way to ask this question is does the green straight ahead arrow allow you to go "straight ahead" as far as the middle of the road considering you're in a lane that can go "straight ahead". Surely it does as there's nothing to say you must go certain distance?

Hagar

What do you do if the right filter light never comes on ( more common than you think, it's built into some sequeneces ) and your green arrow goes out leaving you faced with a red light?

You are forbidden to finish the right turn because it was never authorized in the first place. So there you are stuck in the middle of the road causing a jam.

Pherekydes

cormie wrote: »

I suppose the simplest way to ask this question is does the green straight ahead arrow allow you to go "straight ahead" as far as the middle of the road considering you're in a lane that can go "straight ahead". Surely it does as there's nothing to say you must go certain distance?

Try and get this down: the green arrow is ONLY for traffic going in the direction of the arrow. Other traffic MUST obey the other signal, in this case red.

cormie

But going half way to the middle of the road is going in the direction of the green arrow... up to a certain point.

Yes Hagar, that's a good point which I thought about and I suppose you could just continue forward. Remember, this is all hypothetical

Hagar

You can't continue forward against a red light.

I'm just glad we don't drive anywhere near each other.

Pherekydes

cormie wrote: »

But going half way to the middle of the road is going in the direction of the green arrow... up to a certain point.

If you're turning right, you're turning right.

The Green Arrow is for traffic going straight ahead. That is, traffic that is exiting the other side of the junction in a straight ahead direction.


I'm guessing that the question is not hypothetical at all. I'm guessing that you drove half way out in the junction and had an altercation with someone you blocked. I'm guessing you're trying to get some justification here. Just guessing...

cormie

Hagar wrote: »

You can't continue forward against a red light.

I'm just glad we don't drive anywhere near each other.

Obviously you shouldn't be in that situation in the first place but with common sense, since the road ahead would be clear, you should proceed rather than blocking the whole junction waiting to turn right, as right of way is given to those who are already in the process of a turn (in this case being in the middle of a junction going straight ahead would be the same situation).

cormie

Slow coach wrote: »

I'm guessing that the question is not hypothetical at all. I'm guessing that you drove half way out in the junction and had an altercation with someone you blocked. I'm guessing you're trying to get some justification here. Just guessing...

Haha, honestly nope, had no altercations with anyone at that junction. Just started to think I wonder am I legally allowed proceed to half way between the junction as I sat behind the red light;) I can't even remember the last time somebody beeped at me, besides just yesterday when I stopped to let a pedestrian in the middle of the road cross and I even beckoned her on. Shameful

Slow coach wrote: »

The Green Arrow is for traffic going straight ahead. That is, traffic that is exiting the other side of the junction in a straight ahead direction.

Yeah that's the key I suppose. But I don't recall anywhere stating "traffic that is exiting the other side of the junction in a straight ahead direction." as the definition of straight ahead. It obviously is that, but is it only that?

Hagar

cormie wrote: »

right of way is given to those who are already in the process of a turn

You don't have right of way when conducting an illegal right hand turn, there was no right green light allowing a right turn.

cormie

Hagar wrote: »

You don't have right of way when conducting an illegal right hand turn, there was no right green light allowing a right turn.

I'm talking about completing the move of going straight ahead, not turning right. Say if a learner driver was at that junction, in the right hand lane and was actually going straight ahead but conked out in the middle of the road, at the same point where one may stop to turn right, and she didn't get going again until the green arrow had turned red, I think she has right of way to complete her journey to the other side before the traffic coming from her left or right can proceed even with a green light.

Hagar

Sweet suffering Jesus, take me now Lord, I've had enough.

wil

Cormie - what if the light sequence wasnt as you hoped and you were left in the middle of the junction blocking everybody
Aside - I do wish those (insert appropriately descriptive term here) in the council would get off their (ditto) and sort out these ridiculous junction layouts road markings that allow some drivers think they can take unbelievable liberties .
2 lanes leading to a single lane after the junction should mean left lane for left or straight, right lane for right, or in the event of no RH turn, then left for left, Right for straight and none of this perpetual mickey mousing that goes on on our roads.
And as for the eejits (my choice) who willingly allow loads of drivers to undertake them from a wrong lane in these situations, Stop, dont let them, eventually they will then figure out inside lanes arent short cuts to the front of a queue.

Hagar wrote:

take me now Lord, I've had enough.

Hagar - dont go yet- take a look out your window and think of what you are missing. Nothing:D

cormie

wil wrote: »

Cormie - what if the light sequence wasnt as you hoped and you were left in the middle of the junction blocking everybody

I know I know I know:p

Originally Posted by Slow coach
The Green Arrow is for traffic going straight ahead. That is, traffic that is exiting the other side of the junction in a straight ahead direction.

cormie says: Yeah that's the key I suppose. But I don't recall anywhere stating "traffic that is exiting the other side of the junction in a straight ahead direction." as the definition of straight ahead. It obviously is that, but is it only that?

This is the only part that's unclear to me and hasn't been confirmed yet so it should be unclear to the rest of you too;)

Pherekydes

cormie wrote: »

This is the only part that's unclear to me and hasn't been confirmed yet so it should be unclear to the rest of you too;)

No, cormie. I still have TWO functioning brain cells. I can get my head around it. I'm off to join Hagar jumping off the Westlink Bridge.

Hey Hagar, wait for meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

MrPudding

cormie wrote: »

This is the only part that's unclear to me and hasn't been confirmed yet so it should be unclear to the rest of you too;)

What is there to be confirmed? If you cross the line in this circumstance, where you know you are going to turn right, you are running a red light. It seems pretty simple to me. I don't believe it matter that you have to go a bit straight when your intention is to turn right.

MrP

Esel

esel wrote: »

Maybe the scariest, but definitely not the dumbest.

I reserve the right to change my opinion.

cormie

I'd bet €2.60 that it's not actually illegal, or hasn't been defined in the law, to go straight for a few meters in this scenario

I know it shouldn't be done, don't get me wrong.

Sure what if somebody was intending to go right and they then changed their minds while waiting in the middle to turn right and instead went straight ahead. They were breaking the law until they decided to go straight on? I can't imagine that's written anywhere in the book of the law.

RoundyMooney

Why oh why do you have to complicate everything?

wil

cormie wrote: »

I'd bet €2.60 that it's not actually illegal, or hasn't been defined in the law, to go straight for a few meters in this scenario

I know it shouldn't be done, don't get me wrong.

Sure what if somebody was intending to go right and they then changed their minds while waiting in the middle to turn right and instead went straight ahead. They were breaking the law until they decided to go straight on? I can't imagine that's written anywhere in the book of the law.

"M'lud, the defendant would like to enter a plea of not guilty on the basis that he was driving with due beer and distraction and in no fit condition to carry out an illegal right turn.":D

cast_iron

Good Lord, every post you make actually makes you look more stupid (I don'y think you are aware of that).

cormie wrote: »

I'd bet €2.60 that it's not actually illegal, or hasn't been defined in the law, to go straight for a few meters in this scenario

God your good. And here was all us thinking "it's okay to proceed a few metres at Mespil road, regardless of traffic lights" would be defined in law. Damn, I nearly lost €2.60.

cormie wrote: »

I know it shouldn't be done, don't get me wrong.

Of course.

cormie wrote: »

Sure what if somebody was intending to go right and they then changed their minds while waiting in the middle to turn right and instead went straight ahead. They were breaking the law until they decided to go straight on? I can't imagine that's written anywhere in the book of the law.

Then you haven't a clue how laws are written (as if that wasn't already apparent).
This has all been explained earlier, how can you not understand?

Last time:
The arrow on the road doesn't matter a damn (as disobeying it is not the offence in question). Lets say the lane means you can go right only, you can accept that you cannot proceed a few metres in this case as you are turning right, Yes? Good.

Now, (leaving the mind change aside for a moment) by your own admission, you're turning. The red light means you are forbidden to proceed, so therefore cannot cross the white line before the lights. That's the law.

The mind change is irrelevant as a law has been broken. You openly admit you were going right and breaking the above law. Just because you change your mind does not nullify the offence. Of course, in reality, it would probably get you off, but that's not in question here.

I see your point - the road markings say it's okay to proceed, so how can it be an offence?

By that logic, you are saying if the road markings indicate it's okay to proceed, that makes it okay to do 100km/h through same junction? Of course not. Nor does it make it okay to break a red light (bounding you to the white line before it). Another offence has still been committed in both cases, and no arrow on a road nullifies this fact. This is the fundamental of your problem.

In any case, I'm off to the Eastlink.

cormie

So you're 100% certain that it is illegal to travel to a point that is legal to travel to if you are not turning?

I'm not sure if you realise, but I wasn't asking with the intention of saving a few seconds in future, I stay behind the line when I'm at that junction, even though I know the sequence will not leave me in a pickle. I was just questioning the law of this hypothetical scenario. I obey the red light. If everyone questioned minor things like this, our roads would be safer:D Relax.

cast_iron

cormie wrote: »

So you're 100% certain that it is illegal to travel to a point that is legal to travel to if you are not turning?

Em, sorry, that was not your question.

Your mind change is a different issue (which, incidentally, I dealt with already).

Please read my last reply in depth and think about it very carefully while doing so. It does actually explain why you are wrong.

If you're not willing to deviate from your repeated opinion that it's "legal to go there as there's an arrow on the road saying straight ahead", then you will never accept the legal answer.

Now, after a quick recovery in James's, I'm off to the Westlink with the lads. Hopefully I'll die this time.

cormie

Originally Posted by cormie View Post
So you're 100% certain that it is illegal to travel to a point that is legal to travel to if you are not turning?

cast_iron wrote: »

Em, sorry, that was not your question.

That's all I've wanted to know, I may have asked in a roundabout way, but it's the reason I started the thread.

cast_iron wrote: »

If you're not willing to deviate from your repeated opinion that it's "legal to go there as there's an arrow on the road saying straight ahead", then you will never accept the legal answer.

I don't have a concrete opinion as I don't know for certain on the legal situation of it. €2.60 is a sum I'm willing to lose on a gamble:D

I'm not interested in arguing, just curious about a little scenario that holds no real relevance to the world of driving anyway. I'll re-read your post again tomorrow, I'm far too tired now so perhaps something in it will slap me across the face tomorrow and shut me up:p

cyclopath2001

cormie wrote: »

I don't know for certain on the legal situation of it.

SI 182/1997:30.

(1) Where traffic sign number RTS 00I, RTS 002, RTS 003 or RTS 004 (referred to in these Regulations as traffic lights) is provided, a person shall not drive a vehicle past the traffic lights, or past traffic sign number RRM 017 [stop line] where such sign is provided in association with the traffic lights when the red lamp of the traffic light is illuminated.
....
(3) ( a ) A driver of a vehicle facing traffic sign number RTS 00I, RTS 002 or RTS 003 in which the green lamp is illuminated may proceed beyond the traffic lights, or beyond traffic sign number RRM 017 [stop line] if such traffic sign is provided in association with the traffic lights, provided no other road user is endangered and subject to compliance with the relevant provisions of articles 8 and 29.

( b ) When traffic lights contain green lamps which indicate a directional arrow, a driver of a vehicle wishing to proceed in accordance with paragraph (a) in the direction indicated by the arrow may only do so when such lamp is illuminated.

This means you can only cross the stop line if there is a directional arrow illuminated for the direction you intend to take. I assume that you have indicated your intention some time before reaching the junction.

However, the procedure at the right turn from Clontarf Road towards East Wall is different. Drivers, especially truckers just ignore the traffic signal and turn right anyway.

unkel

Thanks, cyclopath2001

Now I can lay this thread to rest...