Q: I have a question regarding the traffic rules of a particular intersection in Bellingham. The intersection of Alabama and Woburn has a right turn lane with a yield sign (for drivers traveling south on Woburn towards Alabama). My question is, if the light is green for Woburn traffic going both directions, does the northbound Woburn traffic making a left-hand turn onto Alabama yield to the southbound traffic making a right-hand turn on Alabama or is it the other way around? A wager of one coffee is riding on the outcome of your answer, so we’re eager to learn the actual rule here.
A: I don’t often tackle a question that applies to a single location, but in this case the intersection at Alabama and Woburn makes a great stand-in for the problem of apparently conflicting traffic control devices. Plus, I always like to weigh in on a wager. In the case of this intersection (and a few others I’ve driven through in the region) we have the bulk of the intersection controlled by traffic lights, and one small right turn lane controlled by a yield sign.
Before digging into the rules, I took a test drive through this intersection from both directions described in the question, just to see what felt right. Then I compared that to what I found in the RCW. And just to make sure I wasn’t off track, I talked with a local police officer who has a wealth of experience in traffic enforcement. All three seemed to align, so I feel pretty good about settling the bet.
From both a legal and practical perspective, the driver at the yield sign intending to turn right should yield the right-of-way to the driver with the green light intending to turn left. Here’s how I arrive at that conclusion, starting with the driver at the green light: The law states that a driver turning left in an intersection is required to yield to traffic approaching from the opposite direction. The driver at the yield sign is no longer approaching from the opposite direction, but is moving toward the same direction as the green light driver is headed, so the driver at the green light isn’t compelled to yield (based on this law).
Now if we look at the law that specifically addresses yield signs, it states that a driver approaching a yield sign shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching from another roadway so closely as to constitute a hazard. Based on this much broader requirement to yield, I’d conclude that the driver at the yield sign gives right-of-way to the driver with the green light.
Even if you don’t completely agree with me based on my interpretation of the law, let’s look at it practically. If two cars approach the intersection from opposite directions on Woburn, both intend to go west on Alabama, and both arrive at the intersection at the same time, there’s enough distance between the two of them that if they both go at the same time there won’t be a conflict; the driver at the yield sign will enter the westbound lane, followed by the driver at the green light, and it should all mesh together like clockwork. The only time there would really be a problem is if the driver at the yield sign decided to take that right turn after the driver at the green light had already entered the intersection, and we’ve already determined that a person with a yield sign has to give right-of-way to anyone already in the intersection.
And now for the real answer. When you’re approaching an unfamiliar or possibly confusing intersection, you don’t have time to look up the law, or even read an article trying to explain the law. So here’s a universal principal, rooted in a message repeated several times in the law, that can be applied in every driving situation: Don’t crash. Okay, the law says that drivers are required to “use due care” and avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other stuff, but I’ve reduced it to two easy-to-remember words. Even if you think the other guy should yield, if you chose to take what you believe to be your right-of-way and it contributes to a crash, you’ve violated the fundamental rule of driving, which I’ll say again: Don’t crash. In a confusing intersection, if your driving decision avoids a crash, it’s probably the right decision.
So we’re just going to completely ignore the BIG “LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN” sign and come to the conclusion that the one with only a symbol who’s purpose was to allow cars to turn easier on red is supposedly there to somehow give up right-away to those turning left? I don’t understand how people take such a simple and written out concept and make it this complicated. The sign LITERALLY tells you ppl what to do… Just SMH
I appreciate your input, but I still stand by my original response. We’re not ignoring the “left turn yield on green” sign. We’re just making sense of how the various traffic control indicators fit together. Maybe give it one more read and see what I mean. And if you still disagree, that’s okay too. As long as we agree on the part about doing what it take to not crash, even if you think the other person should yield, we’re doing the right thing.
This literally JUST happened to me…. I was cited at fault for the accident. I was turning right with a green light. I didn’t see the yield sign and honestly probably wouldn’t have thought it was pertaining to my green light. I hit a car that was turning left at the green light. This was the first I had ever heard of this. I was looking it up because I couldn’t understand how I was at fault with a green light turning right….
MY opinion is that this is creating a hazard. Performing a risk assessment as we do at work shows that having a T section with two corresponding lights green in opposite directions now adding an additional control device overriding the green signal is a liability to state and municipality. Anything that causes are creates any hazards is liable. I seen three cases similar where juries sided with the complainant against the state for creating an additional hazard. People are used to normal traffic flow at signals right side always has right of way. Stop creating hazardous roadways for no reason.
that’s only for the people coming in the opposite direction on the SAME road. the right turner is no longer on that road, their now going onto the other direction and MUST yield to any and all traffic that’s going that direction, ie, the left turner.
also, when you have a protected left turn arrow. NO MATTER WHAT is coming the other direction, THEY are required to yield.
Yield on left turn applies to when no green arrow is present. Cmon now.
I would agree with you only if the sign on the traffic light wasn’t there. That sign is basically another yield sign. It clearly says if you are going to turn left on green you must yield to oncoming traffic going straight and also turning right.
When there is a green light the yield sign is irrelevant
No it means yield to ONCOMING traffic going straight the opposite way of you, the right yield turn is not oncoming therefore they must also yield to traffic turning left. Only with a green light and no yield would the right turn have right away and be considered oncoming. Having to yield in turn lane to cars turning left onto the road you’re turning right onto if there’s a yield sign is the proper traffic procedure. Real your manual.
So you’re saying, even though the person in the yield lane is turning right with a green light, we still have to yield to the person turning left on a green light, not a green arrow, but a green light?
The person turning right with the yield sign doesn’t have a green light. The traffic signal is for traffic going straight and turning left. The right turn is controlled by a yield sign, and that driver should yield to other traffic in the intersection.
Not true. If the car turning right has a Red Light, and does not stop before turn right, they will be ticketed for running the Red Light. Therefore, the Light applies to the car turning right.
Similarly, if both vehicles have a yield (which is the crux of your claim) then the vehicle that arrived at the intersection first has right-of-way (when arriving from opposite directions), not specifically the Left turning vehicle.
Also, general rule of thumb is any vehicle crossing lane(s) of traffic does NOT have right-of-way, as it is the action of greater risk. You can’t have it both ways just because you want to make faster left turns through a busy intersection.
I’ll reiterate what I wrote in the article- The car turning right doesn’t have a red light; they have a yield sign. In the example in the article, the red light is for the traffic going straight. However, you are not alone in disagreeing with me on this, so it’s clear that there are problems with the way some intersections are designed. I wrote this article in 2019, and we’re still discussing it. An intersection shouldn’t be so ambiguous that we can’t agree on how to drive through it. When multiple drivers can reasonably reach different conclusions the intersection is clearly not working as intended.
MY opinion is that this is creating a hazard. Performing a risk assessment as we do at work shows that having a T section with two corresponding lights green in opposite directions now adding an additional control device overriding the green signal is a liability to state and municipality. Anything that causes are creates any hazards is liable. I seen three cases similar where juries sided with the complainant against the state for creating an additional hazard. People are used to normal traffic flow at signals right side always has right of way. Stop creating hazardous roadways for no reason.
I just had an accident at an intersection like this. I turned left on green light and other driver turned right on the yield. He did not yield and in fact must have come in my lane. He kept saying ‘we both had the green light’ to which I questioned ‘but didn’t you have a yield sign’? Also, he said he never saw me, but he hit me with the front left side of his car so I’d say he wasn’t even looking!!! I hope the insurance company makes him liable.
What about if they have a RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT and a yield sign IF they actually turn right, is the left turn still at fault? I’ve been through this intersection daily, and I would literally have to sit there until nobody is present?
crazy huh our engineers and politicians as to create hazards roadway conditions. normal flow of right is firs before going left should always stand especially at T sections. Introducing additional traffic control devices that confuse people form the normal is concerning and dangerous. We are focusing on the light and pedestrians not if an opposite direction driver on green is going to turn left. It is one dangerous situation the state has created by allowing such hazardous designs. This practice must be banned in all states. Who thinks having this scenario is dangerous placing multiple control devices at a T section on a green light.? you just do not know what they are going to do. The state or municipality should be liable for the flawed engineering practice.
What if the green car turning left had a flashing yellow light? Would the car opposite turning right have to yield to a person with a yellow? My daughter was just recently involved in an accident at an intersection just like this and she had a green light turning right and someone coming opposite of her was turning left with a yellow and collided with her car.
The flashing yellow light you described is showing up more often in intersections. It’s replacing the “Left turn yield on green” sign and light. It functions the same way. I don’t want to attempt to adjudicate a specific crash, but the driver with the yellow flashing light should yield to the opposing driver with the green light.
The insurance companies you think would be all over these unsafe traffic control designs, but I guess they do not care and just keep tasking your cash. I agree Richard, someone needs to sue the municipality for unsafe design from highway nomenclature.