According to Title 9, that's not entirely accurate.

https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-...

A yellow light only indicates that the light is changing to red, and that the right of way is ending (as marked by a red light). There is nothing that states what a driver must/supposed-to do when facing a yellow light.

Assuming a driver is obeying all other traffic laws, a driver is lawfully allowed to enter an intersection on a yellow light, regardless of whether they have the time to stop or not.

In most (all?) US jurisdictions, drivers are taught that if the light is yellow, you should stop if you can do so safely.

In many US jurisdictions, including Oregon, you MUST stop for a yellow light if you can do so safely. Cops can and will ticket you for entering a yellow light when they deem that you could have safely stopped. I first learned this when one of my friends ticketed for this in Portland.

Since it difficult to remember which in which jurisdictions this applies, I always make sure to stop for yellow if I can do so safely.

Huh. I remember researching it a couple of years ago, but clearly my memory is not to be trusted, or there’s another part of the code that supplements that (but I’m skeptical there is).

The drivers ed manual states that you must stop if it's safe to do so.

Indiana has some silly law about signaling 200ft before a turn on rural roads rather than the normal 100ft. The local cops around IN highway 55 camp out, dinging people for this because the state highway signs are hard to distinguish from a 55MPH speed limit sign at that distance. Never mind if there's nobody else there to see you make your ridiculously unsafe turn.

I didn’t know that, and in fact it’s worse: 300’ if you’re in a zone with a limit of at least 50mph.

https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-...

Seems reasonable to me.

50 mph is 264000 feet per hour. This converts to 73.3 feet per second. 300' means you need to signal about four seconds before turning or changing lanes.

Before turning, the time would be more like 8 seconds due to the need to slow down. It’s too long to be reasonable. And too much pressure to strictly adhere to the law would create perverse incentives to temporarily drop below 50MPH before signaling and to keep the signal constantly on in case one wants to pass a car. It’s better to have a reasonable law that’s easy to follow to foster a culture of high compliance rates.

Maybe the point is to be signaling before you start slowing down? It doesn't sound unreasonable to me at all.

When I turn off of rural highways with 50+ mph speed limits, I signal about the same time I let off the gas to start slowing for the turn. Braking is at least a few seconds later, turning is well after that.

It does sound reasonable if most people know where their turn is, start planning for their turn far in advance and take some time to coast before starting to brake. That’s probably what the group who wrote the law was thinking. It is not how people actually drive and it’s too far in excess of what following traffic needs to exercise caution or slow down.

One of the challenges of traffic planning is that people will do what feels comfortable and is working; it’s not really worth writing laws to force them out of that unless there’s an oil crisis or a municipal revenue crisis.

I have three primary objections, but otherwise you’re right, it’s not unreasonable.

First, signage is generally awful in Indiana. I often don’t know that I’m turning 300’ in advance.

Second, I’d prefer a rule that’s simpler to follow but still (I think) achieves the same effect for those sharing the road: start signaling at least one second before you decelerate.

Third, treating this as a money-making operation for the police is perverse.

MUTCD says this:

> In rural areas, the Junction assembly should be installed at least 400 feet in advance of the intersection. In rural areas, the minimum distance between a Junction assembly and either a Destination sign or an Advance Route Turn assembly should be 200 feet.

INDOT conveniently doesn't comply with this paragraph. You often only get a sign at the intersection itself with no advance. You're left guessing where the intersection actually is and when to slow down and signal.

Interesting how they found posting a cop more cost-effective than posting a sign reminding people to turn on signals.

Cop pays for himself in 5 minutes, rest is pure profit.

You're in good company with the flawed memory. I went to Purdue out-of-state and a native Hoosier told me that you had to clear the intersection before it was red. Everyone else in the vehicle backed him up on it too.

This not being the rule where I was from (Virginia), I stopped by the DMV and picked up the handbook to see what else might be different, only to find that the rule was essentially the same as in Virginia (must enter intersection before it turns red).

It’s funny the kinds of falsehoods that people collectively believe. In CA, I can think of two widespread false beliefs about traffic law from when I was younger (no idea if they are still widespread). One is that it is illegal to drive barefoot. Another is that it is illegal to change lanes in an intersection. That latter one I actually got pulled over for but when the officer went to write the ticket I guess they couldn’t find the vehicle code section for it (because it didn’t exist).

In most jurisdictions it's called "improper passing" and it is widely up to the discretion of the officer.

It's not explicitly illegal to change lanes in an intersection but it is often unsafe.

It's not always possible to stop safely for a yellow light, especially if one is close to the intersection. Yellow lights should last long enough for a typical vehicle traveling at the speed limit and within some distance of the intersection to proceed into the intersection and make a complete (legal) turn.

That's exactly the idea behind the revised formula. (Which is an evolution of an earlier, similar formula that only considered the time to proceed straight through.)