Originally Posted by
Carusoswi
Hate to be contrary, but it sounds to me as though the driver trying to "jump" the light (actually, based upon my interpretation of what the OP wrote, the driver only moved on green - just because he moves before oncoming traffic doesn't make him a "jumper" in my book). ultimately did exactly what is required of him in this situation. Being alert to the opportunity to making a left turn on green ahead of oncoming traffic is no violation. Obviously, the driver must wait for the intersection to clear and must be aware of and avoid collision with pedestrians or cyclists in the crosswalk.
It sounds to me that he managed to do this in the OP's case.
Furthermore, he is no more guilty of "jumping" the green than the OP, who also appears to have "jumped" the green. OP, you have the entire light cycle to safely make it across the intersection. The "jumping" motorist will sit through that same cycle if he cannot safely make the left ahead of oncoming traffic.
Fortunately, there is no blood here, and that is how I call it, no blood.
As operators of vehicles (motorized and not), we all tend to view situations from our perspective alone.
In reality, there are always two sides to every coin.
If I were a motorist, in line behind the "jumper" in this case, I would be grateful that he was alert enough to make his left ahead of the oncoming traffic - one more car that can get through the light at a congested intersection. As a cyclist, I would try to be more aware, sympathetic to the fact that I save almost no time in getting through the intersection ahead of "jumper". Be aware and let him pass, then be on my way safely. No need for me to assert my vehicular rights in this situation.
OP, in my view, the motorist was at least as alert as you, since he stopped. The momentary blocking of the intersection (for the oncoming motorists) was of minor consequence.
There is no cop that would cite "jumper" as he committed no infraction. To suggest a license suspension is beyond extreme in my view.
Happy cycling.
Caruso
Even if the other traffic has not moved yet, it is "Failure to Yield the Right of Way at an Interserction."
Originally Posted by
Number400
Here in PA, it is illegal; "Failure to yield to oncoming driver when making left turn = 3 points on your license". So it's against the law here and that is nice to know. Keeping my eyes open for it for sure.
Yep, points and a fine.
Originally Posted by
Camilo
It's not necessarily failure to yield any more than it would be if you turned left in a gap between two oncoming cars. If you turn left before the oncoming car even starts moving, it's not failure to yield. For example, some dip who is too busy talking on his cell phone or texting to proceed in a timely manner when his light turns green. I'd for sure turn left in front of him and not cause him any inconvenience or lack of proper yield.
Still a violation, I've written it many times and never had one bounced. The testimony is the through traffic "could not start" that is why the held their position.
Originally Posted by
CrankyOne
Good luck getting a cop or judge to agree with you.
Cop will write, prosecutor will prosecute and Judge will Convict. I worked in a very heavily travelled area of the US and wrote that summons all the time. It just pissed me off due to the lack of concern for anyone else. Always thought it to be dangerous.
Originally Posted by
ItsJustMe
It wouldn't be hard to automate. They can detect a car in the turn lane proceeding when there's still someone on the straight through traffic sensor, or had moved off just a moment ago.
The laws governing the use of the cameras are specific to the red light violation and has no points attached to your license for paying the fine. They are not interested in public safety, just the collection of money. I'm not sure the person who reviews the video can write a summons based on the what they see in the video, but it is a good question.
***Caveat: I only know NY/NJ/PA and some CT stuff, so if it is different in the other 46, forgive me.****