Done both, given that you consider St. Louis, Missouri a big city. Made a living for several years doing it.
Using the center TURN lane (the one with yellow stripes on both sides) to enter the road from a parking lot is never needed or legal in Missouri and is dangerously stupid, I've nearly been hit by idiots doing just that, usually when trying to use it for it's intended purpose and with my signal on.
Of course I learned pretty quick to avoid left turns that are 'idiot traps' you got past those to a better turn and turn around or plan a better route to begin with if you know the area already.
I can see where if the roadways, rules, and drivers expectations are setup properly, then yes it can work and the only increase in danger I can think of there is mostly 'out of town' drivers not aware of the situation and tiny reduction in space (and thus reaction times) in some situations (also the lack of a concrete partial barrier, but those are minimal and uncommon here).
But around here there are quite a few places where that pull out trick will leave you stuck in the middle of a bad situation. Especially where more than 2 roads intersect (not to many of those though) or at t intersection across from shopping/profession buildings.
Plus if there is only one oncoming through lane there are two many idiots who keep nosing forward at an angle hoping someone will get nervous and stop to let them through (but there are that sort of idiot anywhere I've ever driven).
Two simple scenarios. In the first oncoming traffic HAS a signaled left turn that you don't (say they're turning onto a road that t's into yours and you want to turn into a shopping center, pretty common around here) and it's a following signal so they get a left signal with out oncomming traffic on their side getting a red but your side gets a red. If you didn't pull to far forward or the intersections big enough they can go around, but about half the idiots I see in that situation pull as far into the turn as they can completely blocking the opposite turn lane.
Or what if someone misses their timing on the red just as your trying to jackrabbit through an all red 1/2 second. Those distances create a safety gap for just such situations which you are now short circuiting. Had you been where you were supposed to be you'd have had time to see the guy blowing the red light and or he'd have blown through it before you got into the line of fire instead of the bad t-bone wreck you just enabled (to be fair the idiot blowing the red light is far more at fault imho).
Wrecks in an intersection create far more gridlock than someone staying behind the line drawn for that purpose (to stay behind till it's safe to procede).
I've never had a problem with the first, did have to wait nearly 5 minutes a time or two at uncontrolled intersections, but then I also know how to spot and go past the bad ones and turn elsewhere.
In the second example the answer is even easier, let the big van go first, it's also safer because if he does something stupid you've got more room before he reaches you and that's only bad if guns it straight at you when you're not paying attention, which is bad in of itself.
Or how about NOT entering the intersection until you can safely complete the turn in the same cycle.
How can you guarantee that?
By observing oncoming traffic and being aware of the capabilities or your vehicle and patient enough to wait for an appropriate opening, if you can't do those get off the road you are not fit to drive.
Also, does this mean that you cannot do left turns at all if there is a steady flow of oncoming traffic?
Anything else is unsafe and can block traffic unless the intersection is specifically set up to allow it
I still don't see how it is unsafe.
Because you are parking in an intersection!
It can potentially block traffic for the intersecting road for the time it takes for a single car to do a left turn which it has already partially done - in the worst case, when the car is stuck there not able to turn until it gets red. This is a very brief period, and it does not impact the ability of traffic to move in that direction in any significant way, while guaranteeing the ability to do a left turn at any intersection.
And when oncoming has a left turn signal at the end of the green cycle for them? And there are more complicated intersections and light cycles than that.
Well, unless it is explicitly prohibited by a no-left-turn sign - which they occasionally do if it is a left turn from a highly congested road to a very rarely used one. If there are few enough cars turning that it is more of a loss than a gain on average, they just stick the sign there, and have you do the 3-right-turns dance to get where you want. It isn't rare, but I definitely see more intersections without such signs than with them.
Actually I've seen intersections where such a set up made sense. Of course one of the intersections that I recall involved to OLD streets that weren't quite parallel (about 10-15 degree angle) and a fifth street as well.....
It was a case of making the best of a bad intersection.
Or how about NOT entering the intersection until you can safely complete the turn in the same cycle.
Anything else is unsafe and can block traffic unless the intersection is specifically set up to allow it (as apparently some states and other jurisdictions do).
Much more sensible, yes, absolutely slow down to convert following distance to something reasonably safe.
Just remember that yellow only means the light is about turn red or stop being green (turn arrows mostly) in MOST of the united states and coming to complete stop at the first sign of yellow is unexpected and assume the 'idiots' around you are not planning on it.
And if the guy behind you is in big rig? You are dead, after that of course it doesn't really matter to you who was right or wrong.
right or wrong stupid is dead and takes other out with him.
"It is extremely annoying when the guy at the front of the left turn queue doesn't move into the intersection and you end up waiting half a dozen cycles longer than you would otherwise have needed to."
I find getting hit by oncoming traffic and ticketed more annoying. So I avoid both. Of course I also pay attention and avoid bad left turn spots when I can in the first place.
If where you live the roadways are designed with that in mind that's one thing. And I've been in states (or portions of them, at least) with large intersections and good visibility where if everyone is paying attention it could work.
But I've seen so many cases around here where it causes traffic issues and a few accidents. People in the far oncoming lane may not be able to see you(all it takes is a u-hall sized or larger truck,even a small van if they're in a compact), and if you pull forward into their traffic path as they get a green light....
At least in this state you are not supposed to enter an intersection you can't safely clear without stopping.
One of the reasons for lights and stop lines an such is to help put traffic in predictable positions so you can be safer. When you start setting up conditions where you can't tell what the other guy is likely to do someone gets hurt, possibly killed. Such as forcing someone to go AFTER the lights change against their desired motion or block cross traffic.
Nor have I ever seen it necessary to park in the intersection to make a left. I've seen a FEW cases where the time of day made it a bit of wait (under 5 min though almost always) for a safe gap, but all you get out of pulling forward a few feet around here is to cause issues and risk an accident. (and a ticket).
The right turn on red rules vary a bit in this state. In Clayton it was no right on red period for some time (found out the hard way, but since I don't live there the cop just gave me a warning ticket) durring the 90's, and may still be that way, as a local ordinance.
For Missouri in general try http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutesearch/ for the laws.
Unfortunately I don't know where each township and county keep their respective laws online if at all.
It appears that the stop before right on red is state level:
(3) Steady red indication
(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection at a clearly marked stop line but, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in paragraph (b);
(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;
I suspect the stop before turning right rule predates the cameras by a decade or more, it's the same rule as for a stop sign. It's just the enforcement that has changed.
That said it's a money grab alright. When you get one of those camera based tickets in the mail that's 'timestamped' over a week before a ding clearly visible in the photo existed you know it's BS.
Unfortunately it was a minor, non-traffic related ding (no police report or such) and the other minor oddities of the image where all unprovable without expensive experts.
I've seen a judge Dismiss charges where the motorist pointed out the section of the Missouri drivers handbook (from the current year) that specifically said what she did was correct.
Not shure what the exact charge was or perhaps the book showed a different interpretation than the one the ticked was founded on. As I didn't hear the whole conversation, but I did hear him tell her that if that was what the state said was correct that's how he'd find.
Just anectedotal, but thought I'd share
That's the mistake, entering the intersection when you cannot safely complete the turn. You stop before entering the intersection and wait until you can safely complete your turn.
Apparently that's not the rule in many states, but I've seen people pulled over for it and had at least one friend ticketed for blocking an intersection trying that stupid tactic of pulling into the intersection and waiting for a red light to turn.
All it takes a slight error in positioning and someone gets hit head on. I've seen that a couple times as well and it tends to spin one or the other cars around and involve other cars creating fairly big mess.
(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection;
(b) Pedestrians facing a steady yellow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in section 304.291, are thereby advised that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway before a red indication is shown and no pedestrian shall then start to cross the roadway. "
Only if the light was red when entered the intersection. At least in this state if at least your front wheels where fully past the line when it turned red and no reasonably foreseeable circumstance would cause you to become stopped prior to fully exiting the intersection you have NOT run a red light. IANAL and all that.
Just go past the intersection and turn where it's safe to do so instead of trying to get yourself and others killed.
There are several ways around that situation in almost every case that don't involve risking a traffic accident and ticket.
"...I just drive ahead somewhat past the stop line (as they teach you to do), and wait for a gap in traffic to turn into."
And if an oncoming driver does the same thing? Now you've got two cars blocking each other with no safe way to move.
I don't know about your state, but that dangerous stupidity can get you a ticket here.
You stay behind the line and wait for a SAFE gap. Parking in the middle of the intersection is almost never a good idea.
It's also illegal to to make a left turn into the center turn lane to enter the roadway but idiots do that all the time as well.
Drivers are useless if the hardware doesn't work. I tried 4 (or five if you count the exact replacement for the first one) Nvidia cards a while back (8000 series) from different top tier manufacturers and only got two to even draw a screen. one had major artifacts during POST, and the other would hard lock in just few minutes.
This was on two different systems (this was during an upgrade cycle) both with Nvidia chipset based motherboards by different manufacturers.
NEVER had the problems I keep hearing about with Radeon drivers except the one time I acidently mixed parts of two different driver releases. and even then it was just catalyst control center crashing when I tried to change a multi-monitor setup.
Signaling other members of the group of danger. This way others can run away/to help. Or possibly to try and convince a predator that's it's picked an overly dangerous target. In non group predator animals I imagine it would be more like "now you've really pissed me off" threat gesture to trigger a switch from fight (bad for the predator) to flight when it's advantageous to the predator.
Of course this is mostly out of thin air speculation, and I can probably think of other possible reasons.
The conclusion likely stems from assumption that the persons who reach a high enough level to require drm are smart enough to see that it does not achieve the effect of stopping piracy or even slowing it in any meaningful way.
Thus there must an ulterior motive. And for corporate officers this motive is money. Now since they are spending a substantial amount on these schemes that do not do what they purport they must achieve an income higher than their cost in some other way.
Any suggestions? The popular ones are a) kill resale so anyone who want to play the game 'legitimately' must buy new. and b) force those who loose/scratch the disk to either re-buy or go without patches.
Of course Other scenarios do suggest themselves to me. It's possible the drm makers are feeding the stockholders fud to pressure the corporate officers into buying their malware, or threatening to.
Or possibly there are kickbacks/bribes involved (though the scale suggest we would've heard at least a healthy dose of rumors).
Just don't assume those making the call to add drm are ignorant of how quickly it gets broken or lack the intelligence learn from all the previous failures and assume this time will be different.
If they get some short term gain against piracy it's most certainly a pleasant bonus, and likely unexpected.
Actually the stock holder SHOULD sue them. They are spending large percentages of the development costs on D.R.M. And it NEVER works as advertised, instead of protecting revenue it hurts it in lost sales and support costs.
And it's the stockholders that need to be notified of this scam, boycotts and letters to the publishers just get ignored/ chalked up to pirates.
They cannot ignore the stockholders. They risk far worse than just golden parachuting to the next company if they do.
Even better, write the stock holders about how the company they've invested their hard money on is blowing it on stupid schemes that don't work.
Seriously, the companies won't listen, they'll just blame any revenue decrease to piracy and blow money on even more elaborate drm.
Also drm isn't really about copy protection so much as stopping re-sale and forced eol so you eventually have to buy 'Wonder game XVIIIIVIIX, the quest for more cash' with new improved names for the same old crap.
But they claim DRM is to stop piracy and protect revenue (and thus shareholder value). Once the shareholders see DRM as a waste of money it'll go away fast.
Get the stockholders involved and they'll move heaven and earth to avoid a major issue. Why so many don't get this confuses me.
Slashdot Mirror
Done both, given that you consider St. Louis, Missouri a big city.
Made a living for several years doing it.
Using the center TURN lane (the one with yellow stripes on both sides) to enter the road from a parking lot is never needed or legal in Missouri and is dangerously stupid, I've nearly been hit by idiots doing just that, usually when trying to use it for it's intended purpose and with my signal on.
Of course I learned pretty quick to avoid left turns that are 'idiot traps' you got past those to a better turn and turn around or plan a better route to begin with if you know the area already.
I can see where if the roadways, rules, and drivers expectations are setup properly, then yes it can work and the only increase in danger I can think of there is mostly 'out of town' drivers not aware of the situation and tiny reduction in space (and thus reaction times) in some situations (also the lack of a concrete partial barrier, but those are minimal and uncommon here).
But around here there are quite a few places where that pull out trick will leave you stuck in the middle of a bad situation. Especially where more than 2 roads intersect (not to many of those though) or at t intersection across from shopping/profession buildings.
Plus if there is only one oncoming through lane there are two many idiots who keep nosing forward at an angle hoping someone will get nervous and stop to let them through (but there are that sort of idiot anywhere I've ever driven).
Mycroft
Two simple scenarios.
In the first oncoming traffic HAS a signaled left turn that you don't (say they're turning onto a road that t's into yours and you want to turn into a shopping center, pretty common around here) and it's a following signal so they get a left signal with out oncomming traffic on their side getting a red but your side gets a red. If you didn't pull to far forward or the intersections big enough they can go around, but about half the idiots I see in that situation pull as far into the turn as they can completely blocking the opposite turn lane.
Or what if someone misses their timing on the red just as your trying to jackrabbit through an all red 1/2 second. Those distances create a safety gap for just such situations which you are now short circuiting. Had you been where you were supposed to be you'd have had time to see the guy blowing the red light and or he'd have blown through it before you got into the line of fire instead of the bad t-bone wreck you just enabled (to be fair the idiot blowing the red light is far more at fault imho).
Wrecks in an intersection create far more gridlock than someone staying behind the line drawn for that purpose (to stay behind till it's safe to procede).
Mycroft
I've never had a problem with the first, did have to wait nearly 5 minutes a time or two at uncontrolled intersections, but then I also know how to spot and go past the bad ones and turn elsewhere.
In the second example the answer is even easier, let the big van go first, it's also safer because if he does something stupid you've got more room before he reaches you and that's only bad if guns it straight at you when you're not paying attention, which is bad in of itself.
Mycroft
By observing oncoming traffic and being aware of the capabilities or your vehicle and patient enough to wait for an appropriate opening, if you can't do those get off the road you are not fit to drive.
Because you are parking in an intersection!
And when oncoming has a left turn signal at the end of the green cycle for them? And there are more complicated intersections and light cycles than that.
Actually I've seen intersections where such a set up made sense. Of course one of the intersections that I recall involved to OLD streets that weren't quite parallel (about 10-15 degree angle) and a fifth street as well.....
It was a case of making the best of a bad intersection.
Mycroft
Or how about NOT entering the intersection until you can safely complete the turn in the same cycle.
Anything else is unsafe and can block traffic unless the intersection is specifically set up to allow it (as apparently some states and other jurisdictions do).
Mycroft
Much more sensible, yes, absolutely slow down to convert following distance to something reasonably safe.
Just remember that yellow only means the light is about turn red or stop being green (turn arrows mostly) in MOST of the united states and coming to complete stop at the first sign of yellow is unexpected and assume the 'idiots' around you are not planning on it.
Mycroft
And if the guy behind you is in big rig? You are dead, after that of course it doesn't really matter to you who was right or wrong.
right or wrong stupid is dead and takes other out with him.
Mycroft
"It is extremely annoying when the guy at the front of the left turn queue doesn't move into the intersection and you end up waiting half a dozen cycles longer than you would otherwise have needed to."
I find getting hit by oncoming traffic and ticketed more annoying. So I avoid both.
Of course I also pay attention and avoid bad left turn spots when I can in the first place.
Mycroft
If where you live the roadways are designed with that in mind that's one thing. And I've been in states (or portions of them, at least) with large intersections and good visibility where if everyone is paying attention it could work.
But I've seen so many cases around here where it causes traffic issues and a few accidents. People in the far oncoming lane may not be able to see you(all it takes is a u-hall sized or larger truck,even a small van if they're in a compact), and if you pull forward into their traffic path as they get a green light....
At least in this state you are not supposed to enter an intersection you can't safely clear without stopping.
One of the reasons for lights and stop lines an such is to help put traffic in predictable positions so you can be safer. When you start setting up conditions where you can't tell what the other guy is likely to do someone gets hurt, possibly killed. Such as forcing someone to go AFTER the lights change against their desired motion or block cross traffic.
Nor have I ever seen it necessary to park in the intersection to make a left. I've seen a FEW cases where the time of day made it a bit of wait (under 5 min though almost always) for a safe gap, but all you get out of pulling forward a few feet around here is to cause issues and risk an accident. (and a ticket).
Mycroft
The right turn on red rules vary a bit in this state. In Clayton it was no right on red period for some time (found out the hard way, but since I don't live there the cop just gave me a warning ticket) durring the 90's, and may still be that way, as a local ordinance. :
For Missouri in general try http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutesearch/ for the laws.
Unfortunately I don't know where each township and county keep their respective laws online if at all.
It appears that the stop before right on red is state level
I suspect the stop before turning right rule predates the cameras by a decade or more, it's the same rule as for a stop sign. It's just the enforcement that has changed.
That said it's a money grab alright.
When you get one of those camera based tickets in the mail that's 'timestamped' over a week before a ding clearly visible in the photo existed you know it's BS.
Unfortunately it was a minor, non-traffic related ding (no police report or such) and the other minor oddities of the image where all unprovable without expensive experts.
IANAL and all that.
Mycroft
I've seen a judge Dismiss charges where the motorist pointed out the section of the Missouri drivers handbook (from the current year) that specifically said what she did was correct.
Not shure what the exact charge was or perhaps the book showed a different interpretation than the one the ticked was founded on. As I didn't hear the whole conversation, but I did hear him tell her that if that was what the state said was correct that's how he'd find.
Just anectedotal, but thought I'd share
Mycroft
That's the mistake, entering the intersection when you cannot safely complete the turn. You stop before entering the intersection and wait until you can safely complete your turn.
Apparently that's not the rule in many states, but I've seen people pulled over for it and had at least one friend ticketed for blocking an intersection trying that stupid tactic of pulling into the intersection and waiting for a red light to turn.
All it takes a slight error in positioning and someone gets hit head on. I've seen that a couple times as well and it tends to spin one or the other cars around and involve other cars creating fairly big mess.
Mycroft
Missouri:
"(2) Steady yellow indication
(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection;
(b) Pedestrians facing a steady yellow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in section 304.291, are thereby advised that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway before a red indication is shown and no pedestrian shall then start to cross the roadway. "
From http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C300-399/3040000281.HTM
Yellow is merely a warning that the green light is about to go out and/or a red light is about turn on and expresses nothing else.
Mycroft
Only if the light was red when entered the intersection. At least in this state if at least your front wheels where fully past the line when it turned red and no reasonably foreseeable circumstance would cause you to become stopped prior to fully exiting the intersection you have NOT run a red light. IANAL and all that.
Mycroft.
Just go past the intersection and turn where it's safe to do so instead of trying to get yourself and others killed.
There are several ways around that situation in almost every case that don't involve risking a traffic accident and ticket.
Mycroft
"...I just drive ahead somewhat past the stop line (as they teach you to do), and wait for a gap in traffic to turn into."
And if an oncoming driver does the same thing? Now you've got two cars blocking each other with no safe way to move.
I don't know about your state, but that dangerous stupidity can get you a ticket here.
You stay behind the line and wait for a SAFE gap. Parking in the middle of the intersection is almost never a good idea.
It's also illegal to to make a left turn into the center turn lane to enter the roadway but idiots do that all the time as well.
Mycroft
Odd I didn't see "many cores" I saw "mangy curs" instead and thought marketing had blundered.
oh well
Mycroft
Drivers are useless if the hardware doesn't work.
I tried 4 (or five if you count the exact replacement for the first one) Nvidia cards a while back (8000 series) from different top tier manufacturers and only got two to even draw a screen. one had major artifacts during POST, and the other would hard lock in just few minutes.
This was on two different systems (this was during an upgrade cycle) both with Nvidia chipset based motherboards by different manufacturers.
NEVER had the problems I keep hearing about with Radeon drivers except the one time I acidently mixed parts of two different driver releases. and even then it was just catalyst control center crashing when I tried to change a multi-monitor setup.
Mycroft
Signaling other members of the group of danger. This way others can run away/to help. Or possibly to try and convince a predator that's it's picked an overly dangerous target.
In non group predator animals I imagine it would be more like "now you've really pissed me off" threat gesture to trigger a switch from fight (bad for the predator) to flight when it's advantageous to the predator.
Of course this is mostly out of thin air speculation, and I can probably think of other possible reasons.
Mycroft
The conclusion likely stems from assumption that the persons who reach a high enough level to require drm are smart enough to see that it does not achieve the effect of stopping piracy or even slowing it in any meaningful way.
Thus there must an ulterior motive. And for corporate officers this motive is money.
Now since they are spending a substantial amount on these schemes that do not do what they purport they must achieve an income higher than their cost in some other way.
Any suggestions? The popular ones are a) kill resale so anyone who want to play the game 'legitimately' must buy new. and b) force those who loose/scratch the disk to either re-buy or go without patches.
Of course Other scenarios do suggest themselves to me. It's possible the drm makers are feeding the stockholders fud to pressure the corporate officers into buying their malware, or threatening to.
Or possibly there are kickbacks/bribes involved (though the scale suggest we would've heard at least a healthy dose of rumors).
Just don't assume those making the call to add drm are ignorant of how quickly it gets broken or lack the intelligence learn from all the previous failures and assume this time will be different.
If they get some short term gain against piracy it's most certainly a pleasant bonus, and likely unexpected.
Mycroft
Actually the stock holder SHOULD sue them. They are spending large percentages of the development costs on D.R.M. And it NEVER works as advertised, instead of protecting revenue it hurts it in lost sales and support costs.
And it's the stockholders that need to be notified of this scam, boycotts and letters to the publishers just get ignored/ chalked up to pirates.
They cannot ignore the stockholders. They risk far worse than just golden parachuting to the next company if they do.
Mycroft
Even better, write the stock holders about how the company they've invested their hard money on is blowing it on stupid schemes that don't work.
Seriously, the companies won't listen, they'll just blame any revenue decrease to piracy and blow money on even more elaborate drm.
Also drm isn't really about copy protection so much as stopping re-sale and forced eol so you eventually have to buy 'Wonder game XVIIIIVIIX, the quest for more cash' with new improved names for the same old crap.
But they claim DRM is to stop piracy and protect revenue (and thus shareholder value). Once the shareholders see DRM as a waste of money it'll go away fast.
Get the stockholders involved and they'll move heaven and earth to avoid a major issue.
Why so many don't get this confuses me.
Mycroft
Kirk also re-programed the computer to make the kobyoshi maru scenario winnable.
Sounds like a hacker to me.
Mcyroft