Real carguy test

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Redrawing the problem, brb.

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

>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.

What about

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.

>hand over your driving license, son

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.

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.

see I was starting to get sad I wasn't able to bait Veeky Forums 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.

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

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

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.

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

Check your straight privilege, shitlord

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.

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

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

And for a good reason.

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

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

They never do though.

>caring about road laws

...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.

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

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

>And for a good reason.

Whateves

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

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

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.

>The lights never take over though

Be honest, do you have a driving license?

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).

proof?

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

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

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

>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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Link to normiebook then?

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

Also this.

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.

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

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.

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

Kekd

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

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

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.

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

The only right answer

>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

>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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

No, it's not like that.

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

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

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.

Not an argument.

Bus goes before car.

...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

...

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.

You saved the thread. Golden.

Kek'd.

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

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

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.

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.

>who has the right of way here and why?

I do because I'm me. Next question?

This x1000.

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

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

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

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.

They are, and also this

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.

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

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

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.

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

If there were no traffic lights only.

>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.

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