I've not driven in San Francisco. Are cars allowed to sit and block an entire lane until they can turn left? That is how things worked in the rural town I grew up in, but I can't imagine it working in a city. All the streets in the city I live in now which are too narrow for a turn lane are either one-way (thus have no need for a protected left) or they prohibit left turns.
Yeah, I don't know if you're in SF - but on the one lane roads, traffic doesn't stop for people turning left at lights. Again, I don't know the legality - but I've seen police and government workers do it as well. Because the streets are made w/ enough space for vehicles to park next to the lanes of traffic - there is enough room to pass on the right in an intersection.
Protected left turns don’t work well without insanely wide roads. There is not room for protected left turn lanes in most of sf, and too much traffic to do one direction at a time signals.
Driving in California, the best roads literally make it illegal to turn left during rush hour when the intersection doesn’t have a left turn lane. People still get where they’re going.
I think so? I don't know the law, but I do know if I'm turning left and someone else is turning left in the other lane - in sf, I need to make sure the cars behind them aren't going around them in the same lane.
It is a two lane road constricted with packed street parking on both sides of the road. This being SF, even in the best situation where there isn't a garbage truck double parked in the other lane, I'm sure a U turn isn't feasible, or even a 3 point turn around. Backing up was the only option, yet the road is two lane, so more traffic than a residential one lane coming from behind is also a concern.
In California, for a single left turn lane, you're allowed to complete the turn into any of the lanes you choose.
The driver handbook doesn't go into detail about double turn lanes that feed into a 3-lane cross street. My own rule is that only the inner lane (leftmost) must complete the turn in the matching innermost lane. The outer lane can end their turn in the #2 or #3 lane. I tend to choose the #3 lane just to put as much space between me and the car next to me, in case they incorrectly go for the #2 lane. Unless there's an opposing right-turning car that I trust less :)
I had no idea that 1. this had a name and 2. it was illegal. I've done that Left so many times back when I lived in Pennsylvania, I figured it was totally acceptable. I've been in situations stuck behind a left-turner for 5+ light cycles because he couldn't/wouldn't turn left due to unrelenting oncoming traffic. What's the legal solution? You can't wait forever!
(We don't seem to have this problem out here in California, where every street has at least four lanes!)
Just 2 days ago I saw a waymo car stuck at 4th and Townsend in SF facing NE (toward the bay). The car was in the left of 2 lanes. The light for the left lane turned green. The car sat there. People behind started honking. Eventually it went. Not if there was a driver or not.
In the driver's defense (computer or human), SF's signals have gotten very complicated in the last ~10 yrs and even non-robot drivers fail to follow the rules about 20% of the time. 3 places I can see this happen every day are (1) 4th and Townsend on Townsend facing NE (the one above). The issue is the left lane has a green light but the right lane has a separate right turn signal because there is a bike lane further to the right that gets green first. Sit at the corner and I guarantee within 10 right turning cars someone will turn on red.
Similarly, 5th and Bryant on 5th going NW (into the city). This has a similar deal. There's an on ramp to the freeway but it has a separate right turn signal from the green forward signal. This one, for me, is around 100% violation by which I mean I've never NOT seen a violation at the corner. Not ever car, but ever signal at least one car will turn right on to the freeway even though there are 2 large no right turn lights and a green bike light.
The last is 4th and King, on 4th going SE facing the bay. I'm not sure these are technically violations. The left lane is painted as left turn only. The right as right turn only. The middle lane crosses King. Again, this is close to 100% for at least one car per signal ignoring those markings. I don't blame them as there's no way to see the markings until you're just a few car lengths from the intersection and if there are other cars there you can't see them at all. Further, looking up the law, solid white lines are just guidelines. It's legal to cross them. (double white are not). Still, people in the center lane get angry and honk when people in the left or right lanes cut them off since they weren't expecting it.
I work in the downtown San Francisco area. The Waymo cars clog up more than just this weird dead-end street. They have become a bit of a nuisance in the entire area.
In the Financial District, there are many one-way streets. In California, when you're on a one-way street and you're turning onto another one-way street, you're allowed to turn left on a red light. Unfortunately, the Waymo cars don't seem to know this. Despite no cars coming, they will wait for green before turning left.
They also drive SLOW. I suppose that's safer, but when you're stuck behind one of these cars that's doing 15 mph when every other car is doing 20-25, it's rather annoying.
My driving instructor and parents all told me that driving in the left lane when not passing is illegal and that people who do it are dickheads. I see signs reminding people to stay in the right lane when not passing on a regular basis.
Is it just the state I live in (WA) or is the rule not as solid as I thought?
reply