How should turn lane pavement markings be interpreted in Idaho? There's a certain intersection in Idaho, USA that's causing confusion for a lot of drivers. As you can see in the photo, the pavement widens near the intersection, as if there should be a right turn lane. But the widening area is marked with diagonal lines. The turn arrows show that the same lane should be used for traffic going straight and turning right. The only lane usage indicators are the pavement markings and traffic lights. There is no additional signage. Many drivers turn right from the area with the diagonal stripes, and many others turn right from the lane with the right and straight arrows. There's no clear consensus among drivers on how to make right turns here. I asked the highway department about it, and they said &quot;...even though this area is not specifically striped as a right turn lane (there isn’t enough room to physically stripe a dedicated area for right turning vehicles), drivers who use it as such are acting lawfully.&quot; They cited Idaho Code 49-644, which says, &quot;Both the approach for a right turn and the right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.&quot; Their answer could be correct, but it doesn't feel right to me. I was taught to stay off diagonal lines, and to turn where the arrows are. I searched as many places as I could think of, including titles 40 and 49 of the Idaho code, and I couldn't find the specific meanings of turn arrows or diagonal stripes. What is the correct way to turn right at this intersection, and why?
The &quot;definition&quot; of diagonal crosshatches is given in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, under §3B.24, which says: Option: 01 Chevron and diagonal crosshatch markings may be used to discourage travel on certain paved areas, such as shoulders, gore areas, flush median areas between solid double yellow center line markings or between white channelizing lines approaching obstructions in the roadway (see Section 3B.10 and Figure 3B-15), between solid double yellow center line markings forming flush medians or channelized travel paths at intersections (see Figures 3B-2 and 3B-5), buffer spaces between preferential lanes and general-purpose lanes (see Figures 3D-2 and 3D-4), and at grade crossings (see Part 8). Standard: 02 When crosshatch markings are used in paved areas that separate traffic flows in the same general direction, they shall be white and they shall be shaped as chevron markings, with the point of each chevron facing toward approaching traffic, as shown in Figure 3B-8, Drawing A of Figure 3B-9, Figure 3B-10, and Drawing C of Figure 3B-15. 03 When crosshatch markings are used in paved areas that separate opposing directions of traffic, they shall be yellow diagonal markings that slant away from traffic in the adjacent travel lanes, as shown in Figures 3B-2 and 3B-5 and Drawings A and B of Figure 3B-15. 04 When crosshatch markings are used on paved shoulders, they shall be diagonal markings that slant away from traffic in the adjacent travel lane. The diagonal markings shall be yellow when used on the left- hand shoulders of the roadways of divided highways and on the left-hand shoulders of one-way streets or ramps. The diagonal markings shall be white when used on right-hand shoulders. Guidance: 05 The chevrons and diagonal lines used for crosshatch markings should be at least 12 inches wide for roadways having a posted or statutory speed limit of 45 mph or greater, and at least 8 inches wide for roadways having posted or statutory speed limit of less than 45 mph. The longitudinal spacing of the chevrons or diagonal lines should be determined by engineering judgment considering factors such as speeds and desired visual impacts. The chevrons and diagonal lines should form an angle of approximately 30 to 45 degrees with the longitudinal lines that they intersect. Idaho adopts this standard, and has not modified it in this area. Idaho statutes 49-801 commands you to &quot;obey the instructions of any traffic-control device placed or held in accordance with the provisions of this title&quot;. The pertinent section of MUTCD does not command, is says that you are discouraged from traveling. §49-644 commands you to make the turn &quot;as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway&quot;. You should first obey commands, then I suppose you should take their suggestions.
In my State (Louisiana, USA), pedestrians may walk on the side of the road. No guidance is given on how fast they should walk. Pedestrians are not allowed to walk in the middle of the street. In the US, the laws for this will vary by state. Louisiana has statutes that say that pedestrians are bound by traffic laws, and obstruction of traffic is not legal on foot or in a vehicle. Basically, consult your local laws. §216. Pedestrians on highways or interstate highways A. Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent highway. B. Where sidewalks are not provided, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk only on the left side of the highway or its shoulder, facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction. C. It shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to cross an interstate highway, except in the case of an emergency. D. Upon conviction of a violation of this Section, a court may order, in lieu of the penalty provisions provided in R.S. 32:57, that the offender perform three eight-hour days of court-approved community service activities, at least half of which shall consist of participation in a litter abatement or collection program. §213. Crossing at other than crosswalks A. Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. B. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. &quot;Highway&quot; means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place of whatever nature publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for the purpose of vehicular travel, including bridges, causeways, tunnels and ferries; synonymous with the word &quot;street&quot;.
Law does not have an all-encompassing syntax and structure that, if not followed, makes it null and void. If a reasonable person could determine that (in the example of the sign you have) you are required to get written permission from any or all of the Paulding County Commissioners, then the sign is enforceable. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the sign you are displaying, it is reasonably clear. If, for example the notice contains an ambiguity or unclear phrase, the &quot;spirit&quot; of the law or sign is upheld. If the sign had said something to the effect of &quot;No trespassing without permission&quot;. It doesn't say who you need permission from, but you can reasonably ascertain that you must have permission from somebody in control of the land. There is no line in the sand here. Often when a dispute in a contract comes up where it could be interpreted more than one way, it is often interpreted in favor of the person who did not write the contract. &quot;Offer ends October 30 or while supplies last&quot; Isn't really &quot;ill-phrased&quot; either. I assure you that those statements are vetted by highly paid lawyers from many jurisdictions. I'm not sure what &quot;nonsense&quot; you would be referring to in there. If the vendor runs out of promotional materials the promotion ends... If they had said &quot;free hats to the first 100 customers on December 31st&quot;, you can't show up as the 101st customer and demand a hat, nor could you show up on January 1st (even if there were not 100 customers the previous day) and demand one either.
For interstate and federal highways at least, there are regulations. For example, the billboards in Times Square are illegal. But it turns out this billboard, and others plastering Times Square, may actually be illegal. Under a federal highway beautification law, the billboards are too big – the law states that [billboards] should not be larger than 1200 square feet. Last week, the city’s transportation commissioner said the billboards may have to be taken down, or New York could risk losing ten percent of its federal highway funds. The Highway Beautification Act and various amendments can be referenced here.
No, she cannot 42-2-101(3), C.R.S. provides: “No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has in his or her immediate possession a current driver’s or minor driver’s license or an instruction permit issued by the department under this article.” &quot;(5) No person who has been issued a currently valid driver's or minor driver's license or an instruction permit shall operate a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without having such license or permit in such person's immediate possession.&quot; The law requires you to carry your license. If your sister only has an instruction permit in her possession, she must operate under its rules until she is in possession of her permanent license. Just in case people think &quot;highway&quot; means a high-speed roadway, the CRS defines highway: &quot;Highway&quot; means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel or the entire width of every way declared to be a public highway by any law of this state.
"Public space" is not a relevant criteria when considering trespass or other crimes/torts against property. The relevant criteria is who owns it and what they allow you to do on it. All land in the USA is owned by someone. That someone may be a government; that does not make it a public space - Camp David is owned by the US government; it is certainly not public. The owner of the land can decide (subject to the law) who has access to their land and in what circumstances. If they erect a fence then they are saying "You cannot access my land here" - if you ignore this then you are trespassing. This is true even if there are legitimate ways to access the land i.e. there is a place where there isn't a fence; to avoid trespass you would have to access the land from there. If you think of this in terms of a public building like a courthouse you are free to enter through the unlocked front doors but not by climbing through a window. The trespass is in the act of crossing the fence - that is the act that you have been implicitly denied permission to do. Being on one side or the other is not trespass. For the specific image that you show it is quite likely that those roads are owned by different people - the highway is probably owned by the state while the cul-de-sac is a local government road.
The situation in Texas is complicated. Driving faster than the posted maximum speed limit is not in and of itself a crime; rather, per Texas Transportation Code 545.352(a), it is prima facie evidence that the speed is a violation of 545.351(a): &quot;An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing&quot;. It is theoretically possible to defeat a speeding ticket by demonstrating that the speed was, in fact, reasonable and prudent. Texas also has a law regarding minimum speed, 545.363(a): &quot;An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law&quot;. Since the speed limit is not a hard limit, the &quot;compliance with law&quot; clause does not protect you. If you get rear-ended while driving slower than the flow of traffic, your best defense is probably 545.351(b)(2): &quot;An operator...shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care&quot;. The question in court becomes your claim that driving slowly constituted &quot;due care&quot; versus the other driver's claim that their speed was &quot;reasonable and prudent&quot;. It's likely that you'll win, but it's not the slam-dunk case that it would be in a state where posted speed limits were hard restrictions.
In Ohio, a stop sign would be a traffic control device, but not a traffic control signal. From R.C. 4511.01: (QQ) &quot;Traffic control device&quot; means a flagger, sign, signal, marking, or other device used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street, highway, private road open to public travel, pedestrian facility, or shared-use path by authority of a public agency or official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of a private road open to public travel, by authority of the private owner or private official having jurisdiction. (RR) &quot;Traffic control signal&quot; means any highway traffic signal by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and permitted to proceed.