Real carguy test

>>17661418
The person going straight has the right of way.

>>17661419
Trufacts.

I believe it's the car, I've not seen that sign but I'm assuming it's referring to vehicles making a right turn, not a left turn.

>>17661439
>I've not seen that sign but I'm assuming it's referring to vehicles making a right turn, not a left turn.

t. riding in the green vehicle

>>17661418
>>17661419
>>17661435
>>17661439
lights overwrite any signs
the signs are there if the lights are turned off or stopped working

so the car has the right to move first

File: 1498100286275.jpg (67KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 900x900px

Whoever turns first

/thread

>>17661449
The car isn't turning.

>>17661452
There is no reason why the car should follow the instructions shown. You're not taking the factor of chaos into account.

>>17661443
Maybe the fact that I live in Canada has something to do with not knowing it. I've never seen it used in the 7 years I've been driving.

>>17661459
You don't have those in Canada? It's the most basic crossroad right of way sign.

>>17661418
I don't know what kind of fuckery that sign is about, but the car is already technically in the intersection (it is beyond the stop line), so it has the right of way.

>>17661464
What kind of shithole do you live in, where whoever reaches the intersection first has the right of way?

>>17661463
We just give right of way to the person on the right if it's at the same time, or in a situation like this whoever's going straight, but most of the time one of the drivers will wave the other through. We just don't need signs for it.

>>17661418
Bus is on a priority road, and thus has the right of way.

Redrawing the problem, brb.

>>17661470
That's for if lights go out/stop signs. When it's normal lights then straight has right of way.

>>17661470
>most of the time one of the drivers will wave the other through

I didn't know Canada was a third world country for neanderthals. Sorry.

>>17661474
What about >>17661444

File: Naamloos.png (10KB, 680x874px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 680x874px

>>17661418
>>17661474
Here's the problem, but with a straight main road.

Both vehicles have a green light, so both may advance.
However, the bus is on a priority road (AKA the main road). In OP's picture, this road goes from north to east. I've straightened it in my picture, so it's more clear.

File: police-officer-parking-ticket-5282593.jpg (100KB, 957x1300px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 957x1300px

>>17661492
>hand over your driving license, son

File: 1501848587258.jpg (51KB, 480x289px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 480x289px

>>17661474
>>17661492
First off, the car clearly faces a yield sign. This means the bus has right of way.
Second, below the yield sign is a sign stating that the road, going from north to east, is a priority road. This also means that the car has to yield to the bus.
Finally, you can clearly see the rhombus-shaped sign which the bus is facing. This sign always indicates a priority road, therefore, the bus has right of way over the car.

>>17661490
>>17661444
Both vehicles have a green light. This means that, since their paths are conflicting, right of way is determined by the available signage. Therefore, the car has to yield to the bus.

>>17661501
see >>17661444

I was starting to get sad I wasn't able to bait /o/ with this shitty thread, because people got the right answer right away. But right now I'm starting to get worried you might be serious.

>>17661419
Only if there are no signs. There are clearly signs stating that the car has to yield to the bus.

>>17661509
Traffic lights take priority over signs. Signs are there for when the lights are off.

>>17661418

Bus goes first, signals take priority over lights and you clearly have one saying give pass to people turning to the right.
t. I don't even have a driving licence.

File: 1501848587258.jpg (51KB, 480x289px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 480x289px

>>17661511
But what if both traffic lights are green, such as in pic related?

>>17661419
Check your straight privilege, shitlord

>>17661512
You're right, BUT, signs don't take priority over lights. Signs take over when lights stop working, or when two people both get a green light, such as in this case.

>>17661513
I literally said traffic lights take priority, signs don't matter in this case.

>>17661512
>t. I don't even have a driving licence.

And for a good reason.

>>17661518
So traffic light took a priority - and they're telling the vehicles to crash into each other.
Now what?

>>17661522
>and they're telling the vehicles to crash into each other

They never do though.

>caring about road laws

>>17661523
...because somebody has the right of way.

How is right of way determined? Not by the traffic lights in this case, because they're ambiguous for both vehicles.

>>17661530
The person going straight has the right of way over someone that's turning.

>>17661516

I see, thanks. I'll probably join driving school next week.


>And for a good reason.

Whateves

>>17661530
If traffic lights take over for the signs, it goes by convention of the lights; ergo, straight has priority over left turn

>>17661535
Not true if there's a sign stating otherwise. Lights > signs > basic road laws.

>>17661545
The lights never take over though, they just have a higher priority. When their direction is ambiguous (both bus and car get a green light), the signs dictate what you should do next.

Lights > signs > road laws.

>>17661548
>The lights never take over though

Be honest, do you have a driving license?

>>17661553
Yup. AM, A1, A2, A, B, BE and T. That's a total of 7 theoretical exams - I even made a single mistake on one (AM iirc, my first).

>>17661560
proof?

>>17661548
>implying you can see the light is green on the oncoming side

>>17661418
I don't know the sign. Straight beats turn, but fuck going infront of a bus. H-he can go first.

>>17661418
>who has the right of way here
Whichever one is on their way to kick the ass of the mongoloid who designed that intersection

>>17661576
>I don't know the sign

Am I just a third worlder, or do these signs not exist anywhere else? Top sign says you don't have the right of way, bottom sign says who has the right of way over you.

>>17661566
Hang on, I'll dox myself in a few minutes.

>>17661575
You can see it in the OP.

Anyways, you still have to yield to the bus because the signs say so. You always have to assume that other people may get a green light, and you'll have to solve that using the available signs. If you can't, standard road law (straight before turning) applies. That's also why you have to check the entire crossing, even if you've got a green light. Traffic lights are sometimes set up wierd, so you have to make sure you're the only person crossing, and if not, you have to solve that using, again, signage and road law.

>>17661576
Sign says yield to north and east. Now go hand in your driving license.

File: Knipsel.jpg (156KB, 1106x847px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1106x847px

>>17661566
Not giving you my latest one (with A), but here ya go.

>>17661596
The image is actually a trick question posted by my local driving school on normiebook, and the answer they, and literal police representatives gave, is that the car has the right of way, unless the traffic lights aren't functional, because lights overwrite any signs.

Hand over all of your """licenses""" please, I need to leave.

>>17661620
Link to normiebook then?

Sounds like bullshit to me. Signs > road law, especially when lights malfunction like this.

>>17661586
Also this.

>>17661625
It's not in English, and I'd have to bother finding the exact posts to screencap, because there's like 300 comments of retards arguing.

>Signs > road law, especially when lights malfunction like this

As you can see in the image, the lights are functional.

>>17661633
The function of traffic lights is to send vehicles through designated corridors at times when these corridors do not intersect.

In the OP, the traffic lights fail to do so. They can be considered malfunctioning (badly programmed or design), and signage takes over.

Depending on the language, I might be able to make something of it. Just post it.

I ride the bus, so it has the right of way. Don't run into my bus, shitlordes

>>17661639
I know this is gonna sound like a shitty excuse, but I literally need to leave now. You can google search the image and find it, but I doubt you'll be able to translate it.

>>17661639
Literally anywhere else in the logical world an oncoming lane-crossing turn yields to the oncoming lane if both lights are green.

I doubt this intersection with these particular circumstances would ever exist

krieg kanker en starf, flikker

>>17661468
Kekd

>>17661639
Bruh, the singing indicates the road which has priority HOWEVER the lights are activated thus the sings are ignored. Source: German driving education

>>17661648
It does sound like a shitty excuse. Mostly because you're wrong, and the picture doesn't reverse link to normiebook anywhere.

>>17661650
I know. If the signage wasn't there, I'd agree with you, and putting said signs there (probably to help the bus travel faster on it's route) is utterly retarded.

It would have made a lot more sense to decrease the angle between north and east, making them seem more like a main road. Also, adding some height (5-10cm) to those two would have helped to show people coming from the yield roads that they don't have the right of way.

>>17661662
Bruh, when the lights are both green, signs dictate who has right of way. Source: apparently superior Germanic driving education.

Donuts in the intersection while blasting eurobeat

>>17661673
The only right answer

>>17661670
>Bruh, when the lights are both green, signs dictate who has right of way. Source: apparently superior Germanic driving education.

No they fucking don't. Lights have a higher priority thus the sings are ignored. You also have to ignore the lights if a policeman is controlling the traffic at an intersection because a policeman has a higher priority then a light

>>17661670
>when the lights are both green

Which is in every scenario, kraut. The signs are there to dictate right of way in the intersection, in case the lights are off, since it has people coming from 4 direcrions, whereas with the lights on, only 2 directions compete for the right of way.

Literally mail me your licenses right now and stick to the bus.

I've never seen an intersection with traffic lights and a change of direction of the main road, and if they exist I doubt that geographically opposing directions would have a green light at the same time. More likely they'd give both main road directions green at the same time.

>>17661698
OK, we're in agreement here. Policeman > lights > signs > road law.
If there are no policemen, and both vehicles get a green light, then the next thing to follow would be signage. Only after that is done do you follow road law (straight before turning).

>>17661703
The signs are there for when the lights aren't conclusive.

Now go post that Facebook thing, I'm still waiting. Five bucks says it's Dutch.

>>17661705
It doesn't exist probably. It's a trick question to test noobs.

>>17661718
If you reverse google it nearly all the results are in Russian, which makes me believe that it may be a thing in slavland, but definitely not in the developed world. Nothing about such a traffic arrangement makes sense.

>>17661714
And the lights are conclusive in this case. I don't know what facebook thing you're going on about.

>>17661720
Literally just said it's a trick question and it doesn't exist, are you illiterate? Use your critical thinking skills, car has the right of way.

>>17661718
>>17661720
It's a standardised test from the Netherlands (by the looks of it) designed to confuse newbies. Bus > car, because it's on a priority road.

>>17661721
Lights aren't conclusive, since they're sending two vehicles in a conflicting corridor - a crash waiting to happen. Therefore, another set of rules is needed to make sure that the vehicles don't crash, which is why those signs have been placed there. Signs before road law, so the bus has right of way.

>>17661728
No, it's not like that.

>>17661728
>Bus > car, because it's on a priority road
Are you fucking retarded?

>>17661724
Personally I'd wait for the bus rather than crash into it because it has the right of way after all.

>>17661735
Enjoy being honked at and getting brake checked and your car keyed later.

Pic related is the exact same problem. Another retard crossing. Both vehicles have a green light. Bus is on the main/priority road, car is on a side road. The bus clearly has right of way here, just like in the OP. All I did was draw the angle a bit less confusing.

>>17661731
>>17661733
Not an argument.

Bus goes before car.

File: 1501850167446.png (11KB, 680x570px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 680x570px

>>17661747

>>17661747
You have no argument. You go on about the lights not being indicative, which I've proven wrong already, you just choose to ignore it with your German peebrain.

>>17661749
Now you actually made retarded crossing. Why the fuck green light would be in both of those places?

>>17661418
I have never ever seen an intersection like this in my life but it appears the bus has the right of way. In any civilized area this situation would be handled by a sensor that turns the car side's light red if it detects a stopped vehicle on the bus's side or just a left turn arrow that lights every other cycle.

>>17661756
It's just OP's crossing, but I straightened the angle between north and east. It does show how retarded the crossing is though.

>>17661752
Lights aren't indicative though, you haven't disporven that fact. Neither green light can give the car nor the bus right of way, ti would be self-contradictory. Therefore, signage takes over.

File: Americans.jpg (21KB, 384x395px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 384x395px

>>17661741

>>17661763
That's why road rules apply. Signs are there for when the lights aren't functional. I've said this 10 times already, get it through your thick skull, and stoo repeating your wrong statements.

>>17661492
You saved the thread. Golden.

>>17661576
Kek'd.

>>17661590
I've lived in Kentucky, France, DRCongo, Belgium, Kenya, Texas, and California and I do not recall ever seeing that sign.

File: QGX5H.png (58KB, 213x194px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 213x194px

>>17661785
It exists, but it's for the time when traffic lights are not working.

File: 1-2-37-006-B-8495815d4de5d70d.jpg (86KB, 534x401px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 534x401px

On straight roads the turning vehicle must yield to the remaining vehicle. HOWEVER turning doesn't actually necessarily mean change of geographic direction, it means change of road. The bus, even though it makes a geographic turn, stays on the main road. The car, even though it's geographically going straight, needs to yield to vehicles on the main road. The side road doesn't magically become a main road just from having a green light.

>>17661784
You've said it several times, but repeating it doesn't make it true. Neither does a bunch of ad hominems.

Signs are secondary to lights. When lights don't prove conclusive to determine who has right of way, you don't skip ahead to road rules, you use the available signage first. Only when that is inconclusive too, do you use road rules. For example, had there been no signs at all, then it's obvious that the car goes first (straight before turning). However, tere are signs, and those always supersede basic road rules, especially so if the lights aren't proving to be conclusive, as is true in OP's case.

>>17661418
>who has the right of way here and why?

I do because I'm me. Next question?

>>17661796
This x1000.

>>17661801
>Signs are secondary to lights.
Why then you don't need to stop near STOP sign when there's green light?

>>17661801
Signs are there for when the lights aren't functional, which they are, so the sings are ignored in this case.

>>17661808
Signs are there for when lights aren't conclusive. They aren't, so the signs apply.

>>17661801
You know that you're an actually retard? I lived and drove in a place where these signs exists. These signs are for when traffic lights are not working or like in my place where I lived they would turn off traffic lights at night because there wasn't a lot traffic.

>>17661816
They are, and also this
>>17661806

Red vehicle travelling straight ahead has right of way, even though they're both on the wrong side of the road. Signs are there for if lights are turned off when there's minimal traffic.

Unless there are weird laws about giving way to buses, like some places have.

I've often wondered who has right of way in this situation with just a give way or stop sign, and the road the green vehicle is turning onto having no signs. Whether the red car travelling straight has right of way because straight>turn across traffic, or the green bus has right of way because it's turning onto the road which does not give way. Every time I've been in this situation the other vehicle and I have both stopped until one has waved the other through.

>>17661824
The vehicle paths are conflicting, therefore, lights aren't conclusive, etc.

>>17661819
I don't, since I live in a place with this signage, and have lived here all my life.

>>17661827
The green bus is staying on the main road, the red car is turning onto the main road. Therefore, the red car has to yield.

>>17661828
Quote me one official rule where it says anything about lights being "conclusive" and "conflicting roads". I'm waiting.

>>17661835
If there were no traffic lights only.

>>17661714
>The signs are there for when the lights aren't conclusive.
The signs are there for when the traffic lights fail or turn off for the night.

They are a fallback.

Anyway, OP's intersection would never exist precisely for reasons of this discussion.

...No, wait, I forgot that I live in Germany. It's sure as fuck to randomly pop up at some point because that combination of signs was cheaper or something.
A nearby town recently restructured their traffic flow into an ambiguous death trap because roundabouts are cheap and driver's tests are more likely to take place in such places.

File: 1446032569023.jpg (127KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1280x720px

>>17661728
>conflicting corridor
Have you never been on a four-way intersection with traffic lights?

>>17661843
No. Basic road rules still apply even when the lights are working.

Bus isn't turning, car is turning. Therefore, car has to yield to bus.

>>17661850
Have you ever been on a properly designed four-way intersection with traffic lights where streams of vehicles would cross each other at the same time?

No, because that wouldn't be well-designed, now would it? Designing an intersection where streams of vehicles can cross because they've got a green light at the same time is stupid design.

>>17661853
No, the car is going straight, because the lights are working, thus the road sights are to be ignored.

>>17661859
You can turn left or right at almost any four-way intersections, fucker. If you turn left, you have to stop and wait for opposite side traffic to give you room, because they are driving straight and thus have right of way.

>>17661835
Thanks anon, that's what I'd leaned towards but never really known.

>>17661843
Maybe should have made my post more clear but this is about a separate situation with a main road the vehicles are approaching and no lights
>>17661827

>>17661859
>moving the goalposts

It's not about design, it's about traffic rules.

>>17661864
Light aren't conclusive, so you have to obey the signs.

>>17661864
No. If you have a green right turn arrow you still have to yield to traffic on the dominant road. It doesn't override the signage, it only controls who has to stop and wait unconditionally. The bus is on the dominant road. The car enters the dominant road from a side road.

>>17661865
That's just stupid design. Turning right or left should reuire a green light that is only activated when there is no oncoming traffic. Why would you even put lights there if you just let road rules determine traffic flow anyways?

>>17661879
Please answer me this then: If there's STOP sign and green light is flashing do you need to stop or not?

>>17661886
>If there's STOP sign and do you need to stop or not?
Yes.

>Light is flashing
Especially yes, shit is broken.

>>17661865
Isn't that putting too much faith in the traffic to act safely? No wonder Americans always seem to always be getting into T-bones if that's built into the laws.

>>17661889
American traffic laws are retarded, Americans are retarded, and they have higher traffic death rates than Europe for a reason.

>>17661478
Nah, we're just polite.

>>17661879
Show me one official rule that speaks about """conclusive""" lights. Still waiting.

File: stop-sign-and-traffic-light-F0FGME.jpg (198KB, 866x1390px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 866x1390px

>>17661888
I meant if green light is on and sign looks like this, do you need to stop before proceeding?

>>17661714
>If there are no policemen, and both vehicles get a green light, then the next thing to follow would be signage.
Yeah, it's up to the car to get out of the vehicle, check what light the bus has, then make the decision

the correct answer is to publicly execute the traffic engineers responsible for this intersection

>>17661915
Not going to spoon feed you mate, you can read your own theoretical book and find it.

>>17661922
The car driver can clearly see that the bus driver has had a green light though, since the bus will advance beyond the line.

Traffic engineer still deserves to be shot though.

>>17661888
Imagine being this fucking stupid.

I hope you lied about having a license, you literal walking murderer.

>>17661927
So no proof? Got it, busdriver.

>>17661930
Murderers are those who just drive into intersections despite being unsure about the right of way because they're the ones that cause fatal T-bone accidents. You're always on the safe side by taking the cautious approach.

>>17661942
You literally think you need to stop at a stoo sign on a green light. Enjoy getting rear ended and potentially killing someone, mouthbreether busdriver. I hope you never get a license

>>17661942
You mean people bumping into your back because you're driving like a lunatic?

>>17661948
Your fault for not keeping a safe following distance.

File: 1498587311506.png (148KB, 222x293px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 222x293px

>>17661888
You really stop on all stop signs even if you have a green light?

>>17661956
Try saying this go the police when they arrive, or to the person whos damily member you've killed is curb stomping your empty head.

>>17661963
You stop at a stop sign if traffic is crossing your way on an intersection. Simple as that.

>>17661714
>OK, we're in agreement here. Policeman > lights > signs > road law.
>If there are no policemen, and both vehicles get a green light, then the next thing to follow would be signage. Only after that is done do you follow road law (straight before turning).

Ah, I catch your drift and see what got you confused. Policeman > lights > sings > road law (right before left) is something different than straight before turnning. Those are the right of way. However Straight before (one of my Driving instructors called it left turn loser) is priority. When you get to an intersection the right of way is getting picked (in this case the lights) and then if necessary the priority applyed (Straight before turn)

>>17661418
Why would anyone make that intersection sign combination
It's completely fucking retarded

>>17661986
I hope you don't have driving license. If you're from burgerland I wouldn't be surprised though.

>>17661963
He doesn't, because he's a busrider.

>>17661919
No

>>17661418
How do we know the bus is actually going to turn? 2 lane roads with a turn arrow at an inbersection usually allow the Driver to go straight too, esciallaly considering the flow of traffic is the same directuon on the side of the road on the side of the ibgersioctiln where the car is?

>>17661947
>>17661948
>>17661975
>Person behind me isn't keeping a correct distance
>Slow down
>Person behind me crashes into me
Police would agree that the ''chaser'' is always at fault, especially if they're not keeping enough distance. If the crash was severe enough to kill somebody, then excessive speed by the chaser is also involved, making it 100% their own fault.

Always slow down for intersections, even if you have a green light. Always scan the intersection. Always be prepared to brake. There may be traffic moving perpendicular to you (which may have ignored a red light), and you need to be prepared for panic braking. Whether >>17661942 and >>17661956 were in the wrong for braking or not, it's always your own fault (and police will always agree on this) if you rear end them because you didn't keep enough room between the two of you.

File: 1498588524620.gif (925KB, 236x192px) Image search: [Google]

925KB, 236x192px

>>17661986
>has green light while going straight
>stops to yield way

the virgin intersection crossing

>>17662018
Turn indicators?

>>17661889
>>17661897
>>17661884
That's the German situation, actually.

I don't see the problem. Additional lights would just overcomplicate things. The existing lights are enough to prevent all four sides of the intersection from going at the same time. They effectively cut the intersection and make it work as two alternating priority roads that cross over.

>>17661884
t. never driven a car before

go back to school, busrider

>>17662021
That guy would be at fault sure, but don't be surprised when someone rear ends you.

>>17662031
>expecting people to use their blinkers like they were intended to
Must be nice living in fantasyland

>>17661927
>"Not going to spoon feed you mate"

So you're telling me you have no proof

>>17662021
>literallg trying to justify stopping at a stop sign on a green fucking light

This is the type of person that's giving you advice on what car to get /o/. This inbred probably posts on /osg/ I'm willing to bet my life on it.

>>17661987
Priority goes to the bus thoes. The bus isn't turning (it isn't moving away from the main road), therefore, it has priority over the car, which is turning ONTO the main road.

>>17661998
I have a driving license, and I'm from one of the safest countries on earth in terms of traffic-related deaths per capita.

>>17662045
>Must be nice living in fantasyland
*Not Burgerland

>>17662055
Yeah right

>>17662052
I feel bad for everyone that has to drive with or around you.

>>17662034
But there's still crossing vehicle streams, which can cause confusion and accidents.

>>17662049
I'm not telling you to stop on a green light. I'm telling the idiots in those three posts that they're going to be ticketed if they crash into somebody who unexpectedly stops at an intersection, since it's their fault for not maintaining distance & slowing down before the intersection.

>>17662031
His directional are off so it's clear he isn't going to turn, if both are going straight than there is no question.

Inbfore
>The bus driver forgot to signal

He is a trained progressing forgetting that would be like a doctor forgetting his scalpel at the house

Give me you're license

>>17662052
>Priority goes to the bus thoes. The bus isn't turning (it isn't moving away from the main road), therefore, it has priority over the car, which is turning ONTO the main road.

No, both have right of way because of green light. Right of way because of sings (curved main road) doesn't matter because light > sing thus the bus is leaving the "main road" created
by the lights and car gets priority

>>17662060
They wont be, because you don't fucking stop at a stop sign on a green light.

>>17662060
>But there's still crossing vehicle streams, which can cause confusion and accidents.
So can the ordinary right of way rules when you are driving the speed limit in a 30 zone. You need to really take care when there's a road coming from the right.
Not to mention that it's not always clear which roads are considered part of the main road and which are considered to have an obviously separate design. The latter of which would have to yield to you, even if they are on the right.

>>17662031
>>17662064
Bus driver doesn't have to indicate, since he's not leaving the main road.

>stop sign at a green light

Does that actually exist anywhere?
Holy fucking shit

>it's another "German has a meltdown because foreigners have different laws even on the road and he cannot grasp this" episode

File: 1476807039286.gif (646KB, 512x481px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 512x481px

>>17662072

>>17662069
You could stop becasue somebody ran a red light.
You could stop because there's an animal in the way.
You could stop because you have a vehicle malfunction.

There's dozens of reasons why you could slow down and stop before an intersection. If you rearend somebody who does so, you're legally at fault for not maintaining proper distance.

>>17662073
Yes, but you don't actually need to stop because traffic lights > signs.

>>17662067
Lights don't create main roads though. Signs do.

>>17662072
You ALWAY have to indicate when turning. It doesn't matter if you are staying on the main or leaving it. Holy shit give me your license

>>17662079
Stop moving the goalposts. He LITERALLY said you should stop at a green light.

>>17662083
So the stop sign is literally useless all the time
w o w

This intersection could have been made using a four way stop sign. What kind of moron adds several layers of complexity like this?

>>17662085
Signs are nonexistant in this case since the lights work, signs have to be ignored since lights and analogue to that, light rules are overwritting the signs.

>>17662088
I'm not defending him though. All I'm saying rearending somebody is legally your own fault in these cases, no matter why that idiot braked in the first place.

>>17662085
the "main road" I mean is in a legal sense (the that gives you the right of way the same a sing does) and not in a city planning context

>>17662092
>all the time
>malfunctions and nighttime don't exist

>>17662092
Yes, but sometimes in smaller cities there's not a lot of traffic at night so they turn of traffic lights so you wouldn't need to stand at red light for no reason.

>>17662092
You have to stop when the light is turned of or malfunctions

>>17662094
That's not how stop signs work, at the tangent of a stop signed road is a priority road sign normally.

>>17662095
>>17662099
Still doesn't make lights capable of creating a priority road.

>>17662096
Not really.

>>17662111
The only reason why you would rearend somebody who slows down before an intersection is not keeping enough distance. This is your fault, therefore, legally, you're fucked.

File: 1501637489734.gif (732KB, 250x355px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 250x355px

>>17661443
>t. riding in the green vehicle

>>17662110
Why would you need or care about priority road in controlled intersection?

>>17662110
And they don't. Normal road rules apply, but I wouldn't expect a busrider to know.

>>17661418

The problem is, there's a big difference between theoretical and practical road manners, and then more so in different countries. Where I'm from, they don't use those types of signs (maybe somewhere far out in the boonies), so the car would go first because straight > right > left. If the bus was on a priority road, there would be a specific turning light for that direction.

>>17662110
How tf you don't understand that light > sing

>>17662118
Because the intersection clearly is not in control. Vehicle paths are intersecting.

>>17662121
>Normal road rules apply
So why no just follow the signs then, which are normal road rules?

Nice ad ho, sure proved your point.

>>17662100
>>17662103
>>17662104
Why not just put a fucking stop sign and be done with it then
If your bumfuck nowhere place is small enough to turn off stop lights at night it certainly is small enough to not generate insane traffic because of a stop

>>17662127
He's German. He also does't underatand muslims shouldn't be gangbanging his women.

>>17662132
There's a lot of traffic when people go to work and after work.

>>17662127
I understand that police > light > sign > rules
But if
Bus=1
Car=2
And
Light 1 = light 2
And
Sign 1 > Sign 2
Therefore,
Bus > Car

>>17662135
>Imblying
Geef me mijn fiets terug kankermof

>>17662130
Because, for the millionth time, as me and many others have tried to tell you, traffic lights are in place, and lights > signs. Retard.

>>17662132
>What is nighttime and sunday?
ALSO MALFUNCTIONS

>>17662132
>Why not just put a fucking stop sign and be done with it then
Because it would completely buttfuck traffic flow when traffic is high, you fucking retard.

>>17662144
But what if the lights aren't conclusive?

>>17662150
Then why make a cornering main road if that's not where the majority of the traffic goes?

what country has signs like this? I've never seen this shit in the US

>>17662155
First world ones.

>>17662155
Well yeah, you only have traffic lights and "first come first serve" and no mandate for driving on the right lane on the highway. It's literally Ork-style roads.

>>17662153
Show me one official rule that talks about """conclusive""" lights, a non existent term mabe uo by your shit filled head.

Still waiting, you still wont post it.

>>17662145
Your stop signs have malfunctions and stop working at nighttime and sunday?
Move elsewhere man.

>>17662150
>literally unable to read two complete sentences

>>17662140
>I understand that police > light > sign > rules
>But if
>Bus=1
>Car=2
>And
>Light 1 = light 2
>And
>Sign 1 > Sign 2
>Therefore,
>Bus > Car

Well, light > sing.
Sing doesn't even apply. Straight before turn isn't in the rules in police > light > sign > rules.

Sing doesn't apply and the lights count. This is the right of way. Both have this. The next thing is priotity (straight before left). Straight before turn doesn't give you a right of way but it gives you priority. Just like in every other intersection that has lights

>>17662160
>Spoon feed me mommy!

>>17662155
US roads are literally the most chimpanzee proof in the world. I've driven there no problem before even getting my German license.

>>17662164
No proof again? Got it.

>>17662164
>I pulled this fact out of my ass, professor!

>>17661620
>The image is actually a trick question posted by my local driving school on normiebook, and the answer they, and literal police representatives gave, is that the car has the right of way, unless the traffic lights aren't functional, because lights overwrite any signs.
Still waiting.

>>17662162
>Straight before turn gives you priority.
Bus is going straight, car is turning. Therefore, bus has priority.

File: 1439823417808.png (99KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 625x626px

>>17662161

>>17661418
Me in the car because I can go faster than the bus. ezpz, your mate has been checked

>>17662161
>Your stop signs have malfunctions and stop working at nighttime and sunday?

Well on some there is not so much traffic in nighttime or on sundays but have enough during the day to justify lights. And nothing is unbreakable. It happens rarly but there can alway burn a light or something. That's why it is a law that every light needs a sing as a backup

>>17662164
Made up term then

>>17662180
>Bus is going straight, car is turning. Therefore, bus has priority.

Wtf did you smoke

>>17662195
Muslim dicks.

>>17662181
>>17662184
I've been driving for 10 years and I never ever saw an intersection that would warrant having both a stop light and a stop sign but okay whatever.

>>17662195
The definition of turning is leaving your road.
Bus stays on the same road.
Car is leaving his road, going onto the main road.
Therefore, car is turning, bus is not.

>>17662199
Someone literally posted a picture especially for people like you earlier. Google also exists.

>the maryland road crew has been working on a new roundabout for about three years now
>they put up stop signs
>at the roundabout
apparently people are fucking retards and just drive into the concrete middle

>>17662201
Bus goes left => turning
Car goes straight => Not turning

Again, sings DO NOT apply here

>>17662201
You gonna prove that definiton of yours?

File: 1489825073970.jpg (211KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 546x700px

Man, you guys live in dumb cities with dumb signage

I wonder for how long this sweaty German cuck is gonna keep pretending to be retarded. He clearly knows he's wrong, but he's gone too far in to admit his mistake now.

>>17662214
Imagine the same intersection as in OP, but now with an anle of 180 degrees between what used to be the north (bus) and east side. The other roads come in at a 60 degree angle to this. This is, fundamentally, the same crossing, just more simple to interpret becasue the angles aren't as confusing.

Is the bus still turning? Nope, because it stays on the same road. This is now blatantly obvious because it's not literally turning (in the mechanical sense). The car is though, just as he is in the OP.

>>17662230
Krautcuck here, I was wrong.

File: 1501848587258.jpg (44KB, 480x289px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x289px

>>17662231
In this case you would be right. But it is not the case. Look at pic related I marked the street for you

>>17661418
That sign is probably there for when the car's light is red, so that people turning right will yield to the bus's turning left.

However, since the light is green, it overrides the yield sign, and gives the car the right of way.

>>17662231
I'm so glad I'll never be this fucking retarded.

File: 1501848587258.jpg (56KB, 480x289px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 480x289px

>>17662247
You marked the street wrong though.

>>17661501
wtf is a priority road sign
never seen one and never even taught in the driving test

>>17662252
If the cars light is red it isn't allowed to drive anyway (except turn on red is allowed) but then the buses light would usally also be red. The sings are there if light malfunctions or is turned of

>tfw going to Germany in October
>inb4 this stopping at green lights retard runs me over somewhere and reverses over my head to finish me off

>>17662263
No, mine is right. Once again: Sings DO NOT apply here. What you think is the right of way given by sings wich do not apply because right of way through lights is higher

File: Priority Road Sign.png (20KB, 2400x2400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 2400x2400px

>>17662274
>wtf is a priority road sign

>>17662294
>inb4 this Americuck is going to hog the left lane on the Autobahn at 110kph, getting rearended like he should

>>17662274
Literally the + looking sign that indicates with fat BBC lines who has priority over you.

>>17662303
But the lights haven't given anybody the right of way over the other. The lights aren't telling the bus to go before the car, or otherwise.

Therefore, you resort to the next level, which is signage.

>>17661796
>The side road doesn't magically become a main road just from having a green light
Yes it fucking does.
A crossroads with a light is the same as equal importance road.

>>17661806
Where would there be a stop sign at the same junction as a traffic light?

>>17662323
Here>>17661919

>>17662307
>German manchild justifies rear ending people
>the same retard that stops at a green light stop sign

Couldn't make this shit up even if I spent all my life trying.

>>17662277
>If the cars light is red it isn't allowed to drive anyway (except turn on red is allowed)
Well yeah, I said it's there for people turning right. It's not uncommon for an intersection to have traffic stopped for one side so that traffic can turn on the opposite side, especially on roads that get a lot of traffic.

If the car's light was red, the people in the car's lane wouldn't really be able to see if the bus had a green light or not. This is where the sign comes in.

It's basically saying "Yield to turning traffic before turning right on red.".

>>17662327
I'm not that guy though, nor am I German.

File: cea3bedc36[1].jpg (67KB, 1024x802px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1024x802px

>>17662323
pretty common in europe, lights are turned off at night in low traffic neighborhoods, and the sign is used if the lights fail

>>17662231
>Imagine the same intersection as in OP, but now with an anle of 180 degrees between what used to be the north (bus) and east side

How about not since that's not what the OP's pic is about

>>17662334
Yeah I bet.

>>17662327
hogging left lane is illegal in germany, it's in the laws

if some undercover cop sees you and the rearender he's going to stop you both but the hogger will get the heftier ticket

>>17662351
Yes, but he wont rear end you like a retard.

>>17661501
I refuse to believe such bullshit signs actually exist

File: roadstuf.jpg (100KB, 766x1096px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 766x1096px

>>17662323
Do Americans not get traffic textbooks full of all sorts of hypothetical situations?

>>17662313
This is what I'm trying to tell you. Right of way is alway given by the highest instance (the lights) thus priority comes into play (straight before turn)

The bus because it's on the protected road as the table for the car states.

File: Knipsel.jpg (86KB, 1391x484px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1391x484px

>>17662345
Pic related, I'm not the guy in >>17661942 or >>17661956 who suggested just that. Also, I'm not German, or my filenames would be Ausschnitt.

>>17662355
You deserve to get rear ended if you lanehog though.

>>17662382
You deserve to never receive your license foe having that mindset though.

>>17662386
>t. Amerilard without lane discipline

>>17662392
t. illiterate manchild trying to justify rear ending people

File: 2 stars.jpg (60KB, 770x578px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 770x578px

>>17662409
>t. driver of pic related
If you garbage piece of American ''engineering can't stand up to a 130kph triple rollover, it doesn't deserve to be on the road anyways.

>>17662426
>beinf this obsessed and assmad

I never said I was American in the first place.

>>17661492
>Naamloos
Nederland zuigt

>>17662426
>crumple zone does exactly as it should and driver compartment is intact
are you a literal retard?

>>17662471
Then why did it only get two stars? That's Tata Nano-tier.

>>17661913
Ameritards and europoors wont understand. Driving culture is so kind i canada other than french fags and the greater toronto area

>>17661927
No, the bus has a delayed green.

Except no one would know that and depending on signage that isn't visible is ridiculous, so there's 0 reason to make an assumption about their light if we're talking about US law.

File: 1499274786839.jpg (59KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 960x960px

>>17661418
>street lights and yield signs on a two-lane four-way intersection

What kind of ass-backwards shitholes are actually designed like this?

>>17662827
Nowhere.

Which is why this is stupid.

FYI the bus would turn first. It does not have a yield sign like the car does.

>>17661418
red car
workig stop light > signs

>>17662924
But the bus also has a green light.

Okay, listen up faggots. The right of way in Europe goes.

The one on the top overrides the one on the bottom.

Traffic Cop (even ambulances must stop)
Traffic Light
Road Signs
Road Markings
Whoever sits on your right gets right of way.

The trafic lights give right of way to both vehicles but the car must go first because the bus is making a turn.

>>17662928
and he is turning left, so he has to yield
if traffic lights are operational you are supposed to ignore the signs
order goes
traffic lights > sighs > something written on the road

>>17662942
>>17662945
Bus isn't turning though, he isn't leaving the main road.

>>17662951
are you fucking retarded?
he is turning left, its normal 4way intersection with a traffic light, you proceed as such without signs

>>17662957
He's not leaving the main road, the car is. Therefore, the car is turning.

You should always stick to the signs, they go before standard rules like ''Right first'' or ''Straight before turning''.

>>17662965
no they dont, go turn in your licence in, i dont want to drive near retards like you
signs are ignored if the traffic light is operational

>>17662965
the main road is now defined by the traffic lights, you thick fuck.

>>17662975
Of course they don't. Why do you think they put the signs there?

>>17662979
Main road is defined by signs ya doofus. How in the hell can a set of lights define a road status?

>>17661596
That sign literally doesn't exist in my country lad.

>>17662989
go read a book, jesus crist
main road means shit if there are traffic lights, you wont go trough red light even if the the main road is yours you faggot, signs do no exist while traffic light is working

>>17662989
>Main road is defined by signs ya doofus. How in the hell can a set of lights define a road status?
The green corridor is the main road and it shifts dynamically.
Now go suck a turd.

>>17662989
The traffic lights OVER-FUCKING-RIDE the signs. Go to the mearest police station and turn yourself in as a potential terrorist.

>>17663012
That's just strawmanning hard. Of course you don't run a red light because you're on the priority road, but if you've both got green staying on the main road means you have right of way.

>signs no exist while traffic light is working
Then por que do gringos put signs there?

>>17663021
How can that be when the main road is determined by signage?

>>17663023
Then why put signs there at all?

>>17663031
When the light breaks or after 12 AM when they turn off on non-boulevards or other main roads. Have you ever driven a car?

>>17662365
No because civic planners don't do stupid shit like this in America

>>17663052
Okay, 4-way-stop-land.

>>17663064
4 way stop makes a whole lot more goddamn sense that whatever the hell is going on in this thread

>>17663042
Then that means those signs have authority, especially when the traffic lights aren't conclusive. Road rules are secondary to signage anyways.

>Have you ever driven a car?
Been a professional chauffeur for just over two years now.

>>17663066
Not really, no. If you have actually read the rulebook there would be no discussion whatsoever.

>>17663042
Dude, he's quite blatantly baiting and has been for five hours.

If you get angry, he might actually get an erection on his microdick.

>>17663071
You are danger to society then. There is nothing non-conclusive about the road signs. You are turning left, you need to wait the guy going through. Road signs make zero influence on the right of way.

>>17663099
>Road signs make zero influence on the right of way.
inb4 he attacks this ambiguous sentence now.

>>17663107
The moment I posted it, I was like "oh shit, I left a small window of opportunity for someone to be retarded"

>>17663076
Ok.
4-way stop:
>Stop
>Wait turn
>Go

This bullshit:
>Stop
>Wait for light
>Go on green
>Wait- there's opposing traffic?
>yield for turning traffic
>then maybe go?

>>17663129
Yeah, simplicity for the Americans is key. Efficiency on the other hand, not at all.

>>17663128
>I left a small window of opportunity for someone to be retarded
Yeah, it's called your post.

>>17663146
How long did it take you to think of that? Very clever comeback, you might be able to be let on the normal bus now.

how did you pass your drivers exam if you don't know the basics of road rules?
jesus burgers are the pinnacle of retardation

>>17663287
>burgers

It's literally one German retard that has been arguing for hours, making up terms and claims he can't prove. Kid literally said he stops at stop signs on a green light.

>>17661418
The red car has a yield sign so the bus has the right of way.

>>17663311
kys

File: 1476561922034.jpg (71KB, 579x960px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 579x960px

everyone saying bus has the righ of way
< pic

>>17663311
turn in your license right now

>>17661418
I always have the right of way. No faggot ass light or sign is going to tell me when to stop.

>>17663328
>chad plow.png

>>17663309
>German
Lel, still literally grasping at straws

>>17663343
He literally said it himself.

>>17663343
you just couldn't sit still ya cunt, couldn't you?
you had the need to reply and bait more
take your you and kys

>>17663350
>He
Literally who?

>>17663354
C'mon mate, we're almost at bump limit anyways. Sure as hell beats another Corvette vs. GT-R, Tesla Shill or Prez/o/ vs. S/o/viet thread.

>>17663385
retardation is never ok
kys

>>17663326
>>17663315
I've never actually seen that sort of intersection where I live but that is what it seems to be implying. Every point in the intersection has a yield sign instead of the bus.

>>17663390
It's not retarded though, the bus clearly has right of way since signs > road rules.

I'm convinced the busriders are just baiting now.

> Every point in the intersection has a yield sign instead of the bus.
Wrong. See the angry chinese man rotated to 135 Degrees Counterclockwise? He shows that the main road is the one the bus is comimg from and it will continue to go on. But that is completely irrelevant as the yelds are overriden by yhe stoplight

>>17661418
>lights and yield signs
>no message saying what the cross traffic has to do
is this what bongs actually have for "traffic control"?

File: Lym6HG3.jpg (97KB, 435x435px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 435x435px

>>17663482
>burgers need to be told what to do at all times

File: westminster-shooting-car.jpg (43KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 620x465px

>>17663531

Driving instructions unclear, drove into pedestrians instead.

>>17663567
BONG BTFO