Can /o/ get this right? over 65% of the people couldn't

File: 1444071504333.jpg (13KB, 232x185px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 232x185px

With absolutely no signs or anything telling me about any rules.... green, red and blue?

>>16087761
I would just keep driving. Often I say
>"my turn now"

>>16087761
green, red, blue

Assuming green and blue are on the main road and red is on a side road, blue then green then red. The picture is really vague though and if those are both main roads they need a traffic light or some fucking stop signs.

>>16087761
I treat it like a roundabout and in Europe and USA the left side has the right so........
Blue
Red
Green

Red, blue, green?

File: Poll.png (24KB, 593x384px)

24KB, 593x384px

>>16087773
>>16087801
you are right

>>16087808
>>16087812
hand over your license

btw heres the poll results

>>16087761
It all depends on the order that they arrived

>>16087808
Actually, I think I misinterpreted this image. I thought red was on a residential street or something and blue & green are on a main road where they don't have to stop at the intersection and can just keep driving if they aren't turning. I blame the lack of stop signs and my own stupidity.

If it's a normal intersection and all three stopped at the same time, it should be green red blue, but in reality it would turn into a game of chicken and I'd get tired of waiting and just gun it.

>>16087812
It is a intersection, not a roundabout.
>>16087840
Nope, right before left.

>>16087812

In an intersection like that, in Europe atleast the right goes to the car approaching from right.

provided it's a four way stop and they all got there at the same time and there is equal traffic flow on both intersecting roads:

red, blue, green

green goes last, as he's turning
red dominates blue as he's on the right

>>16087837
>>16087849
>>16087853
meh i live in England and I've never seen an intersection like that so jokes on me

>>16087860
It doesn´t say 4-way stop anywhere, so right before left.

>>16087761
This wouldn't exist in real life.

>>16087808
when theres no signs (obiously if one is dirt road this doenst apply) youre meant to assume the roads are of the same importance

>>16087886
irrelevant

>>16087886
This happens pretty much every week to me.

>>16087892
Maybe it's because I live in bumfuck nowhere Tennessee, but I can think of a ton of crossroads I drive through on a regarding basis where you only stop if you're turning, mostly when the two streets on either side are residential. Those crossroads continue the painted lines on the main road, however, whereas they don't in this image which tipped me off to the fact that I misinterpreted it.

>>16087892

How is it irrelevant? The lack of signage is the biggest problem here. If a public roadway lacks any signs then why isn't Red's engine in Blue's passenger seat? Technically neither one would have to stop as neither receives instruction to do so from any signs.

If private property then traffic law doesn't matter and they can be the biggest assholes they want and cause a 3 car crash for all that matters. Private property is about the only place you'd find an intersection like that that doesn't have proper signage to direct traffic, and even then most places do any way.

This picture sucks and presents a situation that realistically can't be found anywhere short of the 3rd world, and those are some damn nice cars and roads for a 3rd world country.

your wife ex boyfriend
your wife son
you

Cars will never arrive at the same time. The question is bs.

File: stream_img.jpg (40KB, 680x382px)

40KB, 680x382px

first come first served

>>16087761
Are you retarded? The picture would cause an accident, the green car has to yield to blue obviously, but the red car should have a Stop sign or else the red car is permitted to proceed through the intersection and would crash into blue.

File: panda5.jpg (13KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 100x100px

Well, there are factors not included such as what order they got there in, which sides have stop signs, and which road is considered the higher-priority one.

However, ASSUMING that they're all stop signs, they all got there at EXACTLY the same time, and it is in the country so no priority road exists... And none are emergency response vehicles... And none are BMWs (they default to last)... And none of them are super-aggro-looking cars (e.g. STi, Civic with $50k in visual mods, et cetera)...

...Then it goes:
1...Red
2...Blue
3...Green

>>16087941
I feel like it may have been designed to be intentionally vague to skew the poll results, but maybe I'm giving the artist too much credit and they just suck at presenting a hypothetical.

>>16087941
Lack of singage is pretty common on intesection far fro the next city.
Therefor right before left was invented, so you won´t have to put signs fucking everywhere.
Actually this happens pretty often in villages or country roads.

>>16087973
>>16087968
green doesnt have to yield to blue

thats the point, to bait out retards like you who think green has to wait cause he is turning left

hand over your license

>>16087761
blue, green, red

>>16087978
wich information is missing in the picture?
>>16087973
Where and how did you get your licence?

>>16087985
I'm the guy that lives in bumfuck nowhere and I can't think of a single intersection that doesn't have any signage at all whatsoever. Even roads that are literally thinner than most driveways (I've been on roads that were so thin I couldn't keep all four tires on the pavement at the same time) still have a stop or yield sign at the intersection they connect to.

Maybe it's different across the pond but I don't remember ever seeing a four way intersection without a single sign anywhere.

>>16087991
If you think you can have a 4-way with not a single sign you are retarded.

This picture is to trick retards like you into picking an answer. The picture is wrong/misleading/vague, you are dumb. That is the conclusion.

>>16087996
There are no signs in the picture. Four way intersections without any signage don't fucking exist, because they would lead to absolute clusterfucks when a situation like OP's pic happens. How do you think your average driver would react in that situation? Just look at the poll results, you already have your answer.

>>16088009
this happens all the time retard

>>16088008
About 30% of them are withot any signs here.
>>16088009
Nope, they aren´t that rare.
>>16088018
They do exist, situations like that do happen a lot.
And how did you pass the theoretical part of your licence withou knowing about this?

>>16088028
Where do you live? I'm willing to bet money you aren't in the US, because again, I don't remember ever seeing an intersection without any signs at all in any state that I've driven in.

Maybe it's different in your country, but that shit just does not happen here.

>>16088028
>>16088020
Yes, it's called an uncontrolled intersection. In which you yield to the person who stopped first, in which if you all stop at same time you yield to right. However the picture does not express who stopped first, if they stopped at same time, if the side roads are passageways because then they would stop, etc.

Therefor, it is too vague and if you answered you are fucking wrong and stupid.

>>16087761
I will apply the give way law as I know it
>blue
>red
>green
but that is for LHD places

Around here people aren't shit so everyone would slow to a stop to make hand motions indicating the order to keep everyone's vehicle undamaged.

>>16088047
but it is not

intersections without signs exist
youre literally trying to argue thats impossible for 3 cars to arrive at the same time lmao

it is not vague, sure its highly unlikely that you will ever encounter it in real life but these kind of questions are used to show you understand the rules and are not that uncommon on theoretical parts of the exam

>>16088034
I´m from germany.
Shit like this happens pretty often here.
Please don´t come over her because you obviously don´t know how to drive properly.
>>16088047
The Picture shows 3 cars at the same distance from the Intersection.
Wich car hast stopped first is irrelevant, so it doesn´t matter if it is included or not.
Since there are no signs no road has a priority above the other.
There is litteraly every importand information in this picture.

>>16088047
>In which you yield to the person who stopped first
How do you work who arrived first? In what universe is "arriving first" an empirical measurement?

>>16087761
Where I live the one coming from the right has the right of way.

>>16088078
I fucking answered the question correctly earlier, but now I don't know how to drive properly because I think the image is vague?

I'm starting to think you made it and you're getting pissy because it's being criticized.

>>16087761
Except no road is setup like that without a stop sign or light.

>>16088050
and for anyone interested in the full set
not including how give way signs trump stop signs
or that all exits from car parks count as a T

>turning right
>other car going straight
give way

>turning right
>other car turning left
give way

>turning left
>other car going straight
give way

>turning left
>T intersection
>other car turning right
give way
------------------------
>turning left
>X intersection
>other car turning right
right of way

>both cars turning right
top of the t gives way to me

>going straight though
>other car coming strait from right
right of way

>>16088094
You said bullshit about not knowing:
1. who stopped first
wich is irelevant anyway
2.if all stopped at the same time
wich is also irelevant
3.if any road is buid differently
wich is also irelevant as long as there are no signs.
Also i don´t know who made it.
>>16088127
In most contrys you will get in such a intersection.

>>16087991
>to bait out retards like you who think green has to wait cause he is turning left

That's actually not why I choser the order I chose. I chose it simply because R->B->G is the most time-efficient way.

You just want a "reason" to call other ppl "retarded." Show me the "rule" that proves me wrong.

I currently live in VERY rural Alabama, USA, but I lived in Deutschland until age 13 (2003) and know it's all about dat road priority there. This scenario would never happen even in the most desolate part of the US.

Here in the US that scenario would be dictated by simply who feels like going first.

>>16088132
You've got me mixed up with the other guy, all I've said is that I think it's vague because intersections without any signs or traffic lights do not exist in my area. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp the fact that some countries can actually afford road signs.

>>16088078
>i'm from germany
Found the problem.

This is an American operated website. Don't expect your traffic laws to be the same as a majority American board.

>>16088142
so you drive by whats most time efficient and not by the law? good to know lmao

these kinds of intersections happen all over the europe and even more in 2nd-3rd world countries

this is exactly why the right hand rule exists, "In and intersection where all roads are of the same importance the right of way has the person on your right"

Intersections are resolved in this way:
Cop/Policeman
Traffic lights
Traffic signs
Rules (Right hand rule / rule of the left turner)
Agreement between drivers (if there were 4 cars on each road on this intersection one would flash his lights or somebody would wave to resolve the intersection)

Im pretty sure this is universal and is the law

>>16088130
It is much more simple:

>car right of you
give way

>car left of you
right of way

>car in front of you turns left, you go straight
right of way

>you turn left, car infront of you goes straight
give way

>car infront of you turns left, you turn left
both drive at the same time with a lower radius

>car infront of you turns right, you turn left
give way
>>16088147
You can´t rely on that, there will most cerntenly be a intersection without them.

Blue has right of way, green follows, then red.

Let's be realistic here. If we assume that there is a major intersection without any signage like this there would most likely be buildings, trees or bushes along side the roads. These would likely hide the intersection as you approach. You may not even be aware that an intersection exists until you're already in it at 50+km/h. Due to the lack of signage indicating the existence of the intersection, both blue and red would likely collide. Green would yield to blue because he is turning when the blue car appears to have right of way to go straight. Depending on the local laws, the city may be held responsible for failing to install proper signage and would install it almost immediately. Also the collision between red and blue would likely go straight towards green, getting him involved too.

Summary: The question is invalid, OP is a faggot, city fucked up, insurance company would probably sue the city.

In my country you let whoever on your right go first, so Green moves to the middle and stops, lets grey pass, turns and passes, red last. But that actually break rules a bit, but no better way to do it.

>>16088156
My answer >>16087801
was correct anyway.

>>16088166
>agreement below rules
By that logic everyone would yield to the right and nobody would ever move.

>>16088132
Those are actually all valid questions. The first to arrive has right of way. As does any vehicle leaving a major thoroughfare.

>>16088198
No, the vihicle on the right side has the right of way, if the other ones stop a second earlier or not doesn´t matter at all if there is no 4-way stop sign.

>>16088171
I honestly cannot remember ever seeing a single one in all my time driving. Besides, if we're turning this from a hypothetical on 4chan to a real life scenario, my actions would depend heavily on the other drivers. Obviously the order should go green red blue, but your average driver is a fucking idiot and just because I know the correct procedure doesn't mean I can expect them to. Even if I have the right of way, I'm not moving until I'm certain that I'm not going to get t-boned because Bubba in his dually truck got tired of waiting and decided to floor it.

>>16087812
In europe the car coming from the right has right of way..

>>16088177
pure autism

>>16088182
why would you break the rules then? its clear to anyone whos not a retard green goes first then red then blue

>>16088190
what are you even saying? in a situation i described (4 cars on each road in my OP pic) its impossible to apply any rules therefor it comes down to the agreement between drivers

>>16088198
who arrives first is literally irrelevant, we are talking about this particular situation in the picture stop trying to add extra variables or assume stupid shit like the autist here >>16088177


>>16088208
its pretty much a hypothetical question used to check if people actually understand the rules and know how to apply them

>>16088171
>car left of you
right of way
that would depend on if its turning left or right or going strait though
they make it harder than it needs to be
http://www.drivingtests.co.nz/roadcode/car/intersection/63/

>>16087773
hoyreregelen

>>16087761
Right hand rule. Red, Green, Silver.

>>16088208
They might be rare where you life, but they still exist.

>>16088224
Thats the one I'm going after, since the picture tells me absolutely nothing

If all three come up at the same time the person who doesn't have anyone on the right goes first.
Unless 4 cars pull up at the same time, then it is whoever has the balls to go first.

>>16088220
My point is, saying "you can't rely on that" implies this is changing from a hypothetical question of my knowledge to a hypothetical question of what I would actually do in this situation, ergo the rest of my post.

>>16088232
If you haven't driven where I live, you can't know that for sure. I've made a point to specify that I'm talking about places I have driven in myself, my actual experiences. I didn't know intersections without any signs or traffic lights existed in Germany because I've never driven in Germany, so I wouldn't try to convince you that they don't exist over there because I have no way of knowing.

>>16088234
???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPjv1SBaps0

>>16088228
>says right hand rule
>says red goes first even though he has green on his right

what did he mean by this

>>16088247
They exist fucking everywhere, not just in germany.

>>16087849
If I arrive 1st, I'm going 1st. Common courtesy.

>>16088249
Ja? Gronn har ingen til hoyre og kjorer forst, så kjorer rod og så kjorer blå?

>>16088220
>its impossible to apply any rules therefor it comes down to the agreement between drivers
You're OP? Good. That means you're also >>16087837

In that post you gave what you claim to be the correct answer. Leaving aside whether or not it's right (it isn't in Canada and the US because the situation is impossible) your answer relies on the 'yield to right' rule. This rule can still apply when four cars are present because each one has another to his right. The problem is this causes an infinite loop. That doesn't mean the rule cannot be applied, just that it doesn't get anything done. An agreement between the drivers trumps the rule, as happens quite a lot at stop signs when it's unclear who stopped first.

So the proper order is:
Traffic control person
Traffic control device (sign or light - they should never conflict)
Agreement
Rules

The important bit is that agreements are normally skipped - only used to resolve conflicts where the rules cannot.

>>16088260
Only as long as you have no car on the right.

>>16088261
Ikke han, men gronn har jo den gråe til hoyre?

Dette er vel egentlig en 'låst' situasjon. Det blir opp til den som tar iniativ til å kjore forst, vil jeg tro.

>>16088255
Have you driven in Tennessee (and Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and a bunch of other states I'm forgetting but have still driven through on many occasions)? Have you driven in the US at all? Because if not, you are making blind assumptions.

I want you to answer me, yes or no, have you ever driven in the US? Because if not, you have no way of knowing what kinds of intersections we do and don't have.

>>16088277
I drove in Nevada once, but only a small distance.
Also the world outside of the US exists.

>>16088268
for what reason is it impossible in canada or the us?

also agreement is below rules because theyre only used in situations you described yourself - used to resolve conflicts where the rules cannot

think about it for a second, in what universe would you design the rules in such a way that drivers agreement and opinions would trump your rules?

>>16088273
Hæ? Den grå/blå har jo den gronne imotkommende, men må stoppe da den har vikeplikt for rod, som igjen har vikeplikt for gronn.

Da gronn har kjort har ikke lenger rod vikeplikt, og kan kjore fremover. Da kan blå kjore videre

>>16088281
Yeah, but I'm not trying to convince you that these intersections do or don't exist outside of the US because I have no fucking way of knowing. That's what you don't seem to understand. I'm taking your word for it that they do exist in Germany and other European countries, but for some reason you're trying to argue that they exist in my region as well when you don't have any experience driving in my region. I don't even know why we're fucking arguing about it, because I've already shown that if I did one day encounter this situation, I would know the proper procedure to handle it.

>>16088272
Nope, it's always been that way. 1st to arrive, 1st to depart. Been driving for 7 years and it has always happened like that. Then again, Southern hospitality.

>>16088284
>for what reason is it impossible in canada or the us?
There is no such thing as an uncontrolled intersection. There is ALWAYS either a sign or a light. Even if the lights aren't working, they're treated as a stop sign.

>>16088296
They COULD exist in your region, so you SHOULD know about these.
>>16088298
>I´ve been doing it for X years so it must be right.

>>16087761
Red, blue, green.

Green gets blue on his right side if he tries to move, so he has to wait for blue to go away.

Blue could drive, but red is on the right side so he must wait.

Red technically has to wait for green, however since red is going straight ahead, he should go first.

>>16088290
Gronn har vikeplikt for grå/blå fordi den blir på den gronnes hoyre hånd ved å svinge

Det var ihvertfall det jeg lærte den gangen jeg tok sertifikatet.

>>16088314
To expand on this; they're always present because the local government (municipal, typically) is required to install them on all public roads to prevent this exact type of scenario. In Canada or the US an intersection like this would traffic pass through at normal speed because there is no sign or light telling the drivers to do otherwise.

There is no rule here that says you have to stop at every cross street if there isn't a sign. If there is no sign or light that says otherwise, you are assumed to have right of way.

>>16087761
blue green red

>>16088290
Har et kryss ved jobben som putter meg i denne situasjonen rimelig ofte, og ved mindre noen tar initiativ til å kjore forst, så vil jeg si rod skal gå forst. Dette er siden gronn får blå på sin hoyre side om han forsoker å kjore, blå må vente på rod, og rod skal rett fram så det gir best traffikkavvikling om han kjorer forst, på tross av vikeplikten for gronn.

>>16088220
>why would you break the rules then? its clear to anyone whos not a retard green goes first then red then blue
Because blue would be on green's right after green starts turning. Actually, that doesn't matter, there is a rule that if you turn left you should let people going straight/right on the same road pass. That's what turns it into a loop. But green has no obstacles from starting position, so go to the middle (that would also prevent red from going first and obstructing blue), let blue pass, go and let red go last. That would force blue to break the rules, but it can't be helped.
Well, if you wanna be really anal about it, green should can the crossroad, turn around after it and the go right (where he originally intented) after returning, that isn't breaking any rules.

>>16088330
>>16088341
>>16088351
are you all handicapped? what would you be thinking if you were driving a blue car?
"i have the red car on my right I CANT MOVE until he clears the intersection"
the red car is thinking "i have the green car on my right I CANT MOVE until he clears the intersection"

how is this so hard for you to comprehend? the rule of the left turner does NOT apply here

>>16088368
>are you all handycapped
Those must be burgers, so yes.

>>16088368

Nobody would be thinking that because they have no stop or yield signs. No sign = right of way. Green would stop for blue because he's turning across blue's lane. Blue and red would collide, and slide into green.

>>16087761
>over 65% of the people couldn't on the article i got it from.

Damn, even the threads are clickbait now.

>>16088391
yes because when theres no signs you just drive through the intersection and hope for the best

>>16088393
its not clickbait im just enraged that people who cant get this right have a license and i needed a place to vent because i didnt want to argue on facebook comments

>>16088391
Every normal driver should know about right before left, so they shouldn´t go crazy and crash.

>>16088401
>yes because when theres no signs you just drive through the intersection and hope for the best
Can you not read?
>No sign = right of way

I'm going to draw you a picture, don't go anywhere. Maybe even get an intersection on Google Maps.

File: throatcoca.jpg (95KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x600px

>>16088166
>so you drive by whats most time efficient and not by the law?

Yes, this is how I have driven for the last 11 years. I have never been involved in an accident. Safety and efficiency come before the law.

>this is exactly why the right hand rule exists
Yeeeaahhhh... I'm gonna need to see that written as law, because I'm pretty damned sure it is not (for sure in Alabama, probably just a spoken-word thing in Allemagne too).

Here in 'Bama we just wave to let the other go first. It's a more 'human' approach' than how your DeutschBundes does it.

I'm amazed at how many people come to /o/ not to chat about cars in general but come to try and feel somehow superior to others for no reasons.

>>16088401
t. green car driver

>>16088413

Only applies when they don't have right of way. You have right of way by default, only a sign, light or person holding a sign can override that.

File: right_of_way_N.jpg (45KB, 300x220px)

45KB, 300x220px

>>16088401
>yes because when theres no signs you just drive through the intersection and hope for the best

Uhh, yes, you do, im surprised youve never seen an intersection when one direction has the right of way and doesnt get signage.

In this case, whoever was in charge of putting signs up fucked up.

>>16088414
>no sign = right of way
this is retardet

>>16087991
http://www.newyorksafetycouncil.com/articles/who-has-the-right-of-way.aspx

>If drivers approaching from opposite directions reach an intersection at about the same time, a driver turning left must yield to approaching traffic going straight or turning right.

Quit being retarded.

Rejoice, I'm passing the exam soon, and I remembered there was a question like that on the test. I looked up in my book, the correct answer is what he said here >>16088182
Go to the middle, stop, let blue pass, then turn and go.
This is correct as in what you need to do by the book in my country.

>>16088425
>right of way by default
On a straight road without intersections maybe, but not on a intersection or roundabout.

If I would drive like you said I would crash on the first day.

>>16088428
>stop signs and lines on the road are not signage

are you ok there?

>>16088433
go turn your license in

>>16088436
it is not correct "by the book", blue cannot move untill his right side is clear

>no stop or give way signs
i stop and wait for both of them

>>16088446
A roundabout would indicate who has right of way via a yield sign. An intersection would do the same with a traffic light or a stop sign

File: stop_posting.jpg (57KB, 361x691px)

57KB, 361x691px

>>16087840
Found the American

>>16088422
are you telling me youre not mad or at least annoyed when someone takes the right of way from you?

>>16088331
>>16088351
Ja, det hadde vært riktig om den rode bilen bilen ikke var der. Blå/grå må stoppe for rod, som igjen må stoppe for gronn. Gronn bil har dermed forkjorsrett forst.

Hoyreregelen gjelder når du ikke er på forkjorsvei, og her på bildet må vi anta at det IKKE er forkjorsvei da det ikke finnes skilt eller annen spesiell veimerking. Hoyreregelen gjelder også den som er til hoyre for deg i et kryss da du ankommer krysset, ikke da du har beveget deg inn i krysset og eventuelt svinger til venstre

>>16088414

Fuck making a picture, >>16088428 posted a perfect one. There is ALWAYS a sign when there is conflicting directions of traffic. If there is no sign, you DO NOT slow down or stop because you have right of way.

File: Download.jpg (44KB, 640x480px)

44KB, 640x480px

>>16088457
Not all intersection have signs or lights or police.

>>16088449
I'm talking about the original image you idiot. My picture was an example of a road where the person who has right of way with no signage, but the other two lanes dont. In the OP there's no signage indicating right of way

File: 1450832800728.png (12KB, 960x540px)

12KB, 960x540px

>>16088462
Not really. I stopped getting mad at other people on the road. People are always going to be idiots. Getting mad changes nothing.

>>16088474

In Canada and the US, yes they do. It's a requirement on public road. There is no such thing as an intersection without any signage. There is no driver training or rule for such a situation because it does not exist.

>>16088470
look at
>>16088470
and show me the signs regarding the right of way

>>16088475
im talking about YOUR picture, THERE is SIGNAGE for both drivers, THE GUY GOING STRAIGHT CAN USE HIS EYES TO SEE THE STOP SIGNS AND STOP LINES ON THE ROAD TOO YOU KNOW?

>>16088474
Those white lines are stop lines.

Also dont post pics from 3rd world countries, driving laws are different. If you can give me an example of an NA road with no signage at an intersection(not a parking lot of some rural road, and actual minor intersection like your pic), ill take it back.

>>16088495
You do realize that a big percentage of /o/ posters are from Europe, right?

>>16088492
In a road where you have 50 intersections like that in a mile do you really think every driver is going to be consciously looking for stop signs not meant for them? Face it, you know your wrong, if you dont have signage at an intersection, you have the way.

>>16088468
Hoyreregelen hadde gjeldt helt fint hvis den rode ikke var der, da hadde gronn såklart måtte la blå/grå passere forst - MEN fordi den rode er der så må blå vente til den har kjort, og den har ikke lov til å kjore for gronn har kjort, da rod har vikeplikt for gronn pga hoyreregel

https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/1986-03-21-747

2. Kjorende har vikeplikt for kjoretoy som kommer fra hoyre. Det samme gjelder når kjorende som vil svinge til venstre, vil få kjoretoy på sin hoyre side.

Altså; hadde den rode bilen ikke vært der hadde det vært helt enkelt, men pga den så må gronn kjore forst

>>16088508
if you actually drive like this youre an idiot

you can see the signs a mile away, and yes, you DO look for signs even if theyre not meant for you

this is actually the reason the STOP sign has a unique shape, so it cannot be confused for any other sign

>>16087761
Idk
fuck back to wherever you got this from

>>16088490
>special situation in 2 countrys
>must be true everywhere
>>16088495
Stop lines would´t be interrupted,
also Germany isn´t 3rd world yet.

>>16088491

I assume you mean to look at >>16088428 .

The stop signs indicate the white car DOES NOT have right of way. The blue car has no signs and therefore DOES have right of way. Except when pedestrians are involved (let's not get into that) a car ALWAYS has right of way by default. Only a traffic control device or person and remove that right.

In the OP picture, red and blue BOTH HAVE RIGHT OF WAY due to the lack of signage indicating otherwise. A collision is inevitable. This is why the situation is impossible in Canada and the US, and the picture itself is wrong if it is meant to be in either Canada or the US.

>>16088525
This site is 18+

>>16088535
Sorry, I meant
>>16088474

>>16088468
T-thank senpai, but I'm not German.

>>16088533

The OP does not say what country the image is supposed to be, it only asks of /o/ can answer correctly. The correct answer for anyone in Canada and the US (not only these two, but they're the only countries I've driven in) is that the picture is wrong. It is an impossible scenario.

What country do YOU want it to be in? Then we can give a correct answer that everyone can agree on. Without this crucial piece of information we all will assume it's in our own countries and provide an answer correct for our laws.

>>16088549
We don't have dashed lines across the lane at an intersection like that in Canada, so I'm making an assumption that they are stop lines. In which case whoever stops first, goes first.

>>16088554
I'm the Alabamian, but I'm fairly certain the guy you referenced was speaking Dutch (netherlands, amsterdam), not Deutsch (Germany, Berlin).

>>16088575
It's Norwegian

>>16088554
This isn´t German, this is some skandinavian language.
>>16088556
Since it doesn´t specify wich country it is in, you can´t say it is impossible because it isn´t possible in the USA or Canada.
>>16088572
These just show there is a intersection.

>>16088554
Sorry mate, meant to quote >>16088348

>>16088600
This isn´t German either.

>>16088592
>you can´t say it is impossible because it isn´t possible in the USA or Canada.

I didn't, read again. I said for anyone in Canada or the US it is an impossible scenario, and therefore the question is wrong. Sure, it may be possible in other countries, I never denied that.

>These just show there is a intersection.
I don't understand what you mean to say. I see that there is an intersection. There are dashed lines at the approach ends. I don't know for sure what these mean, so I made an assumption based on what I am familiar with.

none of you cunts would survive a power cut lol

>>16088627
Why not?

File: Norway_d9a0cc_6062822.jpg (67KB, 305x1024px)

67KB, 305x1024px

>>16088621
Ofcourse it aint - do I sound like Hanz KartoffelKraut to you?

>>16087837
Where do you live? Serbia?

>>16088629
Nein, sonst hätte ich das ja verstanden.
>>16088625
These lines show you there is a intersection, mostly these lines can be found on streets where you might oversee them.

>>16087761
Which car am I driving? That's the one that goes first.

Which road is the major road?
Why are there no traffic lights, or a mini roundabout?

File: PPRE_6B_Mazda_RX_4_hot_rod_rods_drag_race_racing_f_1920x1280.jpg (1022KB, 1920x1280px)

1022KB, 1920x1280px

>>16088589
I s it by any chance the same language as what is spoken in the below video from 2:33+ ? And if so, what the fuck is she saying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5emIozWzPb4

The one with the biggest and most expensive car goes first

>>16088644
>These lines show you there is a intersection, mostly these lines can be found on streets where you might oversee them.
Okay. So let's go back to your question:
>and show me the signs regarding the right of way
I don't see any, but we have already established that the intersection is not in either Canada or the US. My experience and knowledge of road laws and design ends there. My claim here >>16088470 - that there is always a sign - is correct in these two countries.
At the time we had not established that you were not from here so I didn't state that the sign presence only applies here.

You're on an American image board. Unless you state otherwise, the majority of posters will assume you are also from the region. This entire thread could have been avoided if OP (you?) had stated that the question was from a different country.

>>16088651
1. doesn´t matter

2.none

3. because the intersection was planned this way

>>16088628
I've been in the middle of the cbd of Auckland when the power went down for three hours
during this time no laws were obeyed and not a single crash occurred
pedestrians bicycles and cars everywhere yet traffic flowed better because more efficient use was being made of time and space

I just don't see it happening anywhere people are so rigid and uppity about things that do not really have any importance

>>16088679
Canada and USA arn´t the only countrys on the world or on this board, so OPs image isn´t neccesary meant to be there.

File: Clipboard01.jpg (47KB, 573x1477px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 573x1477px

>>16087761

>>16088637
no, croatia, but thats irrelevant because this was copy pasted from somewhere else and posted as clickbait on one of the news portals here

>>16088709
WTF?

>>16087761
Assuming all arrive at identical time, with no signs you treat it like 4 way stop (although how the fuck you're supposed to know is not a two way across as you approach I have no clue), anyway in that case the person on the right has the right of way so green red blue

>>16088651
>Why are there no traffic lights, or a mini roundabout?
We've established that the intersection is not in Canada or the US. The country it's from apparently assumes that you treat an intersection with no sign as if there was a stop sign. Treat it as a four-way stop and you get the right answer.

>>16088686
If the lights are out, they default to being treated like a stop sign. Traffic slows down because only one car can go at a time, but it works.

>>16088708
>Canada and USA arn´t the only countrys on the world or on this board
I never claimed otherwise.
Read this part again:
>You're on an American image board.
moot was an American. The site was created with an American userbase in mind. The majority of users are American. If you ask questions that require knowing the country, most will assume it's America, leading to the mess that is this thread.

>>16087761
Most dents goes first, the other two can fag it out however they want because I'm already through with muh beater shit

>>16088727
> If you ask questions that require knowing the country, most will assume it's America, leading to the mess that is this thread.
If you realy don´t have these intersections in the USA or Canda you could have assumed it isn´t in the USA or Canada.

>>16088078
>Since there are no signs no road has a priority above the other.

So why the fuck did they stop if they have no sign instructing them to do so? Why doesn't red and blue just go WOT and slam into each other? This is the problem. In a hypothetical situation, with an intersection that isn't controlled by lights or signage, why the fuck is anybody coming to a complete stop when they don't have to? The obvious answer is that red and blue are total fucking retards, just like the person asking this question. Its literally designed to be a lose-lose situation, and was probably created by a local newspaper that has some kind of bone to pick with local drivers or just wants to feel smug by proving people don't know the answer to a very shitty hypothetical situation.

File: 1447850516975.jpg (32KB, 400x300px)

32KB, 400x300px

Is this thread for fucking real?

Where the FUCK do you all live?
ANYONE passing their theoretical driving test in France knows the answer to this basic question.

1. Priority to the driver on your right
This rule is self explanatory. HOWEVER
2. When you are at a crossroad or at a point where it's possible for you to change direction BUT doing so would mean you have to cross the lane of uncoming traffic you DO NOT have priority and have to let incoming traffic pass.

With those TWO basic RULES:
-a) Green will have to cross the lane of uncoming traffic, so green will have to WAIT for blue (RULE 2)

-b) Blue needs to give away priority to red (RULE 1), so blue has to WAIT for red

-c) Red normally should give away priority to green (RULE 1) HOWEVER, red knows that green will cross uncoming traffic so green has to WAIT for red. Moreover, blue has to give away priority to red (RULE 1) so blue has to WAIT for red.
HENCE both blue and green have to WAIT - Red is the first car to go

-d) Green still has to WAIT for BLUE (RULE 2)
HENCE blue is the second car to go.

-e) Green is now the only car at the crossroad,
HENCE green is the last car to go.


It takes literally more time to write this all down than to figure it out in real life (about 5 seconds if you're slow in the head)

>>16088727
>only one car can go at a time
no they all went at ever so slightly different times but no one came to a complete stop

any physical or temporal gaps between the cars has pedestrians and cycles moving though it

>>16088749
>So why the fuck did they stop if they have no sign instructing them to do so?
Because they are´t retards and don´t want to crash their cars.
Also you usualy learn about this while getting your licence.

>>16088747
If someone asks a question about the law on an American site and doesn't say he's from a different country, the default assumption is he is American. It could be a trick question to see if anyone would pickup on the fact it can't happen here.

>>16088771

The person you're replying to is from America. We don't stop if there are no signs because the other street WILL have signs. Europe is the opposite, where no signs are (at least I think, based on this thread) treated as a stop sign. You're starting the same pointless argument again.

>>16088772
>American site
Daily reminder this board isn´t american only and this happens all over the rest of ther world.
>it can't happen in burgerland
Doesn´t matter since people here are lurking from all over the world, so it isn´t always burger related.
>>16088790
The intersection is obviously not in burgerland, so what?

>>16088762
french bro knows what's up
lol now I know why it's always Americans who don't know how to answer bitch ass questions like that

>>16088804
So you're starting the same pointless argument again. You're both right for where you live. We already determined this. Let it die.

>Daily reminder this board isn´t american only
No, it isn't. But it is predominantly American. As I said before, unless said otherwise the assumption is that a poster is American. Deal with it, or make Eurochan.

Is this thread yet another proof that Americans can't actually drive?

>>16088819
No, it's proof that the rules of the road are different in different countries. What works in America doesn't work in France. What works in France doesn't work in America.

>>16088818
>But it is predominantly American.

The introduction of flags in /sp/ mostly debunked this baseless assumption you just made.
I'm not the guy you've been using logical fallacies against.

>>16088762
As was said earlier this fucking image is supposedly a 4-way stop. The right of way rules don't apply because everybody's fucking stopped. So the general population will generally follow the rule that the person farthest right goes first. It's just a fucking opinion on a shortly drawn picture of a vague scenario.

Fuck everything here is so retarted why am I even posting this in this thread

>>16088830
/sp/ is not all of 4chan. I've never been there, and don't intend to go there.
Just to make you happy:
4chan is assumed by many posters to be predominantly American.

>>16088818
If the country isn´t specified it may be any country, if it can´t be in the US it isn´t in the US.

>>16088830
>America are asleep
>post fiats

>>16088836
Where exactly does it say 4-way stop?

>>16088839
See: >>16088772
It may be a trick question, where the correct answer is that the question is wrong. You do have those in Europe, right?

>>16088846
Read the thread. The image is not from the US. The country is is from treats lack of signs as a stop sign.

>>16088762
Did anyone bother to read this comprehensive and extensive explanation or you just want to flame about the most inane things

>>16088836
>The right of way rules don't apply because everybody's fucking stopped.

Maybe in your country this rule magically disappear when cars stop (please explain and possibly show a scenerio where this makes sense) but in France it doesn't.

If basic rules start disappearing/chaning for whatever reason you end up with "vague" situations where "opinion" supersedes reason and rules.

>>16088847
This is a international board, until you say it is from some special country it can be from anywhere.
Indeed we do have trick qustion, but these have a dedicated answering field.
But just because it is unlikely in the US it could still happen somewhere else.
>>16088853
I asked it as a rethorical question, since it doesn´t say "4-way stop" anywhere.

>>16088873
>since it doesn´t say "4-way stop" anywhere.
But it is treated as if it were one, correct? If so, it is not incorrect to say that it is a 4-way stop.

File: 1413332562013.jpg (15KB, 304x304px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 304x304px

>>16088762
>HOWEVER, red knows that green will cross uncoming traffic so green has to WAIT for red.

HOLD IT.

Red doesn't actually know because Green is a faggot that doesn't use his turn signals and now Green goes first because everyone is stopping for car on right and they all got played by Green.

>>16088885
Actualy no, the car wich has right of way doesn´t have to wait anyway and the oters usually just slow down.
Compared to a 4-way stop it more efficient and better for the clutch.

File: 1331959248546.gif (772KB, 250x200px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 250x200px

>>16088889
GENIUS.

>>16088838
>/sp/ is not all of 4chan.
I never stated otherwise. It is just a board where your baseless assumption doesn't apply.
You could also detect foreign people with their syntax, grammar etc but it's not really the point.

>I've never been there, and don't intend to go there.
Irrelevant

>4chan is assumed by many posters to be predominantly American.
By now I consider your use general assumptions shitposting. Carry on, maybe the other anon will get back to you.

Moreover it seems that you think /o/ is some kind of America-focused board, it is not.
What I think led you to believe such a thing is that you totally forgot about timezones.
Not only this but the multiple Twingo threads, threads on regulations, threads on econoboxes (where a lot of Europe-only cars get posted) all go against your general assumption.
This is the last time I'm responding to you since you're not being honest (assumptions, fallacies etc).

>>16088907
>Actualy no, the car wich has right of way doesn´t have to wait anyway and the oters usually just slow down.
Close enough. Almost no one comes to a complete stop at stop signs anyways.

File: 1445070464598.jpg (29KB, 354x347px)

29KB, 354x347px

>>16088889
I actually thought about it when I was writing >>16088889
Fucking cunts not using turn signals I swear.

>>16088924
If you go by law you have to.
In Germany we had a law decades ago that said "all whells have to stop", since ABS wasn´t a thing back then some people just slammed their brakes to block the tires at the stop sign while driving.

>>16088762
>>16088814

unfortunately you are wrong

the rule that you have to let oncoming traffic because youre turning left doesnt apply here


also i wouldnt say no signs means its a 4way stop, more like common sense that when theres no signs you apply rules so you have to stop and check if theres any other traffic entering the intersection

>>16087761
Depends on who got there first.

>>16088950
>the rule that you have to let oncoming traffic because youre turning left doesnt apply here

It does in France and it's pretty common to have to answer this exact same question at your theoretical driving test.

>>16088957
they all approach the intersection at the same speed and come to a stop at the exact same time

are we finally clear on this fucking shit, it doesnt even fucking matter

>>16088957
It's a 4-way intersection with no stop signs so they all get there at the same time and let's say they're all going 45mph.

>>16088967
Why do they stop if there's no signs telling them to stop?

>>16088941
Sure, you're supposed to, but few actually do when it isn't absolutely necessary. Myself included.

That loophole is actually pretty awesome. If my current car had ABS I'd just pull the fuse to take full advantage of that.

>>16088975

Because it's Germany or France or somewhere that's not here and has different laws.

>>16088963
the left turning rule CANNOT be applied here because theres more than two cars are you dense

blue car is blocked by the car on his right so he cant do anything but wait untill his right side is clear, same goes for the red car

you should have your license revoked

>>16088975
so you would just drive through and see what happens in a situation like that? obviously the red and blue car stop untill the green completes his turn?!?!??!

>>16088976
They removed it decades ago, if you do it now they will hunt you and the will get you.

File: 1378488986428.jpg (356KB, 1280x720px)

356KB, 1280x720px

>>16088987
I would because we wouldn't get there at the same time. I would get there first because I drive faster than everyone else except for cops. Green can go fuck himself. Nobody turning left ever has the right of way unless he has a green light or if he's already turning before I got there. And he better turn quick because I don't slow down for people who don't have the right of way.

>>16089005
made me lol, nice one

>>16088987
>the left turning rule CANNOT be applied here because theres more than two cars are you dense
The French Code de la Route (Road Rulebook) never states such a thing.

>blue car is blocked by the car on his right so he cant do anything but wait untill his right side is clear, same goes for the red car
This bit is the point of my WHOLE post >>16088762

You know what, I'll get back to you in about 5 minutes. I will give you an exemple from the website my Driver's education centre (not sure about the translation here) gave me when I studying for my driving license.

All I've learned from this thread is that some people get triggered super hard by other countries having rules of the road that differ from their own.

>>16088762
But what if Green is a BMW?

>>16089042
BMWs don´t use turn signals anyway...

In reality, the fastest car gets through first, fuck the others

Even if people know the rules, they don't follow them until traffic density hits the point where it matters.

>>16089042
As a BMW driver, even if the other car has the right of way and I signal them to go, they still usually wait for me to go first because they assume I'm driving a BMW so I must be a dickhead.

[spoiler]They're not wrong.[/spoiler]

>>16089020
>>16088987

Fuck this the website gives cryptic names to questions there is no way I can find it except if I actually go through a bunch a questions.

>>16088987
§ 8 StVO
Says just right before left.

>>16089042
Roll you eyes when he goes in anyway honking and showing you the finger.

>>16087761
the fuck kind of diagram is this? theres no signs or indications so assuming the north to south is the main road, blue green red

>>16087761
Blue, green, red. The red car is exiting a lot.

>>16089269
No shit sherlok?
These intersections do exist all over the world.
>>16089312
Nope, the red car is on a normal road, so green red blue.

>>16087991
Traffic crossing a lane has to yield to the traffic in that lane where I am.

>>16087761
There should be a roundabout.

>>16088220
Green is crossing traffic in the opposing lane and is required to yield to it in most (if not all) jurisdictions

>>16089338
yeah but they're usually fucking marked with stop signs, yield signs or some other shit, your picture is bad and you should feel bad

>>16089363
Roundabouts are great, sadly there is none in the image.

>>16087761
The most expensive car goes first.

>>16089398
The picture isn´t mine, I´m not OP, but there are intersections like that.

>>16089338
If it is a normal road why does it fill the entire upper left corner while the other roads have no indications of driveways or buildings?

You're assuming it is two though roads, but the picture clearly shows a T intersection with a driveway coming in opposite of the side-street.

Straight traffic has priority over turns. Public road traffic has priority over traffic entering the street.

>>16089601
Both roads are build in the same way, why should I assume one has priority over the other?
Also, right before left is obviously how this intersection works.

>>16087761
I wait for someone else to drive because there's no fucking way that two other random people know how to fucking drive in my town.

>>16087761
this is treated like any four way stop.
first car there gets the right of way.

Doesn't matter if it's 4 way stop or only a 2 way, Blue, Green, then Red.

>>16089744
It isn´t a stop at all.

>>16089631
They aren't built in the same way. The road with the red car opens up into a parking lot on the other side of the ditch/shoulder. It isn't an actual road. It's a drive connecting a lot to the public thoroughfare.

>>16089825
At the intersection they are all the same, so right before left applies.

>>16089704
we already went over this

>>16089744
>6 hours later
>people still getting this wrong

>>16089853
Only three are public roads

The private drive has to yield to the public road

Traffic remaining in its own lane has right of way over traffic turning

Right first only comes in to play if no one has priority already. That isn't the case here. The turning car and the car entering the road system have to wait for the car continuing in its lane.

Normally you would see a yield or stop sign opposite the red car on the empty road, but it would just be there to keep things clear. The traffic on it would have to yield without one anyway.

>>16090026
>private drive
Where? The left road is just a road with a driveway on it for all I know.

>>16087761

This can only be solved by drift-battle

>>16087892
>when theres no signs (obiously if one is dirt road this doenst apply) youre meant to assume the roads are of the same importance
i'm guessing this is a rural thing?

Fuck you OP. Without rules everyone is going to make assumptions and be wrong all the time.
Without street signs these roads might as well be in India or any 3rd world countries, in which there are no rules so as long as you don't collide or kill someone then any answer is correct.
Fuck you again dumb ass!!

>>16090910
I think we're supposed to assume everyone arrived at a 4-way stop at the same time. In which case red has right of way because he's to blue's right and green is turning, then blue goes, then green. Although in practice green and blue will go at the same time and green will turn in behind him.

File: 1439835207103.gif (2MB, 389x279px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 389x279px

>>16087761
>be in this exact situation as green car with indicator on
>as i'm halfway through my turn, blue car starts to go
>my horn is broken from a deer impact and only emits a high pitched
>HEEEEEEEEEENK
>blue car panic stops in the middle of cutting me off
>won't move
>keep laying on heeenk horn
>30 seconds of heeeeeeenk later
>finally blue car finds testicles and gets the fuck out of my way
>red car is a lifted brotruck
>brotrucks face when heeeeeeeenk

>>16087849
In my state it's first there gets to go first. if you get there at the same time as someone else the person to the left goes first.

>>16087761
white green red in that order

File: bitch.jpg (24KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 256x256px

>>16091282
>tfw Italian sports cars use the same horn as a Piaggio
peep peep

>>16090439
This
>>16090910
There are no signs, but there are still rules.
>>16091262
Nope, there is no stop sign.
>>16091316
In wich 3rd world country do you live?

>>16090439
Why isn't there that level of detail on the other ones then? It has to be important to the situation. Otherwise it wouldn't be drawn like on the other roads. I see driveways opposite T intersections fairly often; 4-ways without traffic signs not so much.

If we're going to make assumptions they should reflect the details in the picture and what is common in our daily life.

The lot having a long apron is probably due to a wide right of way for the upper/lower road sections.

>>16087761
You always have to give way to the car on your right (at least in my country) so...

1º Green, because don't have anybody on his right.
2º Red. After green clears out, doesn't have anybody on his right.
3º Gray: With red gone he doesn't have anyone on his right.

Not so difficult.