Chancellor's Run Road

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
tys_mommy said:
People behind me honking or having an accident that will be considered my fault, gee that's a hard one for me to answer
:lol: No, I just hate being honked at. I could have a pop-up "flip the bird" sign in my rear window.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Lower on the pole then those vehicles approaching the u-turn vehicle that it would have to cross the path of, but not lower then those being regulated by a traffic control device from a cross street.

If they want to fix the problem why don't they do like some of the areas I have seen in NJ by making no left turns or u-turns. They have it so you always have to turn right with a small cloverleaf back to the intersection. Eats up a lot of space, but they don't have this issue.
 

SurfaceTension

New Member
Ken King said:
Lower on the pole then those vehicles approaching the u-turn vehicle that it would have to cross the path of, but not lower then those being regulated by a traffic control device from a cross street.
Just to be clear, we're talking about the 235/237 intersection.....People turning south onto 237 (from southbound 235) vs. people U-turning south on onto 237. If the U-turners are to "yield the right-of-way to any approaching vehicle that is so near as to be an immediate danger" (not just to through-traffic), then it should be they that yeild to the right-turners. Especially if the U-turners are crossing multiple lanes to complete their manuever.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to post this sign on CRrd (from the Maunual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices):
 

Attachments

  • uturn.bmp
    71.6 KB · Views: 89
Last edited:

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
SurfaceTension said:
Just to be clear, we're talking about the 235/237 intersection.....People turning south onto 237 (from southbound 235) vs. people U-turning south on onto 237. If the U-turners are to "yield the right-of-way to any approaching vehicle that is so near as to be an immediate danger" (not just to through-traffic), then it should be they that yeild to the right-turners. Especially if the U-turners are crossing multiple lanes to complete their manuever.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to post this sign on CRrd (from the Maunual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices):
When the 237 u-turning vehicle has the green light the u-turn is allowed. The traffic that they are required to give way to are those traveling in an opposing direction on 237, not those entering from 235. Southbound 235 traffic is under control of traffic control devices (light or sign) that direct them to give right of way to traffic travelling on 237. Your expectation for those making u-turns to immediately return to the left most lane is unrealistic and not a legal requirement. I doubt if any vehicle shy of a motorcycle can do as you expect.
 

dustin

UAIOE
i dont see why this is even a discussion. if you dont like that intersection just take a different route. i don't like exiting off the base through gate 3. so i don't go that way. its not rocket science.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
dustin said:
i dont see why this is even a discussion.
Only because I can see an accident happening there sooner or later. One U-turner I saw didn't take the turn sharply enough to even get into the right lane. He ended stopping at the curb, and had to stop and back up to get back into the lane.

I guess I don't understand why so many drivers would need to U-turn there in the first place. Are they Sheetz customers who need to head back down 237?
 

Elle

Happy Camper!
Question to those of you angry at the U turners, would you expect northbound 235 traffic turning onto 237 (with a green light) to yeild to right turners from the southbound lane? Probably not. So why do you expect U turners who have a green light also to yeild to you?
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
I'm not angry at the U-turners--they're just trying to get where they're going, same as me. Sorry if my posts seemed like I was chewing them out.
 

dustin

UAIOE
Do we need to make t-shirts that say "U-turners Suck"

I don't know why those peeps would wanna U-turn back onto 237 either....maybe they left the coffee pot on?
 

SurfaceTension

New Member
Ken King said:
Your expectation for those making u-turns to immediately return to the left most lane is unrealistic and not a legal requirement. I doubt if any vehicle shy of a motorcycle can do as you expect.
It’s not about vehicle performance expectation (e.g. because a tanker cannot make a switchback turn into Sheetz does not give him the right-of-way to drift into the left lanes prior to the turn.).

The “control” on SB 235, a yield sign, is no more restrictive than the “yield” inherently required of U-turners. However, U-turns are an abrupt, unexpected movement….It’s not like other traffic can see the intentions of the U-turner all the way through an intersection. For this reason, it’s up to the U-turner to “yield the right-of-way to any approaching vehicle that is so near as to be an immediate danger” per State law.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one (I’m NOT challenging you to a trip to the Lake, since you’re the only one that ever returns), with the possible exception that we both agree that SHA should provide better guidance/signing at the intersection.
 
B

bhanks

Guest
I live off of the Norris Road/Buck Hewitt area and have to deal with making a right onto Chancellor's Run (from Norris) every morning and then another quick left onto Buck Hewitt. I always feel like I'm taking my life into my own hands every time I take that route. Yesterday, as I was waiting on Chancellor's Run to make my left hand turn onto Buck Hewitt, I was nearly rammed from behind. The speeder, apparently, didn't see me waiting to make my turn so he had to swerve pretty violently at the last moment. (I was bracing for the impact by that point...and had no opportunity to get out of his way.) My husband and I are considering moving into another neighborhood where we won't have to deal with the Chancellor's Run "fun" every morning and evening. There are so many accidents at Norris and Buck Hewitt that we're convinced someday, we might be one of the vehicles caught in an accident there. Does anyone else have to deal with the same turns that I make?
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
BHanks, I wouldn't blame you for moving. Chancellor's has become the bypass for Lexington Park, and the road is too damned narrow for it. Often I head down into the Park and take Willows Road instead to get to southbound 5. I've heard of many Pax River employees heading home by taking Pegg Road from Gate 1 down to Chancellor's and then up to 235 to head north, which doesn't make sense.
 

duzzey1

New Member
I was violently rear-ended while making a left hand turm (northbound) from Chancellors Run into Hickory Hills and as a result of the impact, I bearly missed a southbound approaching vehicle. I witnessed another accident Tuesday at the very same spot. I know in the morning and the evening, I am gambling with my life at that intersection, and it takes at least 5 min to get out of Hickory Hills. Does anybody know if they plan to put a light there?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
SurfaceTension said:
It’s not about vehicle performance expectation (e.g. because a tanker cannot make a switchback turn into Sheetz does not give him the right-of-way to drift into the left lanes prior to the turn.).

The “control” on SB 235, a yield sign, is no more restrictive than the “yield” inherently required of U-turners. However, U-turns are an abrupt, unexpected movement….It’s not like other traffic can see the intentions of the U-turner all the way through an intersection. For this reason, it’s up to the U-turner to “yield the right-of-way to any approaching vehicle that is so near as to be an immediate danger” per State law.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one (I’m NOT challenging you to a trip to the Lake, since you’re the only one that ever returns), with the possible exception that we both agree that SHA should provide better guidance/signing at the intersection.
The problem is that you see a vehicle heading south on 235 desiring to turn right on to 237 as approaching a vehicle operating on 237, I don't.

Do what you want, I could care less, but I suspect that any vehicle not giving the right of way as the one getting cited should an accident occur.

If the state decided that there are to be no more u-turns there that would be fine by me or they could simply make it a no turn on red for those heading south on 235. Maybe they'll think about it more once the accident count starts climbing.
 

SurfaceTension

New Member
Ken King said:
The problem is that you see a vehicle heading south on 235 desiring to turn right on to 237 as approaching a vehicle operating on 237, I don't.

Do what you want, I could care less, but I suspect that any vehicle not giving the right of way as the one getting cited should an accident occur.

If the state decided that there are to be no more u-turns there that would be fine by me or they could simply make it a no turn on red for those heading south on 235. Maybe they'll think about it more once the accident count starts climbing.

I see a southbound 235 vehicle wanting to access southbound 237, and a northbound 237 vehicle wanting to access southbound 237. Neither can "complete" their manuever without interfering with the other. Therefore, because of the reasons mentioned previously, the 90-degree turn trumps the 180-degree turn.

Limiting rights on 235 would stack traffic back to Wal-Mart in the evening, at a minimum...Best just to post the standard "U-turn Yields to Right Turns" to remind the odd U-turner to watch out....Or put one of those "Z" crossovers allowing northbound 237 drivers to get to ABC Liquors without entering the intersection, but still preventing left turns out of Sheetz by crossing 4-5 lanes of queueing traffic. IMO. :moon:
:cheers:
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
SurfaceTension said:
I see a southbound 235 vehicle wanting to access southbound 237, and a northbound 237 vehicle wanting to access southbound 237. Neither can "complete" their manuever without interfering with the other. Therefore, because of the reasons mentioned previously, the 90-degree turn trumps the 180-degree turn.
And this is exactly the problem, how you see it.

Vehicles desiring to turn south on Rt. 237 from southbound Rt. 235 encounter a yield sign, which requires them to yield to any and all traffic north of that position on Rt. 237 heading south prior to continuing on. The northbound vehicle on Rt. 237 desiring to reverse course at that intersection to head south has to give way to any vehicles heading south on Rt. 237, the light is sequenced such that it is either northbound active or southbound active and never both at the same time which eliminates any need to yield for opposing traffic as there will be none. Upon making the u-turn the now southbound vehicle on Rt. 237 is north of the yield ramp and vehicles entering from that ramp on Rt. 235 must yield as the control device indicates.

I don’t have any idea where you get the “trumped” logic based on degrees of turn, but until you can show in the law where it says so I will say that you have no clue as to what we are talking about here.
 

Gooseneck

Active Member
Ken King said:
And this is exactly the problem, how you see it.

Vehicles desiring to turn south on Rt. 237 from southbound Rt. 235 encounter a yield sign, which requires them to yield to any and all traffic north of that position on Rt. 237 heading south prior to continuing on. The northbound vehicle on Rt. 237 desiring to reverse course at that intersection to head south has to give way to any vehicles heading south on Rt. 237, the light is sequenced such that it is either northbound active or southbound active and never both at the same time which eliminates any need to yield for opposing traffic as there will be none. Upon making the u-turn the now southbound vehicle on Rt. 237 is north of the yield ramp and vehicles entering from that ramp on Rt. 235 must yield as the control device indicates.

I don’t have any idea where you get the “trumped” logic based on degrees of turn, but until you can show in the law where it says so I will say that you have no clue as to what we are talking about here.
:yeahthat: Yep, that's pretty much it.
 

Club'nBabySeals

Where are my pants?
I was violently rear-ended while making a left hand turm (northbound) from Chancellors Run into Hickory Hills and as a result of the impact, I bearly missed a southbound approaching vehicle. I witnessed another accident Tuesday at the very same spot. I know in the morning and the evening, I am gambling with my life at that intersection, and it takes at least 5 min to get out of Hickory Hills. Does anybody know if they plan to put a light there?


I sure hope so...I live in Hickory Hills, too, and I feel like I'm risking my life everytime I turn off of Amber Drive onto Chancellor's run. There must be three accidents there every day.

A light would create more congestion (and inconvenience), but it would be safer. At the very least, I'd like to see a four way stop there.
 
Top