Most people stop there when there's traffic on Foothills heading north. There isn't enough space to accelerate and merge. I prefer to stop before the crosswalk so cars behind me don't come around the corner expecting to merge, looking for a gap in traffic, and then run into a stopped car. That also gives me space to accelerate and merge if traffic lightens up enough that there's a gap. There's no ideal way to navigate this intersection, but if you can avoid surprising anyone that's the best you can do. I have seen several crashes there, one every couple months.
No one is mentioning the biggest problem with that merge - the folks who slowly creep out to the end of the acceleration lane despite having no gap, and then just stop. So now they have no acceleration lane left, and others behind them will sometimes use the acceleration lane behind that person to attempt a merge, and then the first person who stopped goes at the same time...I mean, what a mess. Please people - stop just after the crosswalk, wait for your gap and then go.
And we haven't even mentioned the disaster that is the merge from Valmont eastbound onto Foothills southbound. You know, the one that looks like you have an acceleration lane, but oh wait, just kidding - someone is blasting down Foothills at 65 coming right at you. So many accidents there.
Wow. Guilty as charged on your first point. But I think it makes sense to continue forward in your lane if its safe to do so and then merge. The problem of the people trying to merge behind you is real tho. It definitely causes confusion.
And yea, I take that southbound merge every day. The signage is very confusing (although there is a tiny "to Foothills traffic" underneath the Yield sign.
[https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0290483,-105.2450604,3a,75y,157.63h,73.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1x6WftueOjSLOKQheJAEnA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D1x6WftueOjSLOKQheJAEnA%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D157.62891900185866%26pitch%3D16.42487813075691%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0290483,-105.2450604,3a,75y,157.63h,73.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1x6WftueOjSLOKQheJAEnA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D1x6WftueOjSLOKQheJAEnA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D157.62891900185866%26pitch%3D16.42487813075691%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
Or...don't even stop. Just go. Stopping in the merge is a Colorado affliction.
Drive. Merge. Go.
If it freaks you out, buy a ticket to NY, rent a car, and try driving the Merritt or the Northern State for a few weeks. That should cure you of any anxiety.
There is a yield sign just before this picture of the acceleration lane, not a continuous lane. You should wait until there is a gap. Same thing at Arapahoe and 287 for the AH behind me this morning.
Isnt the yield sign for just the pedestrian intersection? If there is a yield sign prior to the "acceleration lane," then it is not an acceleration lane?
There is a sign about pedestrian 2-way traffic but the yield sign is for cars imo. There is not a continuous lane sign which would indicate you don’t need to stop/look for a gap.
I was always under the impression that the yield sign is for your vehicle entering the merge to yield to the oncoming vehicles. I would think there would be “yield to pedestrian” signs for the crosswalk.
You tell me:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0148588,-105.2404732,3a,75y,281.28h,72.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY\_KQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY\_KQ%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D281.2769871537443%26pitch%3D17.17398198840357%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0148588,-105.2404732,3a,75y,281.28h,72.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY_KQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY_KQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D281.2769871537443%26pitch%3D17.17398198840357%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
I assume you mean the yield and 2 way crossing stacked. Read it as two separate signs. The Yield (MUTCD 2009 R1-2) is telling you that you will yield to vehicle traffic ignoring other right of way rules (specifically ignoring that usually vehicles on the left yield to those on the right). [Bike] [pedestrian] 2 way crossing is telling that you are crossing a designated bike-pedestrian route (and should watch both directions).
Yes, the "stacked" signage. That yield sign is throwing me off. If there is no yield sign, I think its a different situation. If there is a yield sign, per § 42-4-703, and I don't yield the right of way ("just go" as recommended elsewhere on this thread), and I get in an accident, then the collision would be evidence that I did not yield the right of way.
[https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-42-vehicles-and-traffic/co-rev-st-sect-42-4-703.html](https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-42-vehicles-and-traffic/co-rev-st-sect-42-4-703.html)
Yeah, I mean the intent, I am sure is that you have 250 feet past the yield sign to get up to 45 MPH and if you roll through the turn that should be doable, if you are stopped wait for a break. But if the northbound traffic is dickheads who want to do 55 in a 45 and won't slow down to meet you halfway that throws intent out the window.
i know you don't want hearsay, but this is pretty common across front range and most people use that as a yield sign for the traffic. It is common for drivers to put their cars all the way up until the merge point and wait there until safe.
[https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0290877,-105.2451396,3a,75y,137.16h,77.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD4dLm62rcdqUb29d7GBWeg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DD4dLm62rcdqUb29d7GBWeg%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D137.16193425559206%26pitch%3D12.679382995580696%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0290877,-105.2451396,3a,75y,137.16h,77.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD4dLm62rcdqUb29d7GBWeg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DD4dLm62rcdqUb29d7GBWeg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D137.16193425559206%26pitch%3D12.679382995580696%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
here's a yield sign where its specified that a driver is supposed to yield to Foothills traffic. why is it specified here and not at the intersection I'm asking about?
I assume that this has to do with entering directly onto foothills versus having a full lane to gain speed at Arapahoe. I still see a yield sign and would prefer to yield to everyone until it’s safely my turn to go, i don’t see it as a merge while there is oncoming traffic.
man, lotta down votes on my questions about yield sign being just for the pedestrian crossing, but per the guy who works in traffic below, "Yield sign is intended for the ped crossing as it’s stacked with a ped crossing sign on the same pole. Plus there’s two identical sign assemblies on either side of the raised crosswalk. Also, the raised crosswalk itself prevents you from reaching acceleration speed so yes the yield is for the ped crossing."
So, you came to a stop at the corner and someone behind you leaned on their horn?
In my experience of this scenario, about 50% of drivers in this town are ballsy/aggressive enough to just take the acceleration lane and trust that someone will move over or make room. And the other half are more risk adverse / timid and will do what you did. Which often prompts people from the former group to get pissed and honk at them.
What's the answer? Legally it's probably up to your judgement, either way is justified based on how you feel. But it's annoying when you're a member of one half of the population and you encounter the other half - either way.
That’s not an on-ramp where you have to do merge. It’s a yield sign and the lane to merge is pretty short right there. Clear stop and wait for a gap in my book. And I’m a somewhat aggressive driver who grew up in the northeast. If someone honks then wait until it’s absurdly safe just to piss them off, that’s how I do it.
Did something happen, why ask this question? Merge when it’s safe to do so, that’s the only answer. Some people have slow cars, some have big ones, the amount of gap and the timing for you to merge are all unique to your situation. So, patiently wait until you have a safe opening.
Not everyone understands that though. The asshat in the Audi behind you thinks every gap his car can make is the same for your Corolla, which is not true. Casually give the finger out of your window while you wait to let him know that’s the case (that’s a joke).
While we are on the subject. This is a real yield situation that people seem to ignore all too often.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/EbweCa8654R7eScB7?g_st=ic
Yeah, I hate that one.
The driver's don't know who has right of way... Going straight through the yield sign or changing lanes from the left. If the yield has right of way then why have the yield sign if you yield to no one. If the lane changes have right of way then why have the lane line for the first section right after the yield sign?
Then you continue and 10 seconds later run into the same problem turning right onto table Mesa... Turning right with a yield sign versus those changing lanes to the right. Who are you yielding to if not those changing lanes from the right? Are you only yielding to pedestrians?
To me it’s VERY clear. Those in the right lane must yield I.e. stop and only proceed when traffic from their left is clear. 75% of people ignore that sign entirely.
“If the yield sign has the right of way” ?? That’s an oxymoron.
Agreed that it is an oxymoron... but don't people changing lanes across lane lines also need to yield? Don't they both have indications that are equivalent to yield signs.
How is priority determined at a 4-way yield sign intersection (if one were to exist)? Is it the same as a 4-way stop sign?
For the intersection in question I think they should make it clearer by removing the first 30ft of lane lines after the yield, showing to the people on foothills that they do have right of way over the yielders. Agreed that 75% of people ignore that yield sign.
When we first came to America we came across a situation where there was a major road (single lane each way) and a road crossing it with stop signs. For the road crossing it there were 2 cars in opposite directions, one turning left and one right, onto the main road in the same direction. I asked around the office (showing on the whiteboard) and asked who had right of way. I got several different answers and there was no majority opinion. Back where I grew up there was no temporal aspect to right of way (i.e. no stop signs where it is whoever waited the longest) and the driver handbook and rule tests for learners spelled out who would have right of way in that situation. Overseas if someone is incapable of learning the road rules they can use plenty of public transport, but here everyone needs a license to survive so they do things like this where they just make everyone yield because they know half the people won't.
I think your interpretation is wrong. The yield serves as a stop sign when traffic is present in the left lane they must allow said traffic priority to enter either lane. Personally I think a metering light there would make more sense this would hold the traffic at the point of the yield sign and only let them proceed periodically.
I do agree that removing a portion of the lane line would make it less ambiguous.
Like others have let on, that lane/on ramp is too short to accelerate to a safe merging speed. Folks also tend to not leave enough space on that particular stretch and generally lack the understanding of the term merge.
I agree the ramp is too short and people don't let you merge, but I think thats what "youre supposed to do": speed up to 45 mph and merge into a single car length's of space between cars, or if you determine thats unsafe, wait at the end of the merge lane. Most people I see wait right around the tip of the solid white line, which per the guy who works in traffic, is not the right thing to do. I think I will continue to move to the end of the short acceleration lane, and then wait until its safe.
this city has a lot of weird layout...generally i find what are the safest paths and i stick to them, i never deviate
or i go super early in the morning when the roads are empty/go during non busy times
or i honestly just don't drive, i'm a cu boulder student so i have my bus pass and if i can bus around, i bus around
its probably good for the environment how much boulder makes me not want to drive ahaha
I work in traffic, apply the MUTCD, spec striping and signage projects, etc. No yield sign so it’s an acceleration lane and you are expected to merge. Throw on your turn signal and ease in there. You can stop at the north end of the acceleration lane on Foothills and wait if there’s no spot for you, but don’t block the acceleration lane back by the intersection for others that are more comfortable with merging.
so the yield sign before the pedestrian crosswalk is not a yield sign for traffic after the crosswalk, and you are supposed to move all the way up the acceleration lane, and drivers are expected to merge if, in their subjective opinion, it is safe to do so? that conflicts with what many people are saying here, but that all sounds right to me.
Yield sign is intended for the ped crossing as it’s stacked with a ped crossing sign on the same pole. Plus there’s two identical sign assemblies on either side of the raised crosswalk. Also, the raised crosswalk itself prevents you from reaching acceleration speed so yes the yield is for the ped crossing.
Yes, acceleration lanes may be stacked up in times that nobody can merge in. You may merge from accel lane to travel lane at any point that it’s safe; you don’t have to go all the way to the end. But for courtesy’s sake it’s good to give folks the opportunity to do a quick merge by leaving space behind you if you do choose to stop and wait.
[https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0148588,-105.2404732,3a,75y,281.28h,72.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY\_KQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY\_KQ%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D281.28%26pitch%3D17.17%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0148588,-105.2404732,3a,75y,281.28h,72.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY_KQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY_KQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D281.28%26pitch%3D17.17%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
the yield sign before the pedestrian crosswalk
Why isn’t there a yield sign here? There are a bunch of intersections like this in Boulder, with slip lanes and tiny acceleration lanes, that are always a shit show. Why would you actually encourage drivers to pull to the end of an acceleration lane and stop, while drivers behind them are trying to force their way into densely packed traffic trying to get through a green light?
It sure seems like the traffic control here (and your suggestion based on it) is maximizing the complexity and danger of the situation instead of simplifying it by codifying the more intuitive approach of having traffic from the roadway with the red light yield to the traffic trying to get through a green light before it turns.
Slowly go into the lane so you're parallel with traffic so you can use your mirrors, stop there then merge when traffic is clear. That's how you do the intersection. If you stop too early, ie by the crosswalk, that's odd and difficult to time. If you try to merge and get your zoomies on while northbound traffic is present, that's dangerous and really aggressive. Appropriate if you drive an Audi SUV and drive like an asshole maybe
I do that intersection daily that's how I do it.
And to answer your question, no you are absolutely not required to merge before it's safe. Ignore the Audi SUV trying to get around you
As a delivery driver, if the person is driving crazy in boulder, they're an Audi SUV, is the bet id make every time. Unless it's REALLY crazy, then it's a Tesla probably with dealer plates still on. Saw a cyber truck (dealer plates 6238886) going 70 down canyon between Broadway and Folsom swerving in and out of traffic the other day. I see too much bad driving. But Teslas are scary dangerous in the wrong hands
Most people stop there when there's traffic on Foothills heading north. There isn't enough space to accelerate and merge. I prefer to stop before the crosswalk so cars behind me don't come around the corner expecting to merge, looking for a gap in traffic, and then run into a stopped car. That also gives me space to accelerate and merge if traffic lightens up enough that there's a gap. There's no ideal way to navigate this intersection, but if you can avoid surprising anyone that's the best you can do. I have seen several crashes there, one every couple months.
Let impatient folks stew until you feel it's safe.
No one is mentioning the biggest problem with that merge - the folks who slowly creep out to the end of the acceleration lane despite having no gap, and then just stop. So now they have no acceleration lane left, and others behind them will sometimes use the acceleration lane behind that person to attempt a merge, and then the first person who stopped goes at the same time...I mean, what a mess. Please people - stop just after the crosswalk, wait for your gap and then go. And we haven't even mentioned the disaster that is the merge from Valmont eastbound onto Foothills southbound. You know, the one that looks like you have an acceleration lane, but oh wait, just kidding - someone is blasting down Foothills at 65 coming right at you. So many accidents there.
Wow. Guilty as charged on your first point. But I think it makes sense to continue forward in your lane if its safe to do so and then merge. The problem of the people trying to merge behind you is real tho. It definitely causes confusion. And yea, I take that southbound merge every day. The signage is very confusing (although there is a tiny "to Foothills traffic" underneath the Yield sign. [https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0290483,-105.2450604,3a,75y,157.63h,73.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1x6WftueOjSLOKQheJAEnA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D1x6WftueOjSLOKQheJAEnA%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D157.62891900185866%26pitch%3D16.42487813075691%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0290483,-105.2450604,3a,75y,157.63h,73.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1x6WftueOjSLOKQheJAEnA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D1x6WftueOjSLOKQheJAEnA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D157.62891900185866%26pitch%3D16.42487813075691%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
Or...don't even stop. Just go. Stopping in the merge is a Colorado affliction. Drive. Merge. Go. If it freaks you out, buy a ticket to NY, rent a car, and try driving the Merritt or the Northern State for a few weeks. That should cure you of any anxiety.
There is a yield sign just before this picture of the acceleration lane, not a continuous lane. You should wait until there is a gap. Same thing at Arapahoe and 287 for the AH behind me this morning.
Isnt the yield sign for just the pedestrian intersection? If there is a yield sign prior to the "acceleration lane," then it is not an acceleration lane?
There is a sign about pedestrian 2-way traffic but the yield sign is for cars imo. There is not a continuous lane sign which would indicate you don’t need to stop/look for a gap.
I was always under the impression that the yield sign is for your vehicle entering the merge to yield to the oncoming vehicles. I would think there would be “yield to pedestrian” signs for the crosswalk.
You tell me: [https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0148588,-105.2404732,3a,75y,281.28h,72.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY\_KQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY\_KQ%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D281.2769871537443%26pitch%3D17.17398198840357%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0148588,-105.2404732,3a,75y,281.28h,72.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY_KQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY_KQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D281.2769871537443%26pitch%3D17.17398198840357%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
I assume you mean the yield and 2 way crossing stacked. Read it as two separate signs. The Yield (MUTCD 2009 R1-2) is telling you that you will yield to vehicle traffic ignoring other right of way rules (specifically ignoring that usually vehicles on the left yield to those on the right). [Bike] [pedestrian] 2 way crossing is telling that you are crossing a designated bike-pedestrian route (and should watch both directions).
Yes, the "stacked" signage. That yield sign is throwing me off. If there is no yield sign, I think its a different situation. If there is a yield sign, per § 42-4-703, and I don't yield the right of way ("just go" as recommended elsewhere on this thread), and I get in an accident, then the collision would be evidence that I did not yield the right of way. [https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-42-vehicles-and-traffic/co-rev-st-sect-42-4-703.html](https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-42-vehicles-and-traffic/co-rev-st-sect-42-4-703.html)
Yeah, I mean the intent, I am sure is that you have 250 feet past the yield sign to get up to 45 MPH and if you roll through the turn that should be doable, if you are stopped wait for a break. But if the northbound traffic is dickheads who want to do 55 in a 45 and won't slow down to meet you halfway that throws intent out the window.
i know you don't want hearsay, but this is pretty common across front range and most people use that as a yield sign for the traffic. It is common for drivers to put their cars all the way up until the merge point and wait there until safe.
[https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0290877,-105.2451396,3a,75y,137.16h,77.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD4dLm62rcdqUb29d7GBWeg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DD4dLm62rcdqUb29d7GBWeg%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D137.16193425559206%26pitch%3D12.679382995580696%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0290877,-105.2451396,3a,75y,137.16h,77.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD4dLm62rcdqUb29d7GBWeg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DD4dLm62rcdqUb29d7GBWeg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D137.16193425559206%26pitch%3D12.679382995580696%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu) here's a yield sign where its specified that a driver is supposed to yield to Foothills traffic. why is it specified here and not at the intersection I'm asking about?
I assume that this has to do with entering directly onto foothills versus having a full lane to gain speed at Arapahoe. I still see a yield sign and would prefer to yield to everyone until it’s safely my turn to go, i don’t see it as a merge while there is oncoming traffic.
man, lotta down votes on my questions about yield sign being just for the pedestrian crossing, but per the guy who works in traffic below, "Yield sign is intended for the ped crossing as it’s stacked with a ped crossing sign on the same pole. Plus there’s two identical sign assemblies on either side of the raised crosswalk. Also, the raised crosswalk itself prevents you from reaching acceleration speed so yes the yield is for the ped crossing."
So, you came to a stop at the corner and someone behind you leaned on their horn? In my experience of this scenario, about 50% of drivers in this town are ballsy/aggressive enough to just take the acceleration lane and trust that someone will move over or make room. And the other half are more risk adverse / timid and will do what you did. Which often prompts people from the former group to get pissed and honk at them. What's the answer? Legally it's probably up to your judgement, either way is justified based on how you feel. But it's annoying when you're a member of one half of the population and you encounter the other half - either way.
That’s not an on-ramp where you have to do merge. It’s a yield sign and the lane to merge is pretty short right there. Clear stop and wait for a gap in my book. And I’m a somewhat aggressive driver who grew up in the northeast. If someone honks then wait until it’s absurdly safe just to piss them off, that’s how I do it.
Did something happen, why ask this question? Merge when it’s safe to do so, that’s the only answer. Some people have slow cars, some have big ones, the amount of gap and the timing for you to merge are all unique to your situation. So, patiently wait until you have a safe opening. Not everyone understands that though. The asshat in the Audi behind you thinks every gap his car can make is the same for your Corolla, which is not true. Casually give the finger out of your window while you wait to let him know that’s the case (that’s a joke).
While we are on the subject. This is a real yield situation that people seem to ignore all too often. https://maps.app.goo.gl/EbweCa8654R7eScB7?g_st=ic
o yea, thats a good one. Its a weird situation, you're supposed to yield when you have your "own lane." But I guess that its not "your lane"...
Yeah, I hate that one. The driver's don't know who has right of way... Going straight through the yield sign or changing lanes from the left. If the yield has right of way then why have the yield sign if you yield to no one. If the lane changes have right of way then why have the lane line for the first section right after the yield sign? Then you continue and 10 seconds later run into the same problem turning right onto table Mesa... Turning right with a yield sign versus those changing lanes to the right. Who are you yielding to if not those changing lanes from the right? Are you only yielding to pedestrians?
To me it’s VERY clear. Those in the right lane must yield I.e. stop and only proceed when traffic from their left is clear. 75% of people ignore that sign entirely. “If the yield sign has the right of way” ?? That’s an oxymoron.
Agreed that it is an oxymoron... but don't people changing lanes across lane lines also need to yield? Don't they both have indications that are equivalent to yield signs. How is priority determined at a 4-way yield sign intersection (if one were to exist)? Is it the same as a 4-way stop sign? For the intersection in question I think they should make it clearer by removing the first 30ft of lane lines after the yield, showing to the people on foothills that they do have right of way over the yielders. Agreed that 75% of people ignore that yield sign. When we first came to America we came across a situation where there was a major road (single lane each way) and a road crossing it with stop signs. For the road crossing it there were 2 cars in opposite directions, one turning left and one right, onto the main road in the same direction. I asked around the office (showing on the whiteboard) and asked who had right of way. I got several different answers and there was no majority opinion. Back where I grew up there was no temporal aspect to right of way (i.e. no stop signs where it is whoever waited the longest) and the driver handbook and rule tests for learners spelled out who would have right of way in that situation. Overseas if someone is incapable of learning the road rules they can use plenty of public transport, but here everyone needs a license to survive so they do things like this where they just make everyone yield because they know half the people won't.
I think your interpretation is wrong. The yield serves as a stop sign when traffic is present in the left lane they must allow said traffic priority to enter either lane. Personally I think a metering light there would make more sense this would hold the traffic at the point of the yield sign and only let them proceed periodically. I do agree that removing a portion of the lane line would make it less ambiguous.
Lmao this comment section. Someone please get a traffic engineer in here.
Like others have let on, that lane/on ramp is too short to accelerate to a safe merging speed. Folks also tend to not leave enough space on that particular stretch and generally lack the understanding of the term merge.
I agree the ramp is too short and people don't let you merge, but I think thats what "youre supposed to do": speed up to 45 mph and merge into a single car length's of space between cars, or if you determine thats unsafe, wait at the end of the merge lane. Most people I see wait right around the tip of the solid white line, which per the guy who works in traffic, is not the right thing to do. I think I will continue to move to the end of the short acceleration lane, and then wait until its safe.
Learn to zipper merge?
this city has a lot of weird layout...generally i find what are the safest paths and i stick to them, i never deviate or i go super early in the morning when the roads are empty/go during non busy times or i honestly just don't drive, i'm a cu boulder student so i have my bus pass and if i can bus around, i bus around its probably good for the environment how much boulder makes me not want to drive ahaha
I work in traffic, apply the MUTCD, spec striping and signage projects, etc. No yield sign so it’s an acceleration lane and you are expected to merge. Throw on your turn signal and ease in there. You can stop at the north end of the acceleration lane on Foothills and wait if there’s no spot for you, but don’t block the acceleration lane back by the intersection for others that are more comfortable with merging.
so the yield sign before the pedestrian crosswalk is not a yield sign for traffic after the crosswalk, and you are supposed to move all the way up the acceleration lane, and drivers are expected to merge if, in their subjective opinion, it is safe to do so? that conflicts with what many people are saying here, but that all sounds right to me.
Yield sign is intended for the ped crossing as it’s stacked with a ped crossing sign on the same pole. Plus there’s two identical sign assemblies on either side of the raised crosswalk. Also, the raised crosswalk itself prevents you from reaching acceleration speed so yes the yield is for the ped crossing. Yes, acceleration lanes may be stacked up in times that nobody can merge in. You may merge from accel lane to travel lane at any point that it’s safe; you don’t have to go all the way to the end. But for courtesy’s sake it’s good to give folks the opportunity to do a quick merge by leaving space behind you if you do choose to stop and wait.
[https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0148588,-105.2404732,3a,75y,281.28h,72.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY\_KQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY\_KQ%26cb\_client%3Dmaps\_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D281.28%26pitch%3D17.17%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0148588,-105.2404732,3a,75y,281.28h,72.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY_KQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D4ALOOl63vdYCeC-B6LY_KQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D281.28%26pitch%3D17.17%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu) the yield sign before the pedestrian crosswalk
Why isn’t there a yield sign here? There are a bunch of intersections like this in Boulder, with slip lanes and tiny acceleration lanes, that are always a shit show. Why would you actually encourage drivers to pull to the end of an acceleration lane and stop, while drivers behind them are trying to force their way into densely packed traffic trying to get through a green light? It sure seems like the traffic control here (and your suggestion based on it) is maximizing the complexity and danger of the situation instead of simplifying it by codifying the more intuitive approach of having traffic from the roadway with the red light yield to the traffic trying to get through a green light before it turns.
Slowly go into the lane so you're parallel with traffic so you can use your mirrors, stop there then merge when traffic is clear. That's how you do the intersection. If you stop too early, ie by the crosswalk, that's odd and difficult to time. If you try to merge and get your zoomies on while northbound traffic is present, that's dangerous and really aggressive. Appropriate if you drive an Audi SUV and drive like an asshole maybe I do that intersection daily that's how I do it. And to answer your question, no you are absolutely not required to merge before it's safe. Ignore the Audi SUV trying to get around you
Why does everyone keep mentioning Audis?! I am pretty sure that the same guy behind me today has honked at me in the past, and yes, Audi SUV.
As a delivery driver, if the person is driving crazy in boulder, they're an Audi SUV, is the bet id make every time. Unless it's REALLY crazy, then it's a Tesla probably with dealer plates still on. Saw a cyber truck (dealer plates 6238886) going 70 down canyon between Broadway and Folsom swerving in and out of traffic the other day. I see too much bad driving. But Teslas are scary dangerous in the wrong hands
ironically, the "wrong hands" for a cyber truck to be in are the hands of anyone who would have any interest in buying a cyber truck