The car with the green light has right of way. The car at the red light has responsibility to yield to absolutely everyone else. Right turn on red is only legal if it's completely clear and your turn affects no one else.
This includes yielding to a person who is walking across the street. This is why "rolling stops" are so dangerous. Drivers need to learn to stop, fully, and look before turning.
This ALSO includes U-turns; a car doing a U-turn on green has right-of-way over a car wanting to turn right into the same lane, even though the car doing a U-turn can't properly signal their intention. The red light means yield to everything.
Where I live a left turn can end in whatever lane they want (so long as there's only one left turn lane), so a right turn could possibly cut off the left turn.
I wasn't contradicting you, just explaining which part of the law is different place-to-place. (As opposed to right turns going into other lanes, which isn't ok anywhere with left hand drive cars, to the best of my knowledge.)
>The car at the red light has responsibility to yield to absolutely everyone else. Right turn on red is only legal if it's completely clear and your turn affects no one else.
But this is ***precisely*** OP's question!
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
I'm not sure why that is such a tough question? Google comes up with the [exact answer](https://www.google.com/search?q=alabama%20statute%20right%20on%20red) in the top result.
>Red doesn’t mean yield. It means stop.
It means stop, and then yield. Stop is not a "super-yield."
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you on the desired outcome. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Dude.... can you just drop the whole "super yield" and stop trying to overcomplicate a very simple driving law?
Regardless of what state, the rules of driving are *very* simple.
Red means **stop.** Green means **go**. So, please, stop making this more confusing and taxing than it has to be. It is a privilege it be able to turn right at a red light because it would suggest light traffic. If cars are coming, including ones in the turning left into the lane you want to turn in, by ANY laws, not just Alabama's you must stay stopped because you are at a red light and it is not safe to go because there is active traffic that you would be interfering upon.
>Dude.... can you just drop the whole "super yield" and stop trying to overcomplicate a very simple driving law?
Well, people keep saying that stop means more than yield, and that just ain't so. In a hypothetical example where one person has already stopped at a stop sign and another person is approaching a yield sign, **the yield sign DOES NOT have right of way.**
>Regardless of what state, the rules of driving are *very* simple.
That's just not true at all. There are variations in rules in each of the 50 states.
>Red means **stop.** Green means **go**.
***Because*** of the way that they are defined in State law. There is no reason--beyond the fact that it would be confusing--that a state could not define the meaning of traffic signals otherwise.
This ***already*** happens in the case of red arrows. In most states, a red arrow is no different than a red light. Stop, but right-on-red permitted. But in some states, a red arrow automatically prohibits right-on-red, even without the need of posting a regulatory sign.
>If cars are coming, including ones in the turning left into the lane you want to turn in, by ANY laws, not just Alabama's you must stay stopped because you are at a red light and it is not safe to go because there is active traffic that you would be interfering upon.
This has ***NEVER*** been the point of contention (and strictly speaking, it isn't accurate--you must ***yield***, not necessarily remain stopped). The issue is that the green light left turn ***ALSO*** has a yield condition.
And there is ***NOTHING*** in Alabama law that clarifies that the red light yield is "more" than the green light left turn yield. **This is exactly what OP's question has been from the beginning.**
Other states clarify that a driver must "continue to yield." **Literally the only thing I have said from the beginning is that Alabama should do the same.**
The hypotheticals being laid out here would simply not exist in my state.
A 4-way intersection without a traffic light is only going to have 3 possible configurations here. 1) two stop signs on opposing corners where the other street doesn't have to slow. 2) two yield signs on opposing corners where the other street doesn't slow. 3) 4-way stop. There would simply never be an intersection where one street has stop signs and the other street has yield signs because of the logic problems that would be introduced, as described in your post.
The OP's scenario would also not exist in my state. If a traffic signal has a left turn yield on green, they would be yielding to traffic traveling the opposite direction with a green light. The opposing traffic would only have a red light in that scenario if the car turning left has a green turn arrow which is being protected by the red light. The green arrow would definitely have right-of-way over a right on red.
In the hypothetical laid out by the OP, I a green light would still have priority over a red even though there are yield conditions attached to both traffic lights.
>There would simply never be an intersection where one street has stop signs and the other street has yield signs because of the logic problems that would be introduced, as described in your post.
Here's an [example of an intersection](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3800171,-84.560417,3a,75y,263.52h,91.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOv9XaubSUDGZeAKI8LTWrg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DOv9XaubSUDGZeAKI8LTWrg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.03127%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) in my state with them. And [plenty of others](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3876023,-84.5635343,3a,75y,191h,91.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6OXfo0akvKjVKZNbfxCYMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) with more common "slip lanes."
I also don't understand what "logic problem" you think that there is. If you can figure out a 4-way stop, then you should be able to figure out an X-way stop + Y-way yield. The yields function identically to a stop sign with the one exception that if a stop is not ***needed***, then it is not ***required.***
>If a traffic signal has a left turn yield on green, they would be yielding to traffic traveling the opposite direction with a green light. The opposing traffic would only have a red light in that scenario if the car turning left has a green turn arrow which is being protected by the red light. The green arrow would definitely have right-of-way over a right on red.
It's not very common, but this happens at intersections with [delayed or extended greens](https://dejpknyizje2n.cloudfront.net/svgcustom/clipart/preview/clipart-11590-26904-550x550.png). But even in this case with a green arrow, what the law ***actually*** says is almost word-for-word the same as what it says for right on red. Both say that the vehicle may "cautiously enter" and then that "\[s\]uch vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection."
>In the hypothetical laid out by the OP, I a green light would still have priority over a red even though there are yield conditions attached to both traffic lights.
My question the entire time has been: "on what legal basis do you make this conclusion." Since the wording is the ***same***, how can it mean one thing for a green arrow to proceed with right of way, but then the ***exact same*** wording means the opposite for right-on-red to **not** proceed and yield right of way.
In the US, the green light has the right of way. Firstly, they literally have the green light. They are already moving, the red light driver is not. Turning at a red light always requires you to stop, yield and safely move into traffic if it’s safe to do so. In no way is a right turn at a red light an act that is guaranteed or offers any right of way. That’s why some intersections go so far as to say “no right on red during x times” or go further as to add specific arrows at lights when these things become problems.
In theory if it’s a 2 lane road they can both take the turn into their respective lanes but that is putting your whole car in the faith of a stranger who probably doesn’t care about you or even know the rules of the road.
>Turning at a red light always requires you to stop, yield and safely move into traffic if it’s safe to do so.
But this is ***precisely*** OP's question!
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Whoever has the green light. A red light means you have to stop. If you're allowed to turn right on a red, it's explicitly stated that you can only do so when it's safe. The person with a green light does not have to stop, you do.
>A red light means you have to stop. If you're allowed to turn right on a red, it's explicitly stated that you can only do so when it's safe.
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? Alabama has conflicting language in that it directs right-on-red to yield, but ***also*** turn-on-green to yield. My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
It's no "superyield." If the right-turning traffic has a red light, the left-turning traffic that conflicts with the right-on-red has a protected light or an advance light that is intended to allow them to turn.
If they both have green lights, the person turning right has right-of-way but it's no longer a turn on red.
>the left-turning traffic that conflicts with the right-on-red has a protected light or an advance light that is intended to allow them to turn.
Sure, I agree that's the intent. The problem is that Alabama law says that left turns ***also*** have to yield to traffic "within" the intersection. So if a vehicle turning right-on-red has "cautiously entered" the intersection (as permitted by law after stopping), then ***both*** have a yield to each other.
If the right-turning car has entered the intersection (illegally), then yes, the left turning driver has an obligation to do what is in their power to avoid an accident. In most cases that is just steering around someone who's nosed a little too far forward.
>If the right-turning car has entered the intersection (illegally)
\[Citation needed\].
The law permits a vehicle turning right-on-red to "cautiously enter" the intersection. This is the ***same*** wording used in the green arrow section, so if you are saying it is unlawful to enter the intersection for a right-on-red, then you must also be saying that it is unlawful to enter for a left-on-green-arrow.
>Both of you are supposed to yield to the other, so who takes priority?
No. This is wrong. Whoever has the red light is supposed to stop, period. If you are taking a right and can turn right on red, you must yield to oncoming traffic and make sure the intersection is clear before turning.
The person who has a green light always has the right of way.
>Whoever has the red light is supposed to stop, period. If you are taking a right and can turn right on red, you must yield to oncoming traffic and make sure the intersection is clear before turning.
But this is ***precisely*** OP's question!
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
>Both of you are supposed to yield to the other, so who takes priority?
Like others said, a red light isn't a yield; it's a stop, and would be at the very bottom of the right-of-way list.
But also, maybe I'm just sleepy and missing something obvious, but the only time I can even imagine your scenario playing out in the first place would be a light system that didn't have arrows built in, so it was green on only one side to *allow* people to turn against the paused oncoming traffic. And in that situation, red would obviously still yield, because that'd be the whole point of the green light in the first place.
Either way, yeah, red means stop. If you hit someone because you went through a red light, you're at fault, full stop (heh).
>a red light isn't a yield; it's a stop, and would be at the very bottom of the right-of-way list.
A stop is not a "super-yield." A stop means, well, ***stop***, and then yield.
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Pulled from Alabama Code Title 32. Motor Vehicles and Traffic § 32-5A-32:
>(1) Green indication:
>a. **Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn**. But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall **yield** the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians **lawfully** **within the intersection** or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited.
And
>(3) Steady red indication:
>a. **Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop** at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subdivision (3)b.
>b. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and **to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.**
So the green indication clearly says that green is a **yield** to cars already in the intersection. Not a full stop and *then* yield. The steady red indication clearly says the vehicle has to **stop** at either a clearly marked line or before the crosswalk until given an indication to proceed, and *then* yield to lawful traffic in the intersection.
OP is saying that they are **stopped** at a red light. This means they are not in the intersection. The green light has full permission to go because nobody is in the intersection. If OP turns before anyone is at the green light on the other side, they'd have right of way. But per OP's post, two cars that are there at the exact same time, one at a red and the other at a green? Green goes, red waits, because red wouldn't be in the intersection yet. If red does go early when someone else is there, they are not "lawfully within the intersection," per 1a.
There’s no need to quote the law at me, I’ve already quoted it myself, as referenced above.
Yes, I agree that the right-on-red must stop first.
However, what about ***after*** that. Imagine that there are 3 cars turning left on green in a row, and that the 3rd car has not entered the intersection yet. Further, suppose the right-turn-on-red car “cautiously enters” the intersection after stopping and yields to the first 2 cars turning left who entered before the right-turn-on-red car does. What happens then?
My point is that you said a stop is at the bottom of the right-of-way list, and while that’s true if the vehicle hasn’t stopped ***yet,*** that gets thrown out of the window once the vehicle has done so. After stopping, a stop sign is just a yield like any other.
>There’s no need to quote the law at me, I’ve already quoted it myself, as referenced above.
I requoted it to you because the parts I bolded make the law pretty clear. Maybe you should re-read it.
>However, what about ***after*** that. Imagine that there are 3 cars turning left on green in a row, and that the 3rd car has not entered the intersection yet. Further, suppose the right-turn-on-red car “cautiously enters” the intersection after stopping and yields to the first 2 cars turning left who entered before the right-turn-on-red car does. What happens then?
If you actually read my comment, I explicitly addressed this scenario as well. I'll quote it again for you, too:
>OP is saying that they are **stopped** at a red light. This means they are not in the intersection. The green light has full permission to go because nobody is in the intersection. If OP turns before anyone is at the green light on the other side, they'd have right of way. But per OP's post, two cars that are there at the exact same time, one at a red and the other at a green? Green goes, red waits, because red wouldn't be in the intersection yet. If red does go early when someone else is there, they are not "lawfully within the intersection," per 1a.
So in your scenario with three cars on green and the one red stopped at the light, the law clearly says the car on red should remain *stopped* *outside of the intersection* until the intersection is completely clear. If the car on red *does* decide to go or "cautiously enter the intersection" before it is clear then the red light car broke the law. If it was clear, then they didn't.
> I requoted it to you because the parts I bolded make the law pretty clear. Maybe you should re-read it.
I read it just fine, thank you very much. But contrary to your claim, the law is ***not*** clear. Compare Alabama's wording to other State laws:
>Uniform Vehicle Code: After stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways.
>
>Georgia: Traffic, except pedestrians, facing a steady CIRCULAR RED signal, after stopping as provided in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, may make a right turn but shall stop and remain stopped for pedestrians and yield the right of way to other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at such intersection.
>
>California: A driver making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety.
All three of these handle the "continuous traffic" scenario in a way that Alabama's law does not. The UVC does it by requiring yielding to "immediate hazards during the time" the driver would be in the intersection; Georgia does it by clarifying the yield applies to traffic "proceeding" under the signal; and California explicitly states that such driver shall "continue to yield."
>the law clearly says the car on red should remain *stopped* *outside of the intersection* until the intersection is completely clear. If the car on red *does* decide to go or "cautiously enter the intersection" before it is clear then the red light car broke the law.
The Alabama law says **no such thing.** There is no wording that the intersection must be "clear." Further, the "cautiously enter" is not tied to the requirement to yield and does not mean "only when clear". A driver "cautiously enters" and ***then*** yields. In particular, see the wording for subsection 1(b) for a green arrow:
>Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, **may cautiously enter** the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. **Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.**
If the cautiously enter ***were*** tied to a yield requirement and meant "only enter when clear," then you have a new problem--left turns on green arrows would not be permitted to enter if there were anyone else in the intersection, even if it were a non-conflicting opposing left-turn.
I don’t think advancing into headcoming traffic, as outlined in your three left turner scenario, could fairly be called a ‘cautious entry.’ You are implying that you have chosen to make a slow entry to check for clarity, when none was needed, as it was clear by signaled intent and traffic light law that the intersection did not need checked.
That you even imply this to be a realistic application of the law says a lot about you.
Sure, it could be rewritten for higher specificity, but it seems as though it has not been a big issue. Or do you have a specific case example where this interpretation linchpinned the outcome?
>I don’t think advancing into headcoming traffic, as outlined in your three left turner scenario, could fairly be called a ‘cautious entry.’ You are implying that you have chosen to make a slow entry to check for clarity, when none was needed, as it was clear by signaled intent and traffic light law that the intersection did not need checked.
But this is the ***same*** wording that is used for the green arrow! If it is not "cautiously entering" for a right-on-red, then it ***also*** cannot be "cautiously entering" for the left-on-green arrow.
>That you even imply this to be a realistic application of the law says a lot about you.
I don't think that's a fair criticism. I have said from the very beginning that I think people should drive the way others expect them to do so. My only point has been that Alabama should revise its traffic code, which it hasn't done for this particular section in 44 years.
>Sure, it could be rewritten for higher specificity, but it seems as though it has not been a big issue.
Another point of criticism is that they do not even ***define*** the meanings of flashing-yellow arrows or red arrows. But Alabama definitely uses them.
" ~~Both of you are supposed to yield to the other~~ " That is wrong wrong wrong.
If you are turning right on red, do not block or slow down turning traffic that is in an intersection.
>" ~~Both of you are supposed to yield to the other~~ " That is wrong wrong wrong.
By what law?
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Green always goes first. For turning right on red, you need to treat as a stop sign at all times. Anyone who has a green light has the right away.
I'm having trouble understanding your question because if the traffic across from you has a green light and they're making a left turning where you need to turn right, then that means they have a green arrow and you need to stop for them. Unless if it's cross traffic turning left, then it doesn't have an impact on you to turn right.
>For turning right on red, you need to treat as a stop sign at all times.
A stop is not a "super-yield." A stop means to, well, ***stop***, and then yield.
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! The left turn ***also*** has a yield condition written into their law.
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
>Left turn has right of way if the right turn has a red light.
But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! The left turn ***also*** has a yield condition written into their law.
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
The red light is what states that. The only time a left turn yields to a right turn is when both have green lights. Literally, the red light is the determining factor in this situation.
Traffic laws are not made to detail each specific instance of every possible situation. It gives an overview or a guideline to be applied to each situation. For instance, if you had actually read the Alabama Vehicle Code section you keep saying "***doesn't*** say that," you would find that:
>a. Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn. But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited.
And that:
>a. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subdivision (3)b.
And when you look at the exception:
>b. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
So, according to the actual law, the right turn must yield because they are required to stop for a red and must yield to all traffic lawfully using the intersection before turning on red. Therefore the left turn with a green light lawfully has right of way.
TLDR: Green means go, red means stop. It's the law...
Right on red yields to on coming traffic from left side youll read that on the signal lights part of the drivers hand book. Left on green yields to on coming traffic thats why some signs have yield on green meaning yield to oncoming traffic before turning left youll find it in the same section of the book. And right of way is given not taken based on the book. Hehehe im about to take the test and tend to memorize stuff so its still fresh for me. Hope i answered your questions.
>Right on red yields to on coming traffic from left side youll read that on the signal lights part of the drivers hand book. Left on green yields to on coming traffic thats why some signs have yield on green meaning yield to oncoming traffic before turning left youll find it in the same section of the book.
But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! They both have a yield condition to each other.
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
The Texas Driver's Handbook does not necessarily state the law with respect to Texas and it ***certainly*** has no bearing on the law in Alabama.
At any rate, I still wish you good luck on your Texas driving test.
The left on green
With a red light, unless you have a sign saying no turn on red preventing you from doing so, you always yield to oncoming traffic and only then can you safely turn on red once traffic is clear
>you always yield to oncoming traffic and only then can you safely turn on red once traffic is clear
But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! The left turn ***also*** has a yield condition.
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
>When you have a red light, you yield to everyone who does not.
By what law?
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
>Green trumps red
By what law?
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
That's...woefully incomplete.
A left turn on a green circle cannot simply "go" if there is oncoming traffic (that they must yield to). And a red light does not forbid all movement (for example, right-on-red). Further, a stop is not a "super-yield" that ranks below a regular yield.
OP's question is precisely the conflict of these two: the left turn vehicle faces a green signal but must yield to traffic within the intersection. The right-on-red vehicle must yield to traffic using the intersection. When both must yield to each other, how is the tie broken?
In normal cases--like two vehicles stopping at a stop sign at the same time--the answer is either "yield-to-right" (which doesn't apply, the two are opposite each other) or "first to enter" (which implies an ***alternation*** between the left turns and right turns).
Left turn green would yield to those going straight as they have the right of way. Right Turn on red would yield to anyone going that way from a green light as their light is red and green has the right of way.
Hense my simplification of Green Go, Red Stop. A red light would not have the right of way over a green light.
But that’s not what the law says! Left turn doesn’t say “yield to those going straight,” it says “yield to traffic within the intersection.” And someone right on red may very well be “within the intersection.”
I’m asking for your legal basis on your final contention that a red light would not have right of way over a green light. Alabama law ***doesn’t*** say that (but I agree that it ***should!***)
Law says green go red stop. Right on red means STOP and yield to right of way which would be the green light drivers . Left on Green is Go, but yield to right of way which would be the other green light drivers going straight.
Red light does not have right of way over green as they are STOP by default while Green is GO. Green has right of way. I can't comprehend why anyone would think red light would have right of way over green in any circumstance.. 🤷♂️
Can't believe we need law sited to grasp that a green light supercedes red, but since work is slow
-----
Alabama Code Title 32. Motor Vehicles and Traffic § 32-5A-32
(3) Steady red indication:
a. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subdivision (3)b.
b. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
>Can't believe we need law sited to grasp that a green light supercedes red, but since work is slow
I've said from the very beginning that I ***AGREE*** with you that a green light ***SHOULD*** supersede a red light--the question is that the law ***DOESN'T*** say that.
Your law quote doesn't say what you are claiming. Yes, it says that right-on-red must yield, but left ***must ALSO yield:***
>(1) Green indication:
>
>a. Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn. **But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited.**
So what do you do when both red and green say "yield to each other"?
>Green light go- Red light stop, the green light has the right of way and the red light must ⚠️
By what law?
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Why don’t you Google the traffic laws in your state and find out? I didn’t see your other comment and I’ve never heard of “super yield” not sure where you’re quoting that from sorry.
Uh, I already did for Alabama (not my state, but the one OP mentioned). And it says left turns on green yield to traffic within the intersection and right turns on red yield to traffic using the intersection. So it is ***possible*** for both to have a yield condition with respect to each other.
I’m not quoting “super yield” from anything. What I’m saying is that ***both*** have a yield to each other—so why does the red light yield take precedence over the green light yield (as a matter of ***law***, again—I agree that it does and should in practice)?
No, that's an incorrect understanding of what a stop means. A stop simply means "stop, and then yield." There is no provision in law that says that a stop is more of a yield than something else.
Traffic laws are not made to detail each specific instance of every possible situation. It gives an overview or a guideline to be applied to each situation. For instance, if you had actually read the Alabama Vehicle Code section you keep saying "***doesn't*** say that," you would find that:
>a. Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn. But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited.
And that:
>a. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subdivision (3)b.
And when you look at the exception:
>b. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
So, according to the actual law, the right turn must yield because they are required to stop for a red and must yield to all traffic lawfully using the intersection before turning on red. Therefore the left turn with a green light lawfully has right of way.
TLDR: Green means go, red means stop. It's the law...
Just like with a flashing yellow turn light. The person turning right on red must stop and yeild to someone u-turning. A person turning at a red light always has to stop and yeild to traffic that has a green or flashing yellow light.
>The person turning right on red must stop and yeild to someone u-turning. A person turning at a red light always has to stop and yeild to traffic that has a green or flashing yellow light.
But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! Both have a yield condition to each other under Alabama law.
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
>Literally red means STOP
>
>Green will always have right of way over someone who has a RED. How is this even a question lmao
Stop is not a "super-yield" though. Stop means, well, ***stop***, and then yield.
Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
I think it depends on the amount of lanes. Cars NEVER FOLLOW THIS RULE but if both cars are turning on a road with two lanes, they could both theoretically go at the same time because the right turner and the left turner both need to turn in the nearest lane to them. Unfortunately this often goes ignored.
Left on green. If you're at a red light, you're "safe" -- you don't have to go anywhere. The person turning left (assume no arrow) has to go when there's a gap in incoming traffic. Let them go while it's safe. You wait.
The car at the red light yields to EVERYONE. Now, in practice many people ignore that rule and do a rolling (barely even) stop and just go for it. Perhaps they make it 99/100 times but they still technically need to yield for everyone. A pedestrian, a left turning car on green, a construction vehicle working the roads legally, etc. Hope that's clear
Green always means go. Red always means stop. If it's clear and safe to do so, then you can turn, but only AFTER you first stop. Green always has a right of way over red. If you don't do this, you'll be introduced to a new light: flashing blue.
How about the 1st person to react and go has the right away. So sick of slow ass drivers and thinkers to figure out wtf they're doing and then actually do it. I'm not here to sit around all day waiting for you. If I can do what I need to do without causing an accident, then I'm doing it.
That scenario doesn't happen. If you have a red, so does the opposing traffic turning left (unless they have protected left turn). If you have a solid (unprotected) green, so does the opposing traffic turning right (turning right on green has right of way, traffic wishing to turn on left yields to oncoming traffic). If that scenario could happen, it would be very wasteful of the intersection's resources and people's time.
You're right in theory, but there are places (Boston area in particular) where the light pattern includes protected lefts but there are no left arrows. It's super frustrating because you don't know if you have a protected left or when the protected left is ending.
whoever has the green light has right of way.
however if the guy at the red light making a right hand turn gets his nose out there - you should yield to not cause an accident.
You may have read it, but you clearly didn't understand it if you're still responding like this to people after countless others, including me, have shown you how the Alabama vehicle code accounts for this situation.
Alabama is actually a bit ambiguous on this. The UVC has wording that:
>Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one—way street into a one—way street, after stopping as required by subsection (c)1 or subsection (c)2. After stopping, **the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways.** Such driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.
Whereas Alabama merely states (AL Code 32-5A-32):
>Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a. **Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.**
The Alabama statute only requires yielding to traffic "lawfully using the intersection." In particular, this is the same wording used for the green indications. Alabama should likely revise its laws to clarify.
All of that said--I would still drive in the way all the other comments have indicated. Drivers have a duty to exercise due care, which includes taking necessary action to avoid a collision.
But the green light ***also*** says to yield to those "lawfully ***within*** the intersection." And in particular, the right on red allows entry into the intersection, so they are in fact "within" it. Here is the text.
>(1) Green indication:
>
>a. Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn. **But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection** or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited.
>
>b. Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. **Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.**
>...after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a.
Maybe I typed that too fast.
The red light means "stop". That means the vehicle trying to turn right on red must stop before proceeding to cautiously enter the intersection as stated in the law cited. The car turning left on a green light is under no obligation to stop if the intersection is clear. That means if both cars reach the intersection at the same time, the car with the red light must yield, as they *should* come to a complete stop before turning. Now, if the red light car gets there first and starts their turn before the left turn car, then the left turn car should yield to them.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear…I actually concur with you that this is what the law says. Left generally first (unless right was there first).
But most replies here are saying that the right on red must continue to stay stopped. That’s the part I’m saying isn’t clear under State law.
Perhaps, this is best illustrated if there were say 3 cars waiting to turn left. This first is in the intersection and maybe even the second, but what about the 3rd? Does the right on red have priority over that vehicle if the 3rd left turn hasn’t entered the intersection yet?
Here's a hint: "using" v.s. "within" is an intentional distinction. Yes, using is a little ambiguous but clearly doesn't just mean "currently IN the intersection"
The green light clauses just say "hey dumbass just cause it's green doesn't mean you can hit someone"
The red light clause says: "hey dumbass you can go if you won't hit anyone or cut anyone off"
In your 3 care example the 3rd car is obviously "using" the intersection so the red light yields.
My evidence for the above is that this is how everybody who doesn't breath through their mouth drives, and if you hit someone turning right on a red there's a 100% chance you're getting the ticket and fault for insurance purposes.
>In your 3 care \[sic\] example the 3rd car is obviously "using" the intersection so the red light \[sic\] yields.
I don't disagree with the fact that the vehicle facing the red light yields. However, assuming that such vehicle has pulled into and entered the intersection (as allowed, the right-on-red vehicle may "cautiously enter" the intersection), then the point that I'm making is that the left turn on green ***ALSO*** has a yield condition under the law, at least for a green circle:
>... vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully **within** the intersection.
There is no argument against the fact that a vehicle turning right-on-red may be "lawfully **within** the intersection" after "cautiously entering the intersection." The wording for green circle ***does not*** say "using."
A green arrow has a stronger argument, yes, because it uses the wording of "using." Looking back, I can see how one might not be "using" the intersection even if they are "within" it.
> My evidence for the above is that this is how everybody who doesn't breath through their mouth drives, and if you hit someone turning right on a red there's a 100% chance you're getting the ticket and fault for insurance purposes.
First, none of the above says anything about what the law is. Only statutes or court cases can do that. The fact that "everyone drives" a certain way certainly isn't the law (speeding?) and law enforcement is capable of issuing incorrect citations.
Second, I ***agreed*** that this is how people should drive still, all the way back at the beginning. The only thing that I added is that Alabama should modify its law to close a potential argument that a lawyer you could use. After all--that's ***literally*** their job. See my quote here:
> All of that said--I would still drive in the way all the other comments have indicated.
Right on red you stop, yield then go.
Green left is still a yield unless it's an arrow. Why are people saying it's okay WTF your gonna slam right into someone head on.
Red light means you yield to everything. If you see something approaching stay where you are.
Also, I don’t think traffic lights work like that. If you have a red light and the other side has a green, they also have a flashing arrow (or flashing green light). Feel free to let me know if that’s wrong tho.
Many have lights like that. Some intersections only allow one direction of cars at a time, instead of two. Therefore, it would be a solid green arrow. 👌
The car with the green light has right of way. The car at the red light has responsibility to yield to absolutely everyone else. Right turn on red is only legal if it's completely clear and your turn affects no one else.
This includes yielding to a person who is walking across the street. This is why "rolling stops" are so dangerous. Drivers need to learn to stop, fully, and look before turning.
This ALSO includes U-turns; a car doing a U-turn on green has right-of-way over a car wanting to turn right into the same lane, even though the car doing a U-turn can't properly signal their intention. The red light means yield to everything.
I wish I had a nickel for every car I see that didn't stop on a RTOR.
Or you need to stop doing RTOR
I have. It's not too long to wait and it's a lot less dangerous.
Chad. I know an intersection where it's allowed, but I never do it.
Don’t ever get beeped at by someone behind you wanting to turn right too? Thats happens to me in NYC where signs allow RTOR and I didn’t see the sign.
If the road you both are turning on has two lanes each direction you both can go at the same time. Depending on your state
Where I live a left turn can end in whatever lane they want (so long as there's only one left turn lane), so a right turn could possibly cut off the left turn.
Yea that’s why I said state dependent. Many states you have to turn into the closest lane possible
I wasn't contradicting you, just explaining which part of the law is different place-to-place. (As opposed to right turns going into other lanes, which isn't ok anywhere with left hand drive cars, to the best of my knowledge.)
That's wild lol
>The car at the red light has responsibility to yield to absolutely everyone else. Right turn on red is only legal if it's completely clear and your turn affects no one else. But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
I'm not sure why that is such a tough question? Google comes up with the [exact answer](https://www.google.com/search?q=alabama%20statute%20right%20on%20red) in the top result.
I literally quoted that law, and it does not support what you are saying. Can you explain why you think it does?
Yes it does. You're misinterpreting the law.
It most certainly does not.
You never have the right of way at a red light over someone with a green. Red doesn’t mean yield. It means stop.
>Red doesn’t mean yield. It means stop. It means stop, and then yield. Stop is not a "super-yield." Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you on the desired outcome. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Dude.... can you just drop the whole "super yield" and stop trying to overcomplicate a very simple driving law? Regardless of what state, the rules of driving are *very* simple. Red means **stop.** Green means **go**. So, please, stop making this more confusing and taxing than it has to be. It is a privilege it be able to turn right at a red light because it would suggest light traffic. If cars are coming, including ones in the turning left into the lane you want to turn in, by ANY laws, not just Alabama's you must stay stopped because you are at a red light and it is not safe to go because there is active traffic that you would be interfering upon.
>Dude.... can you just drop the whole "super yield" and stop trying to overcomplicate a very simple driving law? Well, people keep saying that stop means more than yield, and that just ain't so. In a hypothetical example where one person has already stopped at a stop sign and another person is approaching a yield sign, **the yield sign DOES NOT have right of way.** >Regardless of what state, the rules of driving are *very* simple. That's just not true at all. There are variations in rules in each of the 50 states. >Red means **stop.** Green means **go**. ***Because*** of the way that they are defined in State law. There is no reason--beyond the fact that it would be confusing--that a state could not define the meaning of traffic signals otherwise. This ***already*** happens in the case of red arrows. In most states, a red arrow is no different than a red light. Stop, but right-on-red permitted. But in some states, a red arrow automatically prohibits right-on-red, even without the need of posting a regulatory sign. >If cars are coming, including ones in the turning left into the lane you want to turn in, by ANY laws, not just Alabama's you must stay stopped because you are at a red light and it is not safe to go because there is active traffic that you would be interfering upon. This has ***NEVER*** been the point of contention (and strictly speaking, it isn't accurate--you must ***yield***, not necessarily remain stopped). The issue is that the green light left turn ***ALSO*** has a yield condition. And there is ***NOTHING*** in Alabama law that clarifies that the red light yield is "more" than the green light left turn yield. **This is exactly what OP's question has been from the beginning.** Other states clarify that a driver must "continue to yield." **Literally the only thing I have said from the beginning is that Alabama should do the same.**
The hypotheticals being laid out here would simply not exist in my state. A 4-way intersection without a traffic light is only going to have 3 possible configurations here. 1) two stop signs on opposing corners where the other street doesn't have to slow. 2) two yield signs on opposing corners where the other street doesn't slow. 3) 4-way stop. There would simply never be an intersection where one street has stop signs and the other street has yield signs because of the logic problems that would be introduced, as described in your post. The OP's scenario would also not exist in my state. If a traffic signal has a left turn yield on green, they would be yielding to traffic traveling the opposite direction with a green light. The opposing traffic would only have a red light in that scenario if the car turning left has a green turn arrow which is being protected by the red light. The green arrow would definitely have right-of-way over a right on red. In the hypothetical laid out by the OP, I a green light would still have priority over a red even though there are yield conditions attached to both traffic lights.
>There would simply never be an intersection where one street has stop signs and the other street has yield signs because of the logic problems that would be introduced, as described in your post. Here's an [example of an intersection](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3800171,-84.560417,3a,75y,263.52h,91.8t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOv9XaubSUDGZeAKI8LTWrg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DOv9XaubSUDGZeAKI8LTWrg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.03127%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) in my state with them. And [plenty of others](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3876023,-84.5635343,3a,75y,191h,91.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6OXfo0akvKjVKZNbfxCYMg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) with more common "slip lanes." I also don't understand what "logic problem" you think that there is. If you can figure out a 4-way stop, then you should be able to figure out an X-way stop + Y-way yield. The yields function identically to a stop sign with the one exception that if a stop is not ***needed***, then it is not ***required.*** >If a traffic signal has a left turn yield on green, they would be yielding to traffic traveling the opposite direction with a green light. The opposing traffic would only have a red light in that scenario if the car turning left has a green turn arrow which is being protected by the red light. The green arrow would definitely have right-of-way over a right on red. It's not very common, but this happens at intersections with [delayed or extended greens](https://dejpknyizje2n.cloudfront.net/svgcustom/clipart/preview/clipart-11590-26904-550x550.png). But even in this case with a green arrow, what the law ***actually*** says is almost word-for-word the same as what it says for right on red. Both say that the vehicle may "cautiously enter" and then that "\[s\]uch vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection." >In the hypothetical laid out by the OP, I a green light would still have priority over a red even though there are yield conditions attached to both traffic lights. My question the entire time has been: "on what legal basis do you make this conclusion." Since the wording is the ***same***, how can it mean one thing for a green arrow to proceed with right of way, but then the ***exact same*** wording means the opposite for right-on-red to **not** proceed and yield right of way.
This is why there are so many accidents 🤦🏼♀️
In the US, the green light has the right of way. Firstly, they literally have the green light. They are already moving, the red light driver is not. Turning at a red light always requires you to stop, yield and safely move into traffic if it’s safe to do so. In no way is a right turn at a red light an act that is guaranteed or offers any right of way. That’s why some intersections go so far as to say “no right on red during x times” or go further as to add specific arrows at lights when these things become problems. In theory if it’s a 2 lane road they can both take the turn into their respective lanes but that is putting your whole car in the faith of a stranger who probably doesn’t care about you or even know the rules of the road.
>Turning at a red light always requires you to stop, yield and safely move into traffic if it’s safe to do so. But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Whoever has the green light. A red light means you have to stop. If you're allowed to turn right on a red, it's explicitly stated that you can only do so when it's safe. The person with a green light does not have to stop, you do.
>A red light means you have to stop. If you're allowed to turn right on a red, it's explicitly stated that you can only do so when it's safe. Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? Alabama has conflicting language in that it directs right-on-red to yield, but ***also*** turn-on-green to yield. My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
It's no "superyield." If the right-turning traffic has a red light, the left-turning traffic that conflicts with the right-on-red has a protected light or an advance light that is intended to allow them to turn. If they both have green lights, the person turning right has right-of-way but it's no longer a turn on red.
>the left-turning traffic that conflicts with the right-on-red has a protected light or an advance light that is intended to allow them to turn. Sure, I agree that's the intent. The problem is that Alabama law says that left turns ***also*** have to yield to traffic "within" the intersection. So if a vehicle turning right-on-red has "cautiously entered" the intersection (as permitted by law after stopping), then ***both*** have a yield to each other.
If the right-turning car has entered the intersection (illegally), then yes, the left turning driver has an obligation to do what is in their power to avoid an accident. In most cases that is just steering around someone who's nosed a little too far forward.
>If the right-turning car has entered the intersection (illegally) \[Citation needed\]. The law permits a vehicle turning right-on-red to "cautiously enter" the intersection. This is the ***same*** wording used in the green arrow section, so if you are saying it is unlawful to enter the intersection for a right-on-red, then you must also be saying that it is unlawful to enter for a left-on-green-arrow.
>Both of you are supposed to yield to the other, so who takes priority? No. This is wrong. Whoever has the red light is supposed to stop, period. If you are taking a right and can turn right on red, you must yield to oncoming traffic and make sure the intersection is clear before turning. The person who has a green light always has the right of way.
>Whoever has the red light is supposed to stop, period. If you are taking a right and can turn right on red, you must yield to oncoming traffic and make sure the intersection is clear before turning. But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
You never have the right of way when you’re at a red light..
>Both of you are supposed to yield to the other, so who takes priority? Like others said, a red light isn't a yield; it's a stop, and would be at the very bottom of the right-of-way list. But also, maybe I'm just sleepy and missing something obvious, but the only time I can even imagine your scenario playing out in the first place would be a light system that didn't have arrows built in, so it was green on only one side to *allow* people to turn against the paused oncoming traffic. And in that situation, red would obviously still yield, because that'd be the whole point of the green light in the first place. Either way, yeah, red means stop. If you hit someone because you went through a red light, you're at fault, full stop (heh).
>a red light isn't a yield; it's a stop, and would be at the very bottom of the right-of-way list. A stop is not a "super-yield." A stop means, well, ***stop***, and then yield. Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Pulled from Alabama Code Title 32. Motor Vehicles and Traffic § 32-5A-32: >(1) Green indication: >a. **Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn**. But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall **yield** the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians **lawfully** **within the intersection** or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited. And >(3) Steady red indication: >a. **Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop** at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subdivision (3)b. >b. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and **to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.** So the green indication clearly says that green is a **yield** to cars already in the intersection. Not a full stop and *then* yield. The steady red indication clearly says the vehicle has to **stop** at either a clearly marked line or before the crosswalk until given an indication to proceed, and *then* yield to lawful traffic in the intersection. OP is saying that they are **stopped** at a red light. This means they are not in the intersection. The green light has full permission to go because nobody is in the intersection. If OP turns before anyone is at the green light on the other side, they'd have right of way. But per OP's post, two cars that are there at the exact same time, one at a red and the other at a green? Green goes, red waits, because red wouldn't be in the intersection yet. If red does go early when someone else is there, they are not "lawfully within the intersection," per 1a.
There’s no need to quote the law at me, I’ve already quoted it myself, as referenced above. Yes, I agree that the right-on-red must stop first. However, what about ***after*** that. Imagine that there are 3 cars turning left on green in a row, and that the 3rd car has not entered the intersection yet. Further, suppose the right-turn-on-red car “cautiously enters” the intersection after stopping and yields to the first 2 cars turning left who entered before the right-turn-on-red car does. What happens then? My point is that you said a stop is at the bottom of the right-of-way list, and while that’s true if the vehicle hasn’t stopped ***yet,*** that gets thrown out of the window once the vehicle has done so. After stopping, a stop sign is just a yield like any other.
>There’s no need to quote the law at me, I’ve already quoted it myself, as referenced above. I requoted it to you because the parts I bolded make the law pretty clear. Maybe you should re-read it. >However, what about ***after*** that. Imagine that there are 3 cars turning left on green in a row, and that the 3rd car has not entered the intersection yet. Further, suppose the right-turn-on-red car “cautiously enters” the intersection after stopping and yields to the first 2 cars turning left who entered before the right-turn-on-red car does. What happens then? If you actually read my comment, I explicitly addressed this scenario as well. I'll quote it again for you, too: >OP is saying that they are **stopped** at a red light. This means they are not in the intersection. The green light has full permission to go because nobody is in the intersection. If OP turns before anyone is at the green light on the other side, they'd have right of way. But per OP's post, two cars that are there at the exact same time, one at a red and the other at a green? Green goes, red waits, because red wouldn't be in the intersection yet. If red does go early when someone else is there, they are not "lawfully within the intersection," per 1a. So in your scenario with three cars on green and the one red stopped at the light, the law clearly says the car on red should remain *stopped* *outside of the intersection* until the intersection is completely clear. If the car on red *does* decide to go or "cautiously enter the intersection" before it is clear then the red light car broke the law. If it was clear, then they didn't.
> I requoted it to you because the parts I bolded make the law pretty clear. Maybe you should re-read it. I read it just fine, thank you very much. But contrary to your claim, the law is ***not*** clear. Compare Alabama's wording to other State laws: >Uniform Vehicle Code: After stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. > >Georgia: Traffic, except pedestrians, facing a steady CIRCULAR RED signal, after stopping as provided in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, may make a right turn but shall stop and remain stopped for pedestrians and yield the right of way to other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at such intersection. > >California: A driver making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety. All three of these handle the "continuous traffic" scenario in a way that Alabama's law does not. The UVC does it by requiring yielding to "immediate hazards during the time" the driver would be in the intersection; Georgia does it by clarifying the yield applies to traffic "proceeding" under the signal; and California explicitly states that such driver shall "continue to yield." >the law clearly says the car on red should remain *stopped* *outside of the intersection* until the intersection is completely clear. If the car on red *does* decide to go or "cautiously enter the intersection" before it is clear then the red light car broke the law. The Alabama law says **no such thing.** There is no wording that the intersection must be "clear." Further, the "cautiously enter" is not tied to the requirement to yield and does not mean "only when clear". A driver "cautiously enters" and ***then*** yields. In particular, see the wording for subsection 1(b) for a green arrow: >Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, **may cautiously enter** the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. **Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.** If the cautiously enter ***were*** tied to a yield requirement and meant "only enter when clear," then you have a new problem--left turns on green arrows would not be permitted to enter if there were anyone else in the intersection, even if it were a non-conflicting opposing left-turn.
I don’t think advancing into headcoming traffic, as outlined in your three left turner scenario, could fairly be called a ‘cautious entry.’ You are implying that you have chosen to make a slow entry to check for clarity, when none was needed, as it was clear by signaled intent and traffic light law that the intersection did not need checked. That you even imply this to be a realistic application of the law says a lot about you. Sure, it could be rewritten for higher specificity, but it seems as though it has not been a big issue. Or do you have a specific case example where this interpretation linchpinned the outcome?
>I don’t think advancing into headcoming traffic, as outlined in your three left turner scenario, could fairly be called a ‘cautious entry.’ You are implying that you have chosen to make a slow entry to check for clarity, when none was needed, as it was clear by signaled intent and traffic light law that the intersection did not need checked. But this is the ***same*** wording that is used for the green arrow! If it is not "cautiously entering" for a right-on-red, then it ***also*** cannot be "cautiously entering" for the left-on-green arrow. >That you even imply this to be a realistic application of the law says a lot about you. I don't think that's a fair criticism. I have said from the very beginning that I think people should drive the way others expect them to do so. My only point has been that Alabama should revise its traffic code, which it hasn't done for this particular section in 44 years. >Sure, it could be rewritten for higher specificity, but it seems as though it has not been a big issue. Another point of criticism is that they do not even ***define*** the meanings of flashing-yellow arrows or red arrows. But Alabama definitely uses them.
" ~~Both of you are supposed to yield to the other~~ " That is wrong wrong wrong. If you are turning right on red, do not block or slow down turning traffic that is in an intersection.
>" ~~Both of you are supposed to yield to the other~~ " That is wrong wrong wrong. By what law? Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
The person with the green light. Green > Red. It really is that simple. Always.
Average r/driving poster
This belongs on r/iamthemaincharacter
Lol you should probably just get off the road
You actually have to ask if you have the right of way AT A RED LIGHT?!
Green means go, red for a person turning right means stop and proceed. You learn this in driving school lmao
Green always goes first. For turning right on red, you need to treat as a stop sign at all times. Anyone who has a green light has the right away. I'm having trouble understanding your question because if the traffic across from you has a green light and they're making a left turning where you need to turn right, then that means they have a green arrow and you need to stop for them. Unless if it's cross traffic turning left, then it doesn't have an impact on you to turn right.
Around me, there are intersections where one side gets the green before the other side. It is a delayed green.
>For turning right on red, you need to treat as a stop sign at all times. A stop is not a "super-yield." A stop means to, well, ***stop***, and then yield. Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
The person with the green light has the right of way, the person with the red light must stop and/or yield.
But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! The left turn ***also*** has a yield condition written into their law. Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
I'm in Nevada, and the only other place I've ever lived is California, so I'm not gonna disagree with you either :)
Left on green
Left turn has right of way if the right turn has a red light.
>Left turn has right of way if the right turn has a red light. But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! The left turn ***also*** has a yield condition written into their law. Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
The red light is what states that. The only time a left turn yields to a right turn is when both have green lights. Literally, the red light is the determining factor in this situation.
[Citation needed]. That’s what I (and OP) are asking. You can’t just say that is the case as a matter of law when the law ***doesn’t*** say that!
Traffic laws are not made to detail each specific instance of every possible situation. It gives an overview or a guideline to be applied to each situation. For instance, if you had actually read the Alabama Vehicle Code section you keep saying "***doesn't*** say that," you would find that: >a. Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn. But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited. And that: >a. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subdivision (3)b. And when you look at the exception: >b. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection. So, according to the actual law, the right turn must yield because they are required to stop for a red and must yield to all traffic lawfully using the intersection before turning on red. Therefore the left turn with a green light lawfully has right of way. TLDR: Green means go, red means stop. It's the law...
Left on green.
Right on red yields to on coming traffic from left side youll read that on the signal lights part of the drivers hand book. Left on green yields to on coming traffic thats why some signs have yield on green meaning yield to oncoming traffic before turning left youll find it in the same section of the book. And right of way is given not taken based on the book. Hehehe im about to take the test and tend to memorize stuff so its still fresh for me. Hope i answered your questions.
>Right on red yields to on coming traffic from left side youll read that on the signal lights part of the drivers hand book. Left on green yields to on coming traffic thats why some signs have yield on green meaning yield to oncoming traffic before turning left youll find it in the same section of the book. But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! They both have a yield condition to each other. Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Sorry i didnt put the referrence my info is from Texas drivers handbook :)
The Texas Driver's Handbook does not necessarily state the law with respect to Texas and it ***certainly*** has no bearing on the law in Alabama. At any rate, I still wish you good luck on your Texas driving test.
Ohhh thank you :) and yes you're right about that.
The left on green With a red light, unless you have a sign saying no turn on red preventing you from doing so, you always yield to oncoming traffic and only then can you safely turn on red once traffic is clear
>you always yield to oncoming traffic and only then can you safely turn on red once traffic is clear But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! The left turn ***also*** has a yield condition. Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
[удалено]
>When you have a red light, you yield to everyone who does not. By what law? Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Green trumps red
>Green trumps red By what law? Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Well green means go red means stop so in who has the right away to go, it would be green.
That's...woefully incomplete. A left turn on a green circle cannot simply "go" if there is oncoming traffic (that they must yield to). And a red light does not forbid all movement (for example, right-on-red). Further, a stop is not a "super-yield" that ranks below a regular yield. OP's question is precisely the conflict of these two: the left turn vehicle faces a green signal but must yield to traffic within the intersection. The right-on-red vehicle must yield to traffic using the intersection. When both must yield to each other, how is the tie broken? In normal cases--like two vehicles stopping at a stop sign at the same time--the answer is either "yield-to-right" (which doesn't apply, the two are opposite each other) or "first to enter" (which implies an ***alternation*** between the left turns and right turns).
Left turn green would yield to those going straight as they have the right of way. Right Turn on red would yield to anyone going that way from a green light as their light is red and green has the right of way. Hense my simplification of Green Go, Red Stop. A red light would not have the right of way over a green light.
But that’s not what the law says! Left turn doesn’t say “yield to those going straight,” it says “yield to traffic within the intersection.” And someone right on red may very well be “within the intersection.” I’m asking for your legal basis on your final contention that a red light would not have right of way over a green light. Alabama law ***doesn’t*** say that (but I agree that it ***should!***)
Law says green go red stop. Right on red means STOP and yield to right of way which would be the green light drivers . Left on Green is Go, but yield to right of way which would be the other green light drivers going straight. Red light does not have right of way over green as they are STOP by default while Green is GO. Green has right of way. I can't comprehend why anyone would think red light would have right of way over green in any circumstance.. 🤷♂️
Because you keep saying things with no proof! Repeating your entire paragraph with no legal backing doesn’t make it more right.
Can't believe we need law sited to grasp that a green light supercedes red, but since work is slow ----- Alabama Code Title 32. Motor Vehicles and Traffic § 32-5A-32 (3) Steady red indication: a. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subdivision (3)b. b. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
>Can't believe we need law sited to grasp that a green light supercedes red, but since work is slow I've said from the very beginning that I ***AGREE*** with you that a green light ***SHOULD*** supersede a red light--the question is that the law ***DOESN'T*** say that. Your law quote doesn't say what you are claiming. Yes, it says that right-on-red must yield, but left ***must ALSO yield:*** >(1) Green indication: > >a. Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn. **But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited.** So what do you do when both red and green say "yield to each other"?
Green light go- Red light stop, the green light has the right of way and the red light must ⚠️
>Green light go- Red light stop, the green light has the right of way and the red light must ⚠️ By what law? Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Why don’t you Google the traffic laws in your state and find out? I didn’t see your other comment and I’ve never heard of “super yield” not sure where you’re quoting that from sorry.
Uh, I already did for Alabama (not my state, but the one OP mentioned). And it says left turns on green yield to traffic within the intersection and right turns on red yield to traffic using the intersection. So it is ***possible*** for both to have a yield condition with respect to each other. I’m not quoting “super yield” from anything. What I’m saying is that ***both*** have a yield to each other—so why does the red light yield take precedence over the green light yield (as a matter of ***law***, again—I agree that it does and should in practice)?
Red light traffic has to actually stop first before entering the intersection, though.
And? What do they do ***after stopping***? Stop is not a “super yield” that has to keep yielding in preference to other yields.
Lol, that's literally what it is.
No, that's an incorrect understanding of what a stop means. A stop simply means "stop, and then yield." There is no provision in law that says that a stop is more of a yield than something else.
Traffic laws are not made to detail each specific instance of every possible situation. It gives an overview or a guideline to be applied to each situation. For instance, if you had actually read the Alabama Vehicle Code section you keep saying "***doesn't*** say that," you would find that: >a. Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn. But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited. And that: >a. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subdivision (3)b. And when you look at the exception: >b. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection. So, according to the actual law, the right turn must yield because they are required to stop for a red and must yield to all traffic lawfully using the intersection before turning on red. Therefore the left turn with a green light lawfully has right of way. TLDR: Green means go, red means stop. It's the law...
Because it’s a red light.
So…nothing. Nothing in Alabama law says “red lights yield in preference to other lights.”
Red has no rights. Green trumps red at all times.
Just like with a flashing yellow turn light. The person turning right on red must stop and yeild to someone u-turning. A person turning at a red light always has to stop and yeild to traffic that has a green or flashing yellow light.
>The person turning right on red must stop and yeild to someone u-turning. A person turning at a red light always has to stop and yeild to traffic that has a green or flashing yellow light. But this is ***precisely*** OP's question! Both have a yield condition to each other under Alabama law. Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
Literally red means STOP Green will always have right of way over someone who has a RED. How is this even a question lmao
>Literally red means STOP > >Green will always have right of way over someone who has a RED. How is this even a question lmao Stop is not a "super-yield" though. Stop means, well, ***stop***, and then yield. Let me clear upfront: I ***agree*** with you. But from a legal standpoint: what law in Alabama states that right-on-red is a "super-yield" that has to yield to all other traffic? My other comment which is being downvoted is merely saying that Alabama needs to codify that rule.
I think it depends on the amount of lanes. Cars NEVER FOLLOW THIS RULE but if both cars are turning on a road with two lanes, they could both theoretically go at the same time because the right turner and the left turner both need to turn in the nearest lane to them. Unfortunately this often goes ignored.
Depends on the law. Some places may support that legally, others may not.
Left on green. If you're at a red light, you're "safe" -- you don't have to go anywhere. The person turning left (assume no arrow) has to go when there's a gap in incoming traffic. Let them go while it's safe. You wait.
The car with green light lol
Always green.
Left on green
The car at the red light yields to EVERYONE. Now, in practice many people ignore that rule and do a rolling (barely even) stop and just go for it. Perhaps they make it 99/100 times but they still technically need to yield for everyone. A pedestrian, a left turning car on green, a construction vehicle working the roads legally, etc. Hope that's clear
Green always means go. Red always means stop. If it's clear and safe to do so, then you can turn, but only AFTER you first stop. Green always has a right of way over red. If you don't do this, you'll be introduced to a new light: flashing blue.
How about the 1st person to react and go has the right away. So sick of slow ass drivers and thinkers to figure out wtf they're doing and then actually do it. I'm not here to sit around all day waiting for you. If I can do what I need to do without causing an accident, then I'm doing it.
That scenario doesn't happen. If you have a red, so does the opposing traffic turning left (unless they have protected left turn). If you have a solid (unprotected) green, so does the opposing traffic turning right (turning right on green has right of way, traffic wishing to turn on left yields to oncoming traffic). If that scenario could happen, it would be very wasteful of the intersection's resources and people's time.
Around here (north FL) there are intersections where one side gets the green light before the other by 30 seconds to a minute.
You're right in theory, but there are places (Boston area in particular) where the light pattern includes protected lefts but there are no left arrows. It's super frustrating because you don't know if you have a protected left or when the protected left is ending.
I don’t know why you are being downvoted. Literally the only person here to actually analyze the scenario instead of blindly answering.
I've been getting kinda sick of reddit because of this lol Just random downvotes on things.
whoever has the green light has right of way. however if the guy at the red light making a right hand turn gets his nose out there - you should yield to not cause an accident.
Right on red must only go when it's clear. A left turning car means it's not clear.
The word "clear" is nowhere in the statute.
Lol k
Well, I mean, for someone who accused me of misinterpreting the law, you appear to not even have ***read*** it.
Well you did.
Did read it? Yes, I did read it.
You may have read it, but you clearly didn't understand it if you're still responding like this to people after countless others, including me, have shown you how the Alabama vehicle code accounts for this situation.
Alabama is actually a bit ambiguous on this. The UVC has wording that: >Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one—way street into a one—way street, after stopping as required by subsection (c)1 or subsection (c)2. After stopping, **the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways.** Such driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk. Whereas Alabama merely states (AL Code 32-5A-32): >Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a. **Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.** The Alabama statute only requires yielding to traffic "lawfully using the intersection." In particular, this is the same wording used for the green indications. Alabama should likely revise its laws to clarify. All of that said--I would still drive in the way all the other comments have indicated. Drivers have a duty to exercise due care, which includes taking necessary action to avoid a collision.
I don’t think that’s ambiguous. The left turn on the green light is lawfully using the intersection, so the right turn on red yields
But the green light ***also*** says to yield to those "lawfully ***within*** the intersection." And in particular, the right on red allows entry into the intersection, so they are in fact "within" it. Here is the text. >(1) Green indication: > >a. Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn. **But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection** or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited. > >b. Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. **Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.**
>...after stopping as required by subdivision (3)a. Maybe I typed that too fast. The red light means "stop". That means the vehicle trying to turn right on red must stop before proceeding to cautiously enter the intersection as stated in the law cited. The car turning left on a green light is under no obligation to stop if the intersection is clear. That means if both cars reach the intersection at the same time, the car with the red light must yield, as they *should* come to a complete stop before turning. Now, if the red light car gets there first and starts their turn before the left turn car, then the left turn car should yield to them.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear…I actually concur with you that this is what the law says. Left generally first (unless right was there first). But most replies here are saying that the right on red must continue to stay stopped. That’s the part I’m saying isn’t clear under State law. Perhaps, this is best illustrated if there were say 3 cars waiting to turn left. This first is in the intersection and maybe even the second, but what about the 3rd? Does the right on red have priority over that vehicle if the 3rd left turn hasn’t entered the intersection yet?
Here's a hint: "using" v.s. "within" is an intentional distinction. Yes, using is a little ambiguous but clearly doesn't just mean "currently IN the intersection" The green light clauses just say "hey dumbass just cause it's green doesn't mean you can hit someone" The red light clause says: "hey dumbass you can go if you won't hit anyone or cut anyone off" In your 3 care example the 3rd car is obviously "using" the intersection so the red light yields. My evidence for the above is that this is how everybody who doesn't breath through their mouth drives, and if you hit someone turning right on a red there's a 100% chance you're getting the ticket and fault for insurance purposes.
>In your 3 care \[sic\] example the 3rd car is obviously "using" the intersection so the red light \[sic\] yields. I don't disagree with the fact that the vehicle facing the red light yields. However, assuming that such vehicle has pulled into and entered the intersection (as allowed, the right-on-red vehicle may "cautiously enter" the intersection), then the point that I'm making is that the left turn on green ***ALSO*** has a yield condition under the law, at least for a green circle: >... vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully **within** the intersection. There is no argument against the fact that a vehicle turning right-on-red may be "lawfully **within** the intersection" after "cautiously entering the intersection." The wording for green circle ***does not*** say "using." A green arrow has a stronger argument, yes, because it uses the wording of "using." Looking back, I can see how one might not be "using" the intersection even if they are "within" it. > My evidence for the above is that this is how everybody who doesn't breath through their mouth drives, and if you hit someone turning right on a red there's a 100% chance you're getting the ticket and fault for insurance purposes. First, none of the above says anything about what the law is. Only statutes or court cases can do that. The fact that "everyone drives" a certain way certainly isn't the law (speeding?) and law enforcement is capable of issuing incorrect citations. Second, I ***agreed*** that this is how people should drive still, all the way back at the beginning. The only thing that I added is that Alabama should modify its law to close a potential argument that a lawyer you could use. After all--that's ***literally*** their job. See my quote here: > All of that said--I would still drive in the way all the other comments have indicated.
Right on red you stop, yield then go. Green left is still a yield unless it's an arrow. Why are people saying it's okay WTF your gonna slam right into someone head on.
If everyone has a red light except you who are you going to hit head-on?
Red light means you yield to everything. If you see something approaching stay where you are. Also, I don’t think traffic lights work like that. If you have a red light and the other side has a green, they also have a flashing arrow (or flashing green light). Feel free to let me know if that’s wrong tho.
Many have lights like that. Some intersections only allow one direction of cars at a time, instead of two. Therefore, it would be a solid green arrow. 👌
>(or flashing green light). A flashing green light has no meaning (in the US) and cannot be used.