2

This is basically the exact same question as this question, but for Illinois, USA.

I witnessed a car waiting to turn right at a red light and then began to turn during a break in traffic and was almost struck by someone making a u-turn. The u-turner hit the brakes, honked, and gestured as if he had the right of way. The right-turner looked shocked as if he had the right of way.

I'm not sure if these facts are relevant, but I'll include them just in case:

  • If there had been an accident, the u-turner would have struck the left side near the back end of the right-turner's vehicle, but fortunately stopped in time. (The right-turner got there first.)
  • The u-turner was on a 4 lane road (2 lanes per direction) and turned into the right lane which was the same lane the right-turner turned into. However, I doubt the u-turner's vehicle could have turned tight enough to end up in the left lane, even if it was attempted.

Is the right of way defined for this scenario in Illinois?

Edit: after a little digging, this is the closest rule I can find:

(625 ILCS 5/11-802) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-802)

Sec. 11-802. Limitations on U turns. (a) The driver of any vehicle shall not turn such vehicle so as to proceed in the opposite direction unless such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with other traffic.

If "other traffic" includes cars turning right, then I would interpret that as the right-turner having the right of way.

But that may conflict with this rule:

(625 ILCS 5/11-306) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-306)

... vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right...

...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 or roadways. Such driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.

This rule seems to suggest the u-turner would have the right of way. I think the problem is that the right-turner would expect the u-turner to be turning left instead of making a u-turn and therefore would not realize there is an "immediate hazard".

  • 2
    If U-turns are allowed at the light, they have precedence because they have the green light. Someone turning right-on-red must ensure that they have a clear path. – mkennedy May 3 '16 at 17:38
  • @mkennedy - It sees as though in Ontario, CA the opposite is true. I was hoping to find a citation for IL that made it clearly one way or the other. – TTT May 3 '16 at 17:44
  • Hmmm, I looked at that question. I would hope that when there is a green arrow for a right turn (and that isn't turning into a dedicated lane), that the opposite direction should not allow u-turns. – mkennedy May 3 '16 at 17:55
  • @mkennedy - I would hope that too! – TTT May 3 '16 at 18:06
  • @mkennedy - here's a link that supports your assertion, and they even had both with green arrows as you worried: nbc-2.com/story/24832298/…. That's FL though... – TTT May 3 '16 at 19:45
1

Well, a U-turn is inherently dangerous because people don't expect it. So we have on one hand the rule that you can't do a U-turn if it interferes with other traffic, and I would assume that includes traffic that would have the right to drive if you were not there, even if the U-turner might have the right of way. (Clearly if I drive ahead on a green light then I interfere, although completely legally, with other traffic like cars that want to turn but can't because of me. On a U-turn, that seems to be not allowed).

On the other hand, there is a rule that the right-turning car might not have the right of way. So both are not allowed to drive. Both have to be careful, both have to avoid an accident, one of them can go ahead carefully (like four cars on each side of a stop sign in the USA; one can go ahead carefully even though nobody has the right of way). If there's an accident, I'd expect that they share responsibility unless one is clearly at fault by driving into the other with their eyes closed.

  • Without any evidence proving otherwise, this would be my expectation as well. – TTT Jun 3 '16 at 15:30
  • This isn't right because two people don't have the right of way at the same time. Only the right turn guy has the right of way. – Putvi May 22 at 18:23
1

The following explanation is consistent with the laws cited for both Illinois (in this question) and Ontario (the linked question):

A U-turn is actually two distinct turns:

  1. A left turn, which puts the vehicle in the median (or at least perpendicular to the highway), followed by
  2. Another left turn, made as if from the median (or as if the vehicle had entered the intersection from a cross-street).

The rules for the first turn are the same as for any left turn: The vehicle must have the right of way. This can be because the vehicle has a left turn light, or because the vehicle has entered the intersection and can complete a left turn without impeding opposing traffic.

The rules for the second turn are the same as for any left turn from an intersection: If an opposing vehicle (referencing now the cross-street) can go straight or turn right, then the vehicle turning left must yield.

In the scenario described: The opposing vehicle could not go straight because it had a red light and was not in the intersection. There are only two circumstances in which the vehicle making the U-turn (i.e., the second left turn) could claim the right of way:

  1. The vehicle turning right failed to signal its intent to make a right turn.
  2. The cross street was marked "NO TURN ON RED," meaning the vehicle signaling a right turn could not have legally made it during the red light.
  • This certainly makes sense, but it relies on your bolded statement being correct. It's logically correct that a U-turn is two lefts, but I've not heard it legally defined that way. The fact that U-turns are specifically mentioned makes me believe that separate rules may apply to them. – TTT Jun 3 '16 at 15:35
  • @TTT - Correct. As I said, this is merely consistent with all rules, laws, and customs (e.g., those applied by insurance companies) I have seen. It could very well be that statutes and regulations simply say (as you found), "When executing a U-turn be careful and don't interfere with other traffic." Failure of any statute to grant a right-of-way to vehicles making a U-turn is legally equivalent to saying, "You don't have a right-of-way when making a U-turn, so if you collide with a car that does then you're at fault." – feetwet Jun 3 '16 at 15:44
  • I'll buy that. It is consistent. – TTT Jun 3 '16 at 16:33
  • I am not trying to criticize, but even if you fail to turn on the turn signal the individual making the U turn does not have right of way. – Putvi May 22 at 18:22
0

I think the right of way descriptions in Illinois' Rules of the Road help clarify the problem.:

A driver must yield the right of way to other drivers or pedestrians: • When making a right turn on a red light after a complete stop.

If a driver making a right turn on a red light is required to yield the right of way to "other drivers", then it would reason that the car making the u-turn on a left arrow has the right of way.

  • As pointed out in the question, there is also another rule that the U-turner is not allowed to interfere with other traffic. Either rule by itself would suggest the other has the right of way. – TTT Jun 25 '16 at 18:43
-1

Not to criticize the other answers, but I am actually from Illinois.

The person turning right from the turn lane has the right of way. That is the literal intention of the turn lane.

Even if you want to argue against the person in the right turn lane, Illinois vehicle codes say you must slow down to prevent an accident. So, even if the other driver had the right of way he did not operate his vehicle in a safe manor and would therefore be in the wrong.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.