Posted by iconoclast at 9/3/08 1:42 a.m.

At an intersection controlled by traffic lights,when the light turns green is it legal or moreso, advised to move out in to the intersection to make a left turn while waiting for traffic coming from the other direction to clear, or must one wait at the stop line before proceeding in to the intersection?

Posted by ballardog at 9/3/08 5:53 a.m.

If traffic circles were turned into roundabouts and the roads widened they could be opened up to more free flowing traffic relieving the pressure on the larger arterials. Of course the mayor would not like it but we need more roads.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/3/08 6:12 a.m.

Isn't this code concerning streets and not intersections? This does not necessarily seem relevant for roundabouts, only divided roads.

Posted by iando at 9/3/08 7:02 a.m.

This appears to be in disagreement with the "Getting There" article from the P.I. back in August.
seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/37
4371_getthere11.html

Posted by SOVcommuter at 9/3/08 7:20 a.m.

My father worked for the City of Seattle Engineering Department when they first started installing the traffic circles. This same question came up among the city employees at the time. The city told employees they could cut through to the left if no other vehicles were approaching the traffic circle at the time. So there probably still is a strong "oral tradition" saying it's OK to do so.

Posted by dpk at 9/3/08 7:26 a.m.

Here's hoping the changes the city is making to the municipal code makes this extremely clear. It's ridiculous that this question has been asked 3 times and had 3 different responses.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/3/08 7:31 a.m.

Agree with dpk. What traffic circle in Seattle has "solid yellow pavement markings or ... yellow cross-hatching between two (2) solid yellow lines"?

Posted by unregistered user at 9/3/08 7:51 a.m.

the law quoted actually sounds like a law intended to prevent people from driving on top of a median to make a left turn. I don't see anythingin here about a roundabout. This is definitely in conflict with what was previously reported. Can you follow up with the Getting There column and sort this out?

Posted by unregistered user at 9/3/08 8:21 a.m.

Wow....$124 more dollars to go to RICKS.

Posted by tuddo at 9/3/08 8:46 a.m.

Obviously the officer quoted is confused, so I would challenge any citation made using this code that does not pertain to roundabouts, traffic circles or other traffic calming devices. Not only are officers confused, the three or four stories that have been featured in the Seattle PI cite different authorities, different codes and different answers. Smart drivers (and lawyers) will file a copy of each in their brief when appearing before a court or challenging the ticket. Newspaper articles are not legal excuses, but it will show that Seattle needs to get its house in order before it tickets anyone. Plead confusion and I bet the judge will agree with you.

State law should have priority, but I have written two letters to DOT, received two different answers, one saying all drivers must go around to the right unless specifically there are ihnstructiions posted informing the driver what is allowed, and the other response stating that roundabouts are not any different than any other intersection and can be ignored, driven over and tuned left in front of.

Even the state doesn't know what to do about Seattle roundabouts.

Posted by RJH at 9/3/08 9:02 a.m.

Not all roundabouts can be negotiated in a legal manner. A specific is the intersection of Boyer and 26th East; going east on Boyer and making a left onto north-bound 26th Ave East is impossible to do in the prescribed manner without having to stop, reverse to realign the vehicle then proceed, a highly dangerous maneuver especially on a nearly blind curve where no-one pays any attention to the posted 10 mph uphill and 15 mph downhill. Having lived here for several decades, I have yet to see anyone ticketed for speeding through this intersection. Frankly, it would be safer to remove the roundabout and simply accept the fact that people speed since they treat the roundabout as the chicane in Monaco anyway. At least removal would provide improved visibility with additional maneuvering space.

RJH

Posted by J.P. Patches Pal at 9/3/08 9:15 a.m.

Ill be the roundabout
The words will make you out n out
I spend the day your way
Call it morning driving thru the sound and
In and out the valley...

Posted by KAZEM at 9/3/08 9:17 a.m.

You must have had the same drivers ed teacher I did -- an older guy, teaching over at Roosevelt, possibly you were in a class offered through Blanchet High School? He told me the same thing so I believed him... until I failed my drivers test the first time because of it. Yeah.

Posted by dtu at 9/3/08 9:22 a.m.

So all the idiots supporting James Paroline are clearly WRONG when they say that the old man was not impeding traffic. "Just go around the left side of the traffic circle" they say; and break the law, according to this article.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/3/08 9:28 a.m.

roundabouts and traffic-circles are two different things... you must go all the way around to the right at at roundabout but you may turn left and NOT go all the way around a traffic-circle.

a suit was brought against Seattle re: this very issue some years ago, and pointed to language saying that traffic shall move in the most direct way when turning, or words to that effect, and the driver WON.

my take is this: if there is SIGNAGE compelling the all the way around to the right at a traffic-circle, then I will do it. At a ROUNDABOUT, on ALWAYS goes all the way around.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/3/08 9:38 a.m.

I always go left into and out of my street (clockwise) around the traffic cirlces. I always use my turn signal and certainly look to avoid accidents, but people still give me dirty looks (which of course makes me want to do it even more).
it's perfectly legal in my interpretation.

Posted by tuddo at 9/3/08 9:51 a.m.

People keep saying roundabouts and traffic circles and rotary islands are different things. State law makes no such distinction. Every jurisdiction in Washington, except Seattle, says they are the same thing and you must go right around them and traffic entering must yield to traffic already in the circle. That is based on state law. An exception can be made if the intersection is clearly posted with instructions that tell the driver what to do.

Seattle needs to get its ordinances in order to comply with state law or post signs that clearly show what to do. Otherwise, the city needs to use other, more sensible traffic calming devices.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/3/08 10:06 a.m.

I recently went to a traffic seminar on the subject of round-abouts. There is a distinct difference between traffic circles and round-abouts. Traffic circles are traffic calming features. The intent is to slow down vehicles approaching an uncontrolled intersection. Round-abouts are technically a controlled intersecton, replacing a traffic light or a signed intersection. Legally there is no requirement to drive around traffic circles. However, it is likely an officer (particularly one who does not know the difference between a traffic circle and a round-about) will ticket you if you cut the corner. Police officers are obligated to maintain public safety and if cutting the corner appears unsafe, they are correct to pull you over and ticket you. In reality, however, it is no different than making a left turn at a regular intersection. If you cut off a vehicle and make an unsafe turn, you can be pulled over and ticketed.

Posted by nullbull at 9/3/08 10:18 a.m.

I'm going to derail things and get all tangential on you, but I think it's funny when there's an article about biking or bike commuters drivers post all kinds of indignant things about how the bikers don't obey the rules of the road in doing the most expedient thing for themselves while navigating traffic.

But when drivers break the law by doing the most expedient thing, they sue the city, pore over the municipal code for the slightest technicality that absolves them of guilt and carry on doing whatever's easiet for them on the road.

Whether it's stopping in cross walks so they can sneak through a light that just turned red without having to wait for pedestrians, or going left around traffic circles, or going *only* 5 miles over the speed limit, or 10 or more in places where the road is really wide, it's a classic double standard.

If you don't like other people doing it, stopping doing it yourself. If you want to complain about bike riders breaking the law, don't post some weasely excuse on this forum about how you should be able to do the easy thing when it benefits you.

Posted by Panzo at 9/3/08 10:53 a.m.

Posted by nullbull at 9/3/08 10:18 a.m.

I'm going to derail things and get all tangential on you...

Tangential, yes. Derail, no.

What's happening here isn't an attempt to justify expedience. It's an attempt to define terminology and unify safe driving rules for the benefit of all. Even whiners.

Frankly, what's happening here shouldn't be happening here but in Seattle's City Hall. Fat lot of luck with that though.

Posted by tuddo at 9/3/08 11:38 a.m.

unregistered stated: I recently went to a traffic seminar on the subject of round-abouts. There is a distinct difference between traffic circles and round-abouts.

Please let me know who conducted this? Was it a state trooper? They will tell you it makes no difference, because state law makes no difference. In fact, in the definition of a "roundabout" state law calls it a "traffic circle" right there in the definition. They also use the term "rotaries". What the heck is that, and is it any different from a traffic circle, a traffic island, a roundabout?

The problem is that it is some tradition and unwritten rule in Seattle states that there is a difference. All kinds of twisted logic tries to justify various legal interpretations as shown in the five, maybe more, different answers the PI itself has published over the past few years citing some city or state "expert" and each quoting a different law or ordinance.

Visitors from other locations in and outside of Washington should rightly make the assumptiion that Seattle follows state laws or there will be signs posted telling motorists what to do.

Posted by dpk at 9/3/08 9:41 p.m.

"But when drivers break the law by doing the most expedient thing, they sue the city, pore over the municipal code for the slightest technicality that absolves them of guilt and carry on doing whatever's easiet for them on the road."

I don't know, I've interpreted what's been said in response to this question differently. I think it can be summed up quite simply: we want Seattle to fix the law, to make it crystal clear, or remove the traffic circles if there's no way to define how we should interact with them.

Posted by Bob-o at 9/5/08 1:40 p.m.

The whole traffic circle v roundabout discussion illustrates part of the problem.

First off, try and find an official definition of a roundabout and traffic circle. By my estimate, there are hardly any traffic circles in existence, if I believe what many definitions for 'traffic circle' cite.

I suspect that most drivers refer to traffic circles and roundabout synonymously, if taken nation wide or globally. I don't know what sort of local historical use of the terms there is, I'm just going on the English language words, and my driving experience across the country and internationally.

If we don't want to say the two terms are synonymous, then lets say that all off the circular traffic constructs in the Puget Sound appear to be roundabouts.

Posted by make_or_break at 9/5/08 1:46 p.m.

...or remove the traffic circles...

No. I don't care all that much for most of the vegetation some of these circles have (especially when it gets tall enough to impede my view of what's beyond), but I hate even more the idiots who used to blast through quiet residential streets before the circles were installed. Fact is, I think that there's not enough of them. One block up from us the city installed them on a street that used to be notorious for ridiculous speeding and its more than fair share of accidents. They didn't do the same on the parallel street that runs in front of my place, however; now most of the speed demons have just shifted over one block for circle-free recklessness, courtesy of the city. Big thanks, SDOT.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/12/08 1:47 a.m.

I don't have a specific reference at this time but trust me here.... the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) states that vehicles turning left at an intersection should do so before the center of the intersection if possible or some words to that effect. The idea is that opposing traffic wanting to turn left should turn before the center of the intersection to avoid long stalls in traffic and confusion to right of way.

The city has repeatedly mentioned this in response to previous questions from Times/PI readers and the Municipal Court has routinely agreed that this makes it OK to go left of center as long as traffic allows.

IMO it is still best to go around (c'mon, what's 3 seconds among friends?) but there appears to be no clear prohibition against going left!

Posted by unregistered user at 12/23/08 5:54 p.m.

Note that a roundabout is a circular one-way (in U.S. clockwise) street with other streets connected to it (sections of roundabout between the connected streets). Roundabouts have been used in Europe then U.S. as an alternative to expensive and flow interrupting traffic lights. Turning left into a Roundabout is the same as awrong way turn into a one-way street.
I too worked for Seattle engineering when traffic circles were first installed, to restrict cars from exceeding traffic speeds and volumes taking shortcuts between 25th and Broadway. Traffic circles are not meant to be roundabouts, they are traffic calming devices, same as a speed bump or one-lane road restrictions. Originally the Circles had a planted hill in the center.
Unfortunately we found Emergency Vehicles (Fire) and Services (Delivery, Garbage, School Buses) had issues circumnavigating these traffic circles (hence smaller ones were built that don't affect auto traffic) especially with illegally parked cars near the intersections(lack of growth management-density).