Can Veeky Forums get this right?

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

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

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

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

This wouldn't exist in real life.

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

irrelevant

This happens pretty much every week to me.

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.

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.

first come first served

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.

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

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.

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.

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

blue, green, red

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

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.

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.

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.

this happens all the time retard

About 30% of them are withot any signs here.
Nope, they aren´t that rare.
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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.
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.

>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?

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

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.

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

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

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.
In most contrys you will get in such a intersection.

>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.

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.

>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.

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

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
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.

My answer was correct anyway.

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

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

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.

I honestly cannot remember ever seeing a single one in all my time driving. Besides, if we're turning this from a hypothetical on Veeky Forums 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.

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

pure autism

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

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

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

>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
drivingtests.co.nz/roadcode/car/intersection/63/

hoyreregelen

Right hand rule. Red, Green, Silver.

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

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.

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.

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.

???
youtube.com/watch?v=dPjv1SBaps0

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

what did he mean by this

They exist fucking everywhere, not just in germany.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

>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.

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

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.

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.

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.

blue green red

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.

>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.

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

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

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.

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

Damn, even the threads are clickbait now.

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

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

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

>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.

>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 Veeky Forums not to chat about cars in general but come to try and feel somehow superior to others for no reasons.

t. green car driver