Hacker News Reader

Comment by dawnerd | Hacker News Reader

I was tboned by someone that swore their light was green. I had a dedicated turn. Thank goodness for cameras.

The trend I’ve noticed this year is turning right from the middle lane cutting off people in the turn lane.

Are they cutting them off, though? If the street you're turning onto has two lanes, it shouldn't be a problem for two cars to turn at once. The car on the inside is required to turn into the nearest lane (according to any state law I know), so why can't the car on its left turn into its own lane?

You’re not allowed to double right turn unless it’s explicitly marked, at least in the US.

> Are they cutting them off, though?

Its possible for multiple lanes to turn without anyone cutting anyone off, but its also possible for people to turn right from the middle lane of the source street into the rightmost lane of the target street, cutting off people in the rightmost lane of the source street attempting to turn, or to make a right turn from a middle lane that is not allowed to turn, cutting of a legal right-into-any-lane from the rightmost lane when it is the only turning lane, so if someone explicitly says that's what they see and there is no available counterevidence that they are misreporting their observation, questioning it accompanied by a description of how it is possible for people to turn from multiple lanes into distinct lanes in harmony without anyone being cutoff is not particularly useful.

> the car on the inside is required to turn into the nearest lane (according to any state law I know)

That's the base rule in most jurisdictions, but there are places where it doesn't apply. See, e.g., for California: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-veh/division-11...

"cutting of a legal right-into-any-lane from the rightmost lane"

"its also possible for people to turn right from the middle lane of the source street into the rightmost lane of the target"

So you've created hypothetical situations that are no more useful than mine. I specifically mentioned having to turn into the nearest lane. If that's not true somewhere, then neither would adjacent turners be allowed. I simply asked if they were really cutting the other people off.

If the right lane goes straight, you can't turn right from any other lane.

Obviously. But the comment said TURN LANE.

That would be the lane for turning, yes?

Yep. Which is why "If the right lane goes straight" doesn't make sense. We've already established that the right lane does NOT go straight, because it's a turn lane.

Read it again. They didn't say the middle lane was a turn lane.

Nobody said he did. He said the RIGHT lane was a TURN LANE. Which means the lane to the left of it could count on the people TURNING, not going straight.

WTF, YOU made the comment: "If the right lane goes straight"

You might as well say, "if the people on the opposite side of the road cross the median..."

I read that as a sloppy way to say that the right lane allows turning, rather than requires turning.

Otherwise, it makes literally no sense, as you say.

Most people don't post utterly logically inconsistent ideas. Usually, they just screw up English and mean one thing when they say the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com