Texas Traffic Laws

[oohrah]

I agree. Once the left turning vehicle is established on the pkwy, it is no longer turning left, and the right turner should yield.

[Skiprr]

This is based on IF I am understanding the scenario correctly. Once the right turn is made by the person that was going east, he is now subject to the yield sign. The person turning left onto the same road has the right of way since he is now going straight and the vehicle that turned right is actually now merging into traffic. The lights at the intersection have no bearing once the turns are made.

In this type of scenario, the vehicle merging into traffic yields to traffic already in the lanes.

Based on the configuration of the intersection, I'm in agreement with mojo84 here, and with loktite's first sentence: "To westbound traffic turning left onto Texas Research, the existence of the yield sign has 0 bearing on right of way for their decision making."

The eastbound traffic turning south have a dedicated turn lane that removes them from the traffic light control at the intersection. After they make that curve they are, as, mojo84 noted, no longer making a turn at the intersection but merging into oncoming traffic, no different than if they were merging onto a highway from a frontage road. The only traffic that can be coming their way is from that westbound left-turn lane; therefore the yield sign is in force and the traffic merging in from the right is obliged to yield to any of the westbound traffic turning left.

Now, two caveats. The first is that, by DPS definition, right-of-way is something given, not taken. If another driver fails to follow the rules, posted or implied, it's our responsibility to give him or her the right-of-way. For that reason, I doubt that LEOs frequently--if ever--ticket the eastbounders turning right for failure to yield unless it was accompanied by speeding or reckless driving.

The second caveat has to do with the configuration of the intersection that we can't see from the initial image in the OP:



About 100 yards from the intersection, less from the point of merge, the right-hand lane on Texas Research Parkway southbound ends, merging into the left lane and becoming a single lane. It strikes me that it's obvious the configuration was meant to promote southbound travel by providing an unimpeded left-hand lane to turn into, and a right-hand lane for the eastbounders to merge onto with a yield sign rather than a traffic signal or stop sign. The mistake, IMHO, is in not striping the left-turn path to exclude that right-hand merge lane. In other words, the street narrows to a single lane in 100 yards anyway, so there is no need for the traffic turning left have use of both the southbound lanes.

I have no idea what the traffic flow looks like at that intersection, never been there; but I get the impression there would be heavy traffic during the morning rush hour on Potranco as people turn south onto Texas Research Parkway to get to the large Citibank facility. If the lights at the intersection are timed accordingly, meaning that in the early mornings the westbounders have a green much of the time, I could certainly understand frustration on the part of the eastbounders trying to turn right--and who have what was engineered as a dedicated merge lane--if the westbounders continuously make their turns into that right-hand lane, effectively cutting off the merge, rather than stay to the left. And from a close-up satellite image, you can see by the road surface of that right-hand merge lane at the intersection that is precisely what they do.

If I had to bet, I'd say 90% or more of those turning left do so onto that right lane rather than staying left where, as commuter traffic, they all know both lanes merge anyway. Why would they do this? Because there are no lane markers or striping dictating otherwise; because they can take the turn at a faster speed if they swing farther right; and because they don't care about the cars being stacked up on that right-hand turn because the westbounders have rendered it not a yield and merge, but a very awkward full stop forcing the eastbounders to keep their heads craned as far over their left shoulders as possible in order to make what should otherwise be--with proper road striping or reasonable courtesy on the part of the westbounders--a simple and smooth merge.

• --The Curmudgeonly Car Guy who, the older he gets, the more he hates to drive in heavy traffic because today drivers have only two priorities: themselves and their smartphones. Compared to two decades ago, now it's like climbing onto 12-lane freeways with completely self-centered inebriates.

[bigtek]

There's two southbound lanes. Neither has to yield at the intersection if they both turn correctly.

§545.101 - TURNING AT INTERSECTION
(a) To make a right turn at an intersection, an operator shall make both the approach and the turn as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
(c) On a street or roadway designated for two-way traffic, the operator turning left shall, to the extent practicable, turn in the portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.

[mojo84]

There's two southbound lanes. Neither has to yield if they turn correctly.

§545.101 - TURNING AT INTERSECTION
(a) To make a right turn at an intersection, an operator shall make both the approach and the turn as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
(c) On a street or roadway designated for two-way traffic, the operator turning left shall, to the extent practicable, turn in the portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.

That comes in to play when there is an intersection that does not have a separate right turn lane that does not merge into a lane once the right turn is made. Your comment and section you quoted applies when there isn't a right turn lane that merges into traffic after the turn. Why would they install a yield sign if your answer is correct?

[bigtek]

If they turn left into the left lane, they don't have to worry about hitting a vehicle in the right lane.
If they turn right into the right lane, they don't have to worry about hitting a vehicle in the left lane.



Or maybe right turns should follow the red line?

[JustSomeOldGuy]

Based on the signage; those turning left onto Research under green arrow (opposing light should be red) have the right of way. If they have a green, but no arrow (presuming opposing light is also green) then anyone eastbound has the right of way wether they go straight or turn right. So I guess I'm voting "No the yield sign does not trump a red light for eastbound traffic. It becomes a right-on-red-after-stop-if-the-way-is-clear. And if the westbound left turn lane emptys before the arrow goes away (eastbound still has red) I presume all the folks turning right from eastbound will roll thru the red light....
unless traffic detail is in view....

Reminds me of a funny story about a yield sign I keep meaning to post in LEO Contacts.....

So are you saying that if eastbound Potranco has a green light the yield sign disappears or no longer applies, or is conditional to westbound Potrancos light?

I'm saying that if eastbound has a full green, there shouldn't be anyone they have to yield to, because they have the right of way.

If the traffic lights are set up in the standard way;
- when the eastbound has a green, westbounds will have a green (not an arrow) or a red. If you (westbound) are turning left without an arrow, you do not have the right of way over oncoming traffic. And it's irrelevant if the oncoming is going straight or turning right (which you have no way of knowing for sure until they do it). I am presuming that the only time the yield sign applies, is when research has a green and the other two are red. It allows more eastbounds to turn right on red because they don't have to make a complete stop (which they weren't going to do anyway unless Austin drivers are much better behaved then everywhere else).

[mojo84]

Based on the signage; those turning left onto Research under green arrow (opposing light should be red) have the right of way. If they have a green, but no arrow (presuming opposing light is also green) then anyone eastbound has the right of way wether they go straight or turn right. So I guess I'm voting "No the yield sign does not trump a red light for eastbound traffic. It becomes a right-on-red-after-stop-if-the-way-is-clear. And if the westbound left turn lane emptys before the arrow goes away (eastbound still has red) I presume all the folks turning right from eastbound will roll thru the red light....
unless traffic detail is in view....

Reminds me of a funny story about a yield sign I keep meaning to post in LEO Contacts.....

So are you saying that if eastbound Potranco has a green light the yield sign disappears or no longer applies, or is conditional to westbound Potrancos light?

I'm saying that if eastbound has a full green, there shouldn't be anyone they have to yield to, because they have the right of way.

If the traffic lights are set up in the standard way;
- when the eastbound has a green, westbounds will have a green (not an arrow) or a red. If you (westbound) are turning left without an arrow, you do not have the right of way over oncoming traffic. And it's irrelevant if the oncoming is going straight or turning right (which you have no way of knowing for sure until they do it). I am presuming that the only time the yield sign applies, is when research has a green and the other two are red. It allows more eastbounds to turn right on red because they don't have to make a complete stop (which they weren't going to do anyway unless Austin drivers are much better behaved then everywhere else).

Technically, it's not a right turn. People use the right lane to exit the lane and then after the curve they merge into southbound traffic.

The intersection is designed for the people "turning" right to follow the blue line and not to advance to the intersection.

[1911 10MM]

If they turn left into the left lane, they don't have to worry about hitting a vehicle in the right lane.
If they turn right into the right lane, they don't have to worry about hitting a vehicle in the left lane.



Or maybe right turns should follow the red line?

This picture is correct as the person turning left is supposed to stay in the nearest lane and not cross over. The person turning right should only have to yield to cars coming straight through the intersection in the lane closest to him. I see people making those wide left turns into the farthest lane all the time but it is incorrect.

[rotor]

To the OP, your assessment is correct. It makes no difference what the traffic light color is, the only thing that counts is whether there is south bound traffic on Texas Research Pkwy, the Potranco traffic must yield to that traffic. Many intersections like this don't even have a traffic light. This is a very common type of intersection and people that don't understand this probably had trouble with their drivers exam.

[rotor]

If they turn left into the left lane, they don't have to worry about hitting a vehicle in the right lane.
If they turn right into the right lane, they don't have to worry about hitting a vehicle in the left lane.



Or maybe right turns should follow the red line?

This picture is correct as the person turning left is supposed to stay in the nearest lane and not cross over. The person turning right should only have to yield to cars coming straight through the intersection in the lane closest to him. I see people making those wide left turns into the farthest lane all the time but it is incorrect.

I had not noted that there were 2 southbound lanes on Texas Research Pkwy but I still disagree with your assessment. The person traveling east and making the left from Potranco should stay in the left lane going southbound but is not required to and the person turning right on the yield has to yield no matter which lane is being used by the southbound traffic. The yield sign could have just as easily been a stop sign. The yielded traffic has the responsibility to make sure that there are no cars going south that could be hit and they might be in either lane.

[JakeTheSnake]

This is based on IF I am understanding the scenario correctly. Once the right turn is made by the person that was going east, he is now subject to the yield sign. The person turning left onto the same road has the right of way since he is now going straight and the vehicle that turned right is actually now merging into traffic. The lights at the intersection have no bearing once the turns are made.

In this type of scenario, the vehicle merging into traffic yields to traffic already in the lanes.

Based on the configuration of the intersection, I'm in agreement with mojo84 here, and with loktite's first sentence: "To westbound traffic turning left onto Texas Research, the existence of the yield sign has 0 bearing on right of way for their decision making."

The eastbound traffic turning south have a dedicated turn lane that removes them from the traffic light control at the intersection. After they make that curve they are, as, mojo84 noted, no longer making a turn at the intersection but merging into oncoming traffic, no different than if they were merging onto a highway from a frontage road. The only traffic that can be coming their way is from that westbound left-turn lane; therefore the yield sign is in force and the traffic merging in from the right is obliged to yield to any of the westbound traffic turning left.

Now, two caveats. The first is that, by DPS definition, right-of-way is something given, not taken. If another driver fails to follow the rules, posted or implied, it's our responsibility to give him or her the right-of-way. For that reason, I doubt that LEOs frequently--if ever--ticket the eastbounders turning right for failure to yield unless it was accompanied by speeding or reckless driving.

The second caveat has to do with the configuration of the intersection that we can't see from the initial image in the OP:



About 100 yards from the intersection, less from the point of merge, the right-hand lane on Texas Research Parkway southbound ends, merging into the left lane and becoming a single lane. It strikes me that it's obvious the configuration was meant to promote southbound travel by providing an unimpeded left-hand lane to turn into, and a right-hand lane for the eastbounders to merge onto with a yield sign rather than a traffic signal or stop sign. The mistake, IMHO, is in not striping the left-turn path to exclude that right-hand merge lane. In other words, the street narrows to a single lane in 100 yards anyway, so there is no need for the traffic turning left have use of both the southbound lanes.

I have no idea what the traffic flow looks like at that intersection, never been there; but I get the impression there would be heavy traffic during the morning rush hour on Potranco as people turn south onto Texas Research Parkway to get to the large Citibank facility. If the lights at the intersection are timed accordingly, meaning that in the early mornings the westbounders have a green much of the time, I could certainly understand frustration on the part of the eastbounders trying to turn right--and who have what was engineered as a dedicated merge lane--if the westbounders continuously make their turns into that right-hand lane, effectively cutting off the merge, rather than stay to the left. And from a close-up satellite image, you can see by the road surface of that right-hand merge lane at the intersection that is precisely what they do.

If I had to bet, I'd say 90% or more of those turning left do so onto that right lane rather than staying left where, as commuter traffic, they all know both lanes merge anyway. Why would they do this? Because there are no lane markers or striping dictating otherwise; because they can take the turn at a faster speed if they swing farther right; and because they don't care about the cars being stacked up on that right-hand turn because the westbounders have rendered it not a yield and merge, but a very awkward full stop forcing the eastbounders to keep their heads craned as far over their left shoulders as possible in order to make what should otherwise be--with proper road striping or reasonable courtesy on the part of the westbounders--a simple and smooth merge.

• --The Curmudgeonly Car Guy who, the older he gets, the more he hates to drive in heavy traffic because today drivers have only two priorities: themselves and their smartphones. Compared to two decades ago, now it's like climbing onto 12-lane freeways with completely self-centered inebriates.

I agree 100%, the only thing I would add is the ones turning right usually end up in the left lane due to speed. As someone posted, don't use turn signals and approach at a speed to make those turning left believe they are proceeding straight to make them wait, because they certainly don't want to wait for anyone. So neither are staying in the proper lane, and if they do, its then a drag race to the merge.
The biggest problem with everything today, especially traffic, is no courtesy, consideration or respect for others.

[mojo84]

It's very obvious the people entering Research Pkwy from eastbound Potranco are expected to yield. I'm surprised this is such an issue. No wonder we have so many negligent collisions.

[cbunt1]

Perhaps I'm not understanding the question or the description, but it looks to me like if each turning vehicle turns into the appropriate lane, it's a non-issue.

The use of the Yield sign seems confusing, especially in concert with the traffic lights, BUT, proper lane usage seems to be the real issue here.

But I may be missing something...

ETA: I hadn't seen the second page of the thread before I posted...but I stand by my assessment.

And I agree that a general lack of courtesy and consideration is at the root of many of these traffic problems. And is a key reason I have a ranch-hand front-end on my truck. :)

[mojo84]

Perhaps I'm not understanding the question or the description, but it looks to me like if each turning vehicle turns into the appropriate lane, it's a non-issue.

The use of the Yield sign seems confusing, especially in concert with the traffic lights, BUT, proper lane usage seems to be the real issue here.

But I may be missing something...

ETA: I hadn't seen the second page of the thread before I posted...but I stand by my assessment.

And I agree that a general lack of courtesy and consideration is at the root of many of these traffic problems. And is a key reason I have a ranch-hand front-end on my truck. :)

So, if you still believe the the yield sign has no bearing on the traffic turning right, why is it there? Once the person enters the right hand corner cutoff, the traffic light has no legal control with regard to entering the flow of traffic on Research. That is why there is a yield sign.

This may help explain it. http://www.texashighwayman.com/laws.shtml#Turning


This is a separate section of the link in this post. It also comes into play. People's lack of knowledge of the laws and leads to many road rage incidents and negligent collisions.

"Right-of-way when changing lanes

§545.061 - DRIVING ON MULTIPLE-LANE ROADWAY
On a roadway divided into three or more lanes and providing for one-way movement of traffic, an operator entering a lane of traffic from a lane to the right shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle entering the same lane of traffic from a lane to the left.

Lane change

This is probably one of the least-known laws. When someone from the left lane and someone from the right lane both try to move into the same space in the center lane at the same time, who should yield the the right-of-way? In Texas, the law is that the person changing lanes from right to left must yield to someone trying to enter the same lane from the left.

One lane at a time
Although there’s no law requiring it, you should only change one lane at a time. If you need to get across several lanes, move over one lane, establish yourself in that lane for a few seconds, then move over to the next lane. And don't forget your turn signal each time as required by §545.104!"

[casp625]

545.153 - VEHICLE ENTERING STOP OR YIELD INTERSECTION
(c) An operator approaching an intersection on a roadway controlled by a yield sign shall:
(1) slow to a speed that is reasonable under the existing conditions; and
(2) yield the right-of-way to a vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to be an immediate hazard to the operator's movement in or across the intersection.

IANAL but it sounds like the driver turning right has to avoid hitting the driver turning left, but is not required to proactively stop to allow the left turn.

Sec. 545.152. VEHICLE TURNING LEFT. To turn left at an intersection or into an alley or private road or driveway, an operator shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle that is approaching from the opposite direction and that is in the intersection or in such proximity to the intersection as to be an immediate hazard.

Also, this type of situation is exactly why I don't use my blinker in these intersections. Since the vehicle turning left believes I am going straight (I have green light and they have flashing arrow), they have to yield right of way to me.

That sounds crazy, you would break the law to keep from obeying the law?

Nope. I conveniently "forget" to use my blinker so the person turning left doesn't hit me (since they yield if I was going straight). Problem solved.