Talk:Michigan left/Archive 1

Ramps

Look, I know that everyone who's been to Michigan knows that these things don't have ramps. And I know that simple 4-way intersections don't have ramps. But most complex interchanges DO have ramps, so I think if we're going to make this article encyclopedic, it's ridiculous to leave out the real reason why Michigan and other DOTs constructed tons of intersections that are less safe to drive on than ramped intersections! --Mareino 15:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... but aren't these roads on the same grade? If they're not grade-separated, then there wouldn't be a ramp since you still need a light for straight-through traffic. That is to say, if the cross-street doesn't have a bridge/tunnel past the main street/highway, then it wouldn't have a ramp to turn left in any case, so the right-then-U-turn Michigan left isn't saving you a ramp. All it's doing is saving you a light cycle, and not forcing you to cross in front of oncoming traffic (though merging with it after the U-turn is another issue). -- Potatophysics 16:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

A follow-up to my own comment: I just thought of a case where there is a ramp to make a left on two streets on the same grade. In Toronto (Markham, actually) near Warden and Hwy7 there's an overpass ramp to make a left into the huge IBM complex to avoid traffic backups on Warden during rush hour. However, I think for the general case, if the roads aren't grade separated then it is not usually even a remote option to build a special ramp for turning traffic when straight-through traffic has to be regulated by signals. Thus, it's not really an advantage to the Michigan left. Are there any Michigan lefts for grade-separated roads? It's possible... I don't know of any myself, and can't see it as being preferable to a diamond interchange when you only want to build one on-ramp per direction. Even there, you're not really saving an extra ramp, just turning left past oncoming traffic on the feeder street. -- Potatophysics 16:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I explained my point. Consider an interstate (interprovince?) highway. When the highway crosses a road, there's almost always grade separation at the "intersection" to avoid a traffic light on the highway. That's when jughandles, cloverleaves, etc., are useful. The Michigan-state highways, though, have traffic lights. Since the motorist is already prepared to stop, you don't need the ramp to avoid the light. But what if you have a road with a median crossing a relatively minor street? That's when the Michigan Left is useful -- the median's already there, just slap down a U-Turn. If you don't have a traffic light or a median, though, the Michigan Left is a ridiculous and dangerous thing: it slows down traffic about as much as an extra traffic light cycle, and it has a very high risk of collision because cars completing the U-Turn are travelling at a very low speed in the passing lane. So I think that any talk on the main page of "Advantages/Disadvantages" is very incomplete if we leave out construction costs.

Snowstorm Disadvantage

First, I apologize for the seemingly odd edit summary when I removed the disadvantage which stated that Michigan Lefts were somehow "extremely hazardous" during heavy snowstorms -- I had typed the summary prior to deleting the line and then hit 'Save' without deleting the line! So then I went back and deleted the line not knowing my first edit summary didn't show up. Oh well...

Now, WHY I deleted it: If the Michigan Left is "extremely hazardous" during a heavy snowstorm, wouldn't the entire roadway and all surrounding roadways also be "extremely hazardous"? ANY roadway or intersection is extremely hazardous during a heavy snowstorm, so such danger is most definitely not unique to the Michigan Left and, as such, is not a disadvantage of the Michigan Left over other, more conventional types of intersections. CBessert 07:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I will say that during a snow storm, the left turn lanes are usually the last to be plowed, and may temporarily have snow plowed into them after the main road has been cleared. I could see a U-turn lane being even worse (harder to get a large plow through them, perhaps, and also requiring a sharp 180). I can't say if the plows in Michigan have the same practices though, since I've never been there in the winter. Potatophysics 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In my three-plus decades as a Michigan resident (and nearly a decade in one of the Lake Effect Snowbelt areas), I cannot say I have ever experienced problems using a Michigan Left due to snow pile-up from plows. In fact, I would say most plowing crews pay special attention to Michigan Lefts, as they would any intersection, and lay down additional salt/sand, as these are areas of slowdown/turn/acceleration, like a "regular" intersection. In addition, most Michigan Lefts are 1-1/2 to two lanes in width, so there are no problems fitting snowplows through them. Obviously, I cannot state there have NEVER been any problems with snow pile-up in a Michigan Left turnaround, but I would submit such problems are no more common than snow piling up at any other normal intersection. CBessert 09:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In my 10 years of driving in Michigan, I have had an incident on a snowy Friday evening in a Michigan Left turnaround. The turnaround was icy, and when I turned my wheel to the left, I kept going straight. I hit the brakes, and kept going. My turned front passenger wheel hit the curb paralell, and cracked. I drove the rest of the way home and called it an evening. The next morning I pumped some air into the flat tire, went to the junkyard, bought a new (old) rim from the same model I had for $90 (they were $350 at the dealer), and everything was fine. Point of the story: I would much rather that happen, than me sliding through an intersection and hitting someone head-on. MCMLXXXIII (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Theory

Michigan Lefts were developed to counteract the common cycle of learned bad behavior of drivers to "push" a left-turn red light at high volume intersections.

1. When queued in a normal left turn lane, there is an incentive for a driver in the left turn lane to "push" the newly turned amber or red light so as not to have to wait the few minutes for the next left turn cycle.
2. This practice becomes so common at that intersection that those who don't run the amber lights will likely be greeted with angry gestures and honking from drivers behind them.
3. Of course those running a red light increase the probability of an accident since the cross traffic now has a green signal.
4. Which leads to the everyday cross traffic drivers expecting to wait 5 or 10 seconds after the green signal for the scofflaws to run the red.
5. Which leads to more anger by drivers unfamiliar with the intersection will honk at the person in front of him for not moving on the green signal.
6. Finally, many times the latter issues will be "solved" by traffic engineer by placing a few seconds of "All Red", but this just extends the overall cycle time (re: #1).

By eliminating the left-turn light cycle, the incentive disappears. The Michigan left was developed by MDOT as an inexpensive way to potentially solve the problem.

---

I removed the section above because it is not supported by information on the external link on the page. [1] contains an excerpt from the publication "The State of Michigan Trunk Line Story," Third Edition, by Stanley D. Lingerman, P.E. Fellow Member, August 15, 1996. This excerpt explains the impetus as a desire to improve traffic flow. There is no mention of light crashing. If a verifiable source can be found for the light-crashing theory, by all means re-add it. But as it is, it looks speculative. older ≠ wiser 19:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Clearly the redlight crashing description is my own. Admittedly the first sentence was poorly written as that was not why Michigan left were originally developed, but it is the reason why they have proven to be safer. And I believe that the reduction of accidents (and the cheapness to re-implement) is the major reason why they became M-lefts soon became the norm for divided highways throughout the state. Though I'll certainly try to find another source.
  • Page 9-10 Conclusions section http://www.accessmanagement.gov/AM2004/AM0416bp_Potts.pdf spells out the accident rates though it still doesn't say the this is the WHY the decision was made in MI to implement it everywhere.

The research indicates that indirect left-turn arrangements that involve U-turns can improve safety when accompanied by restricted left turns at nearby unsignalized intersections. Accidents related to U-turn and left-turn maneuvers at unsignalized median openings are infrequent. Urban arterial corridors experience an average of 0.41 U-turn-plus-left-turn accidents per median opening per year; rural arterial corridors experience an average of 0.20 U-turn-plus-left-turn accidents per median opening per year.…Typical directional median opening designs at three-leg and four-leg urban intersections, used in combination with directional midblock median openings, reduce accident rates up to one-third as compared with conventional intersections. When left turns are prohibited at signalized intersections and replaced by indirect left turns (as in Michigan), even greater accident reductions have been reported.

• I can't find a copy of "Directional Crossovers: Michigan’s Preferred Left-Turn Strategy" the 1996 presentation by Robert Maki, but I think that it explicitly spelled it out. Some quoted references to it are that in addition to the 15% greater intersection volume it gave a 60% reduction in traffic accidents (further broken down into -75% injury, -95% in angle accidents, -17% in rear-end, -60% in side swipes). See chapter 8 of http://www.accessmanagement.gov/pdf/420NCHRP.pdf

Traffic Drive Time

I would just like to add that, especially in Michigan where people are used to the "Michigan Left" It does decrease traffic light stoppage... Example is US-24 "Telegraph Rd." When I lived in Michigan I drove from Taylor To Southfield Via Telegraph to avoid Southfield Frwy... I could drive from Taylor to Southfield especially at night which is about 30 miles through hundreds of traffic lights and only be stopped by maybe 5 traffic lights... Without the left turn signals you generally have elsewhere in the counrty, they can sync traffic lights better so you can hit nearly all the lights in a 50 mile drive all green.. That saves a lot of time... Also a lot of talk about the "fast-lane" merge... Most people who drive roads around Detroit that have the "Michigan Left", use the Middle lane or lanes as the through lanes not the left lane.... So in effect the left lane is not the fast lane the middle lane/s are. --Insertnamehere 07:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Exception to the rule?

"More options for turning — At intersections where both roads have Michigan Lefts, there is more than one way to turn left. For example it is possible to either turn right at the intersecting road, and use the U-turn to go left, or go past the intersecting road, use the U-turn on the original road, and make a right on the intersecting road. This is very useful when trying to avoid traffic lights provided there isn't a "No turn on red" sign. It also allows for an alternate path in case of a traffic-blocking incident."

I know in East Lansing, MI the intersection of Harrison Ave. and Trowbridge Rd. has signs on the Harrison that say "All Trowbridge traffic turn right" or something to that extent. Has anyone else run in to this type of sign? --Powerlord 07:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that this sign is to help the regular of out-of-state visitors leaving campus after MSU sporting events, who are unfamiliar with the Michigan Left. -- KelleyCook 17:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Diagrams

I am requesting for two diagrams to be drawn and to be placed in the Michigan Left#Description section

One for the traffic flow for a Michigan Left from a cross street to a divided highway (which looks like [2] ). And another for a Michigan Left from the divided highway onto the cross street (which looks like [3] ). Attention needs to be given to the fact that the turnarounds (U-turns) are only operational from one direction. -- KelleyCook 18:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Who says the U-turns need to be unidirectional? Although less common than unidirectional U-turns, I seem to recall having seen bi-directional U-turn lanes in Michigan. I can't recall any specific intersections--I think it was a couple of years ago either when I was doing some work in Dearborn or in Auburn Hills. older ≠ wiser 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

older ≠ wiser, Sorry for not responding earlier. It is in the MDOT design manual for the median turn to be unidirectional. I'll try to find a direct link and reference it in the article it to the article. At worst I do have links to papers that quote the Michigan design manual.

Any reason why one combined diagram wouldn't work? (Like mine at [4].) CBessert 23:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No reason at all. Your diagram is excellent, but it is your work and not something I could upload to wikipedia commons. -- KelleyCook 17:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand -- and if I can find the time (I'm 10 days into fatherhood!), I'll see if I can whip up something new myself -- but I was wondering why it seemed like you were specifically requesting separate diagrams for the two "types" of Michigan Left movements. I had originally thought about doing two for my site way back when, but decided one was feasible and took up much less space. CBessert 03:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Michigan Left in Leland, North Carolina?

Going through Wilmington, NC recently, I noticed what appeared to be several Michigan Left traffic patterns. It's located on US 17 going to/from Myrtle Beach in the tiny town of Leland, North Carolina. Did anyone else notice this as well? --66.153.178.253 21:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never personally driven that stretch of highway, however I know NCDOT has been implementing a concept they call a "Superstreet" which is very close to the "Michigan Left" treatment. I have been contacted my NCDOT engineers in the past regarding my website [5] on the Michigan Left and they explained their "Superstreet" concept to me. I checked out that part of US-17 in the aerial imagery on Google Maps and, as of the date that imagery was acquired, it doesn't appear that the "Superstreet" concept had been applied to that route. Now, not knowing how old that imagery is -- it doesn't appear too old -- the "Michigan Left-esque" movements may have since been constructed. -- CBessert 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article would be a great place to explain the "Superstreet" concept (with diagrams) and the differences between the two concepts. Would you be up to this? Val42 18:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is already a Superstreet article, although it does not have a diagram, nor is there one contrasting the two. I will see if I can come up with a diagram in the future. (No promises!) Good suggestion, though! -- CBessert 20:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a superstreet when I looked at the Wikipedia pages, but wasn't sure. It's such an odd traffic pattern for that area, which probably confuses a lot of drivers (including myself). It didn't make sense that there were about 5 U-turns in a row with stoplights. --66.153.178.253 03:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Land Use Disadvantage

Before actually removing the "Land Use Disadvantage" (to avoid a replay of the above "Safety Disadvantage" situation), I would like to briefly outline why I believe it should be removed. As it stands right now, it reads "Land Use — Michigan lefts are only practical on roads with wide medians", however that is not a correct statement, as Michigan Lefts have been and continue to be implemented along roadways with a very narrow median. This diagram, previously referenced above, is one excellent example of the "bulbed" implementation of a Michigan Left on a roadway with a very narrow median width. Examples of this exist across Michigan, including US-31 in the Holland area, 44th St in Grand Rapids, US-2/US-41 in the Escanaba area and elsewhere. I believe this renders the statement regarding land use as false. If anyone has any other thoughts, please discuss! Thanks — CBessert 07:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement is somewhat true. The MDOT guidelines put M-Lefts as the prefered turn for divided highways with at least 50 foot medians (60 foot medians for dual lane configurations). Of course you can design around that, but again the point is mostly moot as many of those wide boulevards were built well before the Michigan Left was created. Likely for the simple reason wide tree lined medians made for a better looking road.

Stepping back further, I think the entire bullet point Advantages/Disadvantages section should be revamped. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a debating ground. I feel a description of how and why they are used hopefully with links to the real world studies on their overall effectiveness. To reuse my comment above: 15% greater intersection volume with a 60% reduction in traffic accidents (further broken down into -75% injury, -95% in angle accidents, -17% in rear-end, -60% in side swipes). See chapter 8 of http://www.accessmanagement.gov/pdf/420NCHRP.pdf for an indirect reference. Clearly there are also some disadvantages, such as if you have to go left, entering and leaving a divided highway can add a minute or two of time compared to a just having a left turn signal. To its detractors, MDOT likes to points out this loss in time is rapidly made up by the highways higher average overall speed assuming you need to go more than a few miles (re: the 15% increase throughput from the elimination of three-phase signals). -- KelleyCook 14:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside the US

This sounds a little bit similar to a junction in my own town in England. This Google Map shows the location. Driving SW and coming out of Habberley Road, you are not allowed to turn west onto Kidderminster Road. Instead you must turn east, go all the way around the roundabout and then come back west along Kidderminster Road. This sort of thing isn't all that rare in Britain, but I don't know of a general name for it. 86.136.249.84 01:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that is just a typical turn restriction which requires the motorist to divert him/herself. The roundabout is not provided specifically for the U-turn movement, but serves the cross-street (Kidderminster Rd) as it intersects A456. Turn restrictions w/out specific provisions for the necessary U-turns are very common throughout the world. However, England does have a number of locations where turns are restricted and there is specific provision for U-turns; but to the best of my knowledge, I cannot think of a location which would qualify as a "Michigan Left". Many locations which provide cross-streets within a median for U-turns permit bidirectional traffic flow through the median cross-street. A "Michigan left" provides geometry distinctly for only one U-turn movement; and a separate U-turn lane is provided for the other movement. This is what really sets it apart from the bidirectional median U-turn street which is common throughout the world, and which can also raise some significant weaving concerns. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 14:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right. So it's the unidirectional U-turn lane that's the defining feature; I'll bear that in mind. 81.153.109.183 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Safety Disadvantage

(Not surprised at the huge talk page here) RE: "Safety – while reducing collisions in the intersection, traffic has to join the opposing traffic flow at the U turn in the fast lane, unless as mentioned above, a signal is put in place to allow for traffic to complete their turn."

Not neccesarily true. "Good drivers" (and I would hope that is most people) if at all possible will not turn into the fast lane, but cross one or more lanes while turning left to be courteous and safe. This is especially the case if they plan on turning right at the very next intersection. It's a myth that people turning left always end up in the furthest left lane on the new road (or the furthest right for right turns). Sometimes that's the worst thing you can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypsidan (talk • contribs) 01:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that numerous states have laws requiring motorists to enter the nearest receiving lane unless markings or signing permit or require otherwise. Therefore, your description of a good driver may actually be a motorist acting in violation of the law. Therefore, motorists attempting to conform to law may conflict with those acting in violation. Regardless of which act is safer, there is a high likelihood that it will be an issue for motorists or, at the least, out-of-state motorists. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 01:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed renaming: "Median U-Turn"

We currently have a redirect for "Median U-Turn" which takes a user to this article. I have consistently seen this term (sometimes with "Crossover" attached at the end) in use within official publications, whereas Michigan U-Turn is a more arcane term as such configurations -- while more common in Michigan -- are in use throughout the world. As I see it, an equivalent situation would be if Jughandle were renamed as "New Jersey Jughandle". While New Jersey has plenty, it is not the only state to use them. Any thoughts? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure; MDOT does use "Michigan left"[6], while NJDOT uses simply "jughandle". MDOT never uses "median U-turn", and the term only appears in three news articles. (Compare to "Michigan left"). --NE2 01:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Owings Mills, Maryland

In terms of the location in Owings Mills, this is considered to be a Michigan left. It fits exactly the description in this article - a unidirectional U-turn and a right turn that replace a prohibited left turn . . . Michigan lefts occur at intersections where at least one road is a divided highway or boulevard. Left turns onto the divided highway are prohibited. Instead, drivers on roads that cross the highway are directed to turn right. Within a 1/4 mile (400 m), they queue into a designated U-turn lane in the median. Sure, the road's appearance may not resemble that in the aerial photo, but that does not disqualify it as a Michigan left. Owings Mills Boulevard, as its name suggests, is a boulevard. It has a median in this area, and a designated lane for this U-turn. Sebwite (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the key characteristic of a Michigan left is that the U-turn is in the median lane of the arterial -- that does not appear to be the case with this road. Perhaps I'm not understanding your description correctly -- from how you describe it, drivers make a U-turn in the intersection with the off-ramp. Do drivers coming the other direction on the arterial also turn left at that intersection into the off-ramp? If so, then it is not a unidirectional U-turn. older ≠ wiser 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sebwite, are you saying the turnaround occurs as a U-turn in the median at the location of the Route 140 exit, or are drivers exiting at Route 140 and pulling a U-turn somewhere further down the ramp? If the former, this seems like a Michigan left to me. (If the latter, it's not.) The Google aerial view is indistinct at that point so I can't tell. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The intersection of Owings Mills Blvd and Dolfield Rd is NOT a Michigan left; it is possible to make a left turn from all 4 directions at the intersection. Left turns onto Dolfield Rd from northboud I-795 are prohibited because the traffic merges onto Owings Mill Blvd from the right side too late to safely cross all the lanes of traffic. That these and only these vehicles are forced to u-turn at the SR-140 intersection does not make this a Michigan left. --Millbrooky (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to compromise, I think it would be best to include this and other similar intersections, but to mention that this is a similar alignment. I used to live near the location in question, and at that time, I was acquainted with one of the area's traffic planners. He used to tell me it was "just like a Michigan Left," and that is when I first heard this term.Sebwite (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Michigan lefts prohibit left turns at an intersection. At this intersection, left turns are allowed. Thus, the intersection is not a Michgan left. Vehicles from northbound I-795 cannot turn left due to its approach geometry. That the movement is "just like a Michigan left" does not make it a Michgan left. I see no reason to include it in the article. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Original Research v. stylized graphic

I was accused of wp:or for adding a graphic of a "non-conformant" (sic) and non-existent intersection. That image I uploaded was based on the intersection of US 31 and Robbins Rd in Grand Haven, MI. You can clearly see the knuckles if you go to http://www.mapquest.com/maps/grand+haven+mi/ and zoom in to the closest resolution with a satellite view (3rd bar from the top). There are definitely others in SW Michigan, along US31 and elsewhere in that quadrant of the Lower Peninsula. You can do a Google maps to see the extra knuckles added in order to make the intersection "work" for large trucks ... but that causes its own set of problems just as the FHWA says. I can't find -- or don't know how to identify -- public domain satellite images that show these intersections; but they do exist and I am not doing original research, just providing an original graphic which I put in the public domain. These narrow boulevard MI Left intersections may not conform to the general "guidance" or "policy" concerning effective use of MI Lefts. But the fact that they exist does in fact cause a problem; I've watched the trucks! I don't want to start a revert war, but this is truly a problem. See the discussion Talk:Michigan_left#Land Use Disadvantage above that I was not even a part of.

One other thing: even if some of you don't want the image, the rest of the editing (bulletized list, section rename, rewording, etc.) allows the article to flow a little bit better rather than using the grammatical "add-ons" (i.e., "furthermore" and "additionally") which are, at best awkward as used in previous revisions. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Retagging

I retagged this to remove WP:MSHP from the tag. These intersections, while developed in and named after Michigan, are found in other states and countries under other names. To exclusively tag it to one state isn't quite right in my book. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Magic Roundabout

For those of us who hate Michigan Lefts, I have now found that at least it ain't the worst form of traffic geometry in the world. Take a look at the Magic Roundabout, A mirrored version of the image is available here. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thailand

I'm here in Thailand and while I was taking a bus ride out to Nakhon Ratchasima and back I saw many of these. Near Bangkok (and in some other places alone the way) there are even bridges which allow more cars to take this manuver. It's my vacation and that's about all the time I want to spend on it... here's some examples: U-turn bridge under an elevated road in north Bangkok U-turn lanes in NR (Khorat for short) BTW, Thailand has some truly insane roads... use Google Earth on Bangkok sometime. --58.9.199.237 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, but those bizarre intersections don't really qualify as Michigan lefts which are fairly simplistic in their design. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rarity outside of Michigan

Is this really that rare? It seems fairly common in the New Orleans, Louisiana area; while sometimes left turns are only prohibited from one road at an intersection (I assume they must be prohibited from both roads to be considered a true Michigan left), I can think of a few examples off the top of my head that would be considered Michigan lefts according to this definition. I don't generally finding myself in other cities, but it seems surprising that these intersections would be as rare as the article claims. Any thoughts?Kevin M Marshall 19:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how accurate it is to call it "extremely rare anywhere else", but after living and driving for many years in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, I never encountered it before coming to Michigan. And even after living here for three years, it still strikes me as rather exceptional. older≠wiser 19:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

There is something simmilar in Ottawa, Ontario at the intersection of Bank Street and Riverside Drive, except that left turns onto Bank Street (the cross road) are permitted, (due to the fact that there is a full block between the two directions of Riverside). I don't think there are any others in Ottawa, but does anyone know if there are more in other places in Ontario or Canada? --Someones life 16:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen anything quite like this in Ontario, the closest thing being Spadina Ave in Toronto where the streetcar has its own right-of-way. Many streets can't turn left when hitting Spadina, and drivers must instead turn right and then make a U-turn at a designated light. However, most of those streets are ones that don't cross the streetcar tracks at all (i.e.: no straight-through traffic). For other streets, it's often easier to turn right and then use the U-turn lanes further down than it is to attempt a direct left, but the signs only suggest that for the T-intersections. Potatophysics 05:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This kind of intersection (along with the jughandle and reverse jughandle) are found all over southeastern New England (i.e. Rhode Island and Massachusetts), in areas where there are a lot of medium traffic routes (that could thus benefit from special traffic control devices) crisscrossing comparatively sparsely-populated areas (that thus have room for special traffic control devices). I'd say "extremely rare" is not warranted, although the usage is certainly highly regional. /blahedo (t) 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

These are also commonly found in Seattle, sometimes at large avenues (Rainier Avenue, near the QFC and Wendy's if someone needs clarification), there also are Michigan lefts, along with center turn lanes. -Uagehry456|Talk_{JordanhillVote} 03:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The example given is not even close to a Michigan Left. Ranier Avenue isn't even a divided highway let alone possess Prohibited Left hand turn along with a unidirectional Median U-Turn. [7] -- KelleyCook 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a partial Michigan Left (just one side of junction) in Dublin, Ireland at the junction of the N4 and South Circular Road. Map at http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.342917,-6.307633&spn=0.005073,0.014098&z=16&om=1

Remember, traffic drives on the left in Ireland.

It must be said, however, that the U-turn happens very close to junction and that it is controlled by traffic lights.

Two traffic movements use the loop: Traffic coming from the north on South Circular Road and wishing to go West on N4 (Con Colbert Road) must first turn left and then loop around to face the correct direction. This movement can confuse motorists as they see signs for West and East on the N4.

Traffic coming from the Con Colbert Road wishing to go South on the South Circular Road goes through the junction and then loops around before taking a left turn. There are frequently delays at peak times with this movement. This happens because traffic having just looped meets a red light at the left turn. The short space means only about ten cars can queue and get through at one time.

I guess the reason this type of junction was chosen was because the roads cross a railway line at this point. The South Circular Road bridge would have been in place for many years, however, the N4 dual carriageway was built relatively recently. Using a partial Michigan Left meant only one more bridge had to be built to cater for the junction, the initial bridge didn't have to be widened, and most right turn movements could be accommodated. David in dublin 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting junction, but as you say, it is not really a "Michigan Left" (or right) which don't involved crossing over the cross-traffic. With the weaving aspect, it is much closer to the hated Jughandle design. -- KelleyCook 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on which direction you're coming from! The arrows on the map distort what happens a little. (Zoom into the photo and you can almost make out arrows painted on road)

If coming for the west and you want to make a right turn, you keep right and perform a U-turn. In this sense it's like a Michigan left (or right).

Coming for the north, however, you're right! It's more of a Jughandle because right turning traffic keeps left.

I also know these to be very common around New Orleans. I've changed "extremely rare" to "less common". heat_fan1 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to find an example, where New Orleans uses the unidirectional nature of the Michigan Left which is its key safety feature. I somewhat restoring the edit. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's an intersection in NOLA. Someone turning left onto US-90 must either make a right turn onto US-90 and then a U-turn, or go straight past US-90, make a U-turn, and then a right onto US-90. How is this different? http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=29.956092~-90.120581&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=16228792&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 heat_fan1 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of them are unidirectional at intersection. Because they are older they are not constructed with the u-curve, but are signed one way. Here is a picture of a newer one in suburban NOLA http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=29.956092~-90.120581&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=16228792&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 It is also possible that the "michigan" lefts was actually being implemented in NOLA as early as the late 1940's to 1950's.

Safety Disadvantage

I removed the "Safety Disadvantage" which read: "Safety – while eliminating collisions in the intersection, traffic has to join the opposing traffic flow at the U turn in the fast lane." This is not necessarily correct. First, at a Michigan Left turnaround controlled by a traffic signal, traffic coming from the right would be stopped by their red signal phase and vehicles from the turnaround would not be "joining" any traffic at all. For those turnarounds controlled by a stop or yield sign, it is still not correct, as the left-turning traffic from the turnaround can turn into any available lane, including the traditionally slower-speed rightmost lanes, or very often into the right-turn-only lane for the intersection being controlled by the Michigan Left. Whenever possible, the right-turn-only lane is constructed so that it begins opposite the Michigan Left turnaround, meaning the "turnaround traffic" would simply turn directly into the right-turn-only lane and not need to join any "fast lane" traffic. -- CBessert 20:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am replacing this valid disadvantage (and not that I have been hit as often turning left as making a Michigan left - ok, the total is one and one.) Many Michigan lefts do not have traffic lights or turning lanes and unless Michigan law is different, drivers are legally required to turn into the closest available lane. Having to cross additional lanes only means you have more cars to avoid. Rmhermen 22:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I must say having a discussion first would save repeated reversions, to be honest. I still maintain this entire premise behind this "Safety Disadvantage" is false on its face. Here are some of the reasons:

• First, all of the reasons I listed above are still true. It is completely false for all such intersections controlled by a traffic signal, so the statement as it stands should, at a minimum, be heavily revised to eliminate the inaccuracy.
• Second, I truly do not believe that one editor's own accident rate should not determine the facts of an article such as this. I have been using Michigan Lefts my entire life and none of the accidents I have been involved in have been at a Michigan Left crossover, yet that should not mean a Michigan Left crossover is the safest place on a Michigan highway.
• Third, the point that "most Michigan Lefts do not have traffic lights" was covered in my statement above.
• Fourth, I dispute that "most Michigan Lefts do not have...turning lanes" is true—in my extensive statewide experience, the opposite is true.
• Fifth, there is nothing explicit in Michigan law that states that drivers are legally required to turn into the closest available lane, unless there is a sign stating this to be so or pavement markings exist at the intersection in question. The specific section of the Michigan Vehicle Code that deals with making left turns, Section 257.650, makes no mention of it at all, while the more general section, Section 257.647, only notes "Where both streets or roadways are 1-way, both the approach for a left turn and a left turn shall be made as close as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway", but in discussions I have had with local law enforcement (in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area) as well as local Michigan Department of Transportation engineers note that "as close as practicable" applies to the roadway being turned from, not onto. This language prohibits drivers from making right turns, for example, far from the right edge of the road being turned from (a wide swing, for example) or from making a right turn from a through lane when a right-turn lane is provided. The law forcing drivers to turn into the closest lane does exist in other states, but not in Michigan, similar to the laws in other jurisdictions which state a right-turn-on-red can only be made from the "curb" lane—this also does not exist in Michigan.
• Sixth, those Michigan Lefts which employ the use of a "bulb" where the median on the divided highway is not wide enough for a "traditional" Michigan Left, the driver executing the Michigan Left maneuver cannot possibly (nor physically) turn into the "closest" lane, thus rendering this point additionally moot. (See the diagram on my Michigan Highways site for an excellent illustration of this "bulb-type" of Michigan Left setup.) Indeed, the mere existence of dual-left Michigan Left setups directly contradicts the idea that drivers making a Michigan Left must always turn into closest oncoming lane. In those situations, the drivers making a Michigan Left from the right lane shall turn into the rightmost lanes, while those turning from the left Michigan Left crossover lane shall turn into the leftmost lanes.
• Seventh, the concept that one has "to cross additional lanes" is also not true, as the driver would have to cross those same lanes a few hundred feet behind them if they were making the turn in a more "traditional" manner. This holds true for those either making a left onto the divided highway or off of it. For example, if the divided highway in question has three lanes in each direction, the driver would have to cross all three oncoming lanes in order to complete a traditional left turn—the same three lanes they must cross to complete the Michigan Left turn. Indeed, it can be argued that the Michigan Left maneuver is more safe, as in a traditional left turn all three lanes must be free of traffic before the driver can complete his turn. In the Michigan Left, if the left oncoming lane is clear, the driver can turn into this lane first, then move progressively across the other two lanes as traffic allows. Of course, more often the driver executing the Michigan Left simply turns into the rightmost lane of the oncoming side of the highway and completes his right turn onto the intersecting road.

So, it seems clear that the "Safety Disadvantage" is a false one and should be removed. While I will wait for any additional discussion before reverting the last edit, unless all or most of what has been outlined above is refuted, I will remove the "Safety Disadvantage" (again) in the near future. Thank you for your consideration. — CBessert 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, I also note that in reviewing the edits dating back to the establishment of the article, "Rmhermen" has repeatedly attempted to insert language along the lines of having to "quickly move across several lanes of heavy traffic" and that the safety of the Michigan Left is, therefore, compromised because of it. I also note those statements have been removed at other times in the past as well, by editors other than myself. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't repeatedly trying to insert the same information into an article that has been deleted in the past heading down the road toward vandalism? Just another reason why it seems the "Safety Disadvantage" is inappropriate, beyond its factual shortcomings. Any thoughts? — 71.205.93.181 01:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that—didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I wrote the above paragraph. It's from me, though! — CBessert 01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem within the dispute lies within the fact that "Rmhermen" doesn't know Michigan Law, and is making assumptions about it. The statement also assumes that one would pull out while traffic is passing by. You are not supposed to pull out until traffic is clear, so there shouldn't be any problem with merging onto the main road, and there shouldn't be anyone there to hit you. I only saw two edits by "Rmhermen" so I'm sot sure it's vandalism...yet. Also, "CBessert" has been the only person to undo any actions that "Rmhermen" has done. I think we need to look at the facts that "Rmhermen" provide: a misinterpretation of Michigan Law, and everyone else's arguements, which seem to be a little more valid. Once we look at the discussion as a community, we can make a decision. My two cents: if it was "extremely dangerous," Michigan would probably stopped building them a long time ago. Also, if they are that dangerous, then can we assume regular left turns are lethal?

Copied from the MDOT website on Michigan Lefts:

• "Why has the State of Michigan adopted these? Research and experience have shown that the Michigan Left relieves congestion; it increases safety by reducing the number and severity of crashes. Whenever MDOT plans work on a boulevard (divided roadway), engineers will consider incorporating Michigan Lefts."
• "What's the effect on crashes? On roadways where crossovers and Michigan Lefts have been added, crashes have been reduced 30 to 60 percent overall. The greatest reductions are in rear-end and head-on crashes during left-turns (60 to 90 percent reduction) and right-angle crashes (60 percent reduction). Slight increases are noted for two other crash types. Non-left-turn rear-end crashes increase by approximately 25 percent, and fixed-object crashes increase by approximately 20 percent."

Personally, I would gladly exchange my 25% increase in rear-end accidents for the 90% decrease in head-on collisions. Also, I have been a victim of the fixed-object crash (on a Michigan Left) during an ice storm, but I would like to know if anyone has actual numbers (I could not find any on the MDOT site) of now many fixed-object accidents there were during traditional left turns...there aren't many fixed objects in the middle of intersections.MCMLXXXIII (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged this section as possibly being original research. It would be great if someone would find a study on these intersections and cite whatever advantages and disadvantages are given there. --SPUI (T - C) 02:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of what I added is listed in this NCDOT publication: "Moving More Cars Through the Same Space Using Unconventional Intersection Designs" from 2003. Also listed in the report are comparisons showing actual traffic volume numbers for each type of "unconventional" design, including Michigan Lefts, Superstreets, Bowties, and Continuous Flow Intersections. Does that help? — CBessert 04:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it in detail, but [8] might help. --SPUI (T - C) 03:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It has always been clear that you are a strong proponent of Michigan lefts; however, you must realize that others are just as clearly opposed to them and you must allow the article to show a balanced POV discussion. Regarding specific points:

":Safety – while eliminating collisions in the intersection, traffic has to join the opposing traffic flow at the U turn in the fast lane."

• 1. The statement makes no reference to lights at u-turns. Add a reference if you must.
• 2. Please do not make me sink to having to add stupid emoticons! :-\ I will say that the accident I had was a low speed collision when someone ran into me in the U-turn lane itself and has no bearing on the statement in question.
• 4. Without statistics, you are basing your opinion on personal experience as much as my accident statement, had that, actually, been a basis of my argument. Clearly, however a number of Michigan lefts on busy streets do not have lights. Perhaps lights and turn lanes are features of Michigan lefts more common in Grand Rapids than Detroit.
• 5. Interesting. That explains the accidents I see on dual Michigan lefts when more than one car enters the same lane. I will admit that I learned to drive in Illinois, and came late to my dislike of Michigan lefts. Wonder who gets the tickets.
• 6. Roads with Michigan lefts often have more than two lanes so even the outer lane in the dual turn has to cross additional lanes.
• 7 With a left turn signal, there is no oncoming traffic to avoid at all so crossing multiple lanes is not difficult. With a Michigan left without a light there may be significant traffic to wear through. (I, for instance, have several times not been able to get through traffic and have had to circle through the intersection again - that is three Michigan lefts to make one simple left turn. :-<, personal experience notice). Rmhermen 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

While I do understand where one may believe I am a "strong proponent" of Michigan Lefts, that is actually not the case. I often find the Michigan Lefts I come into contact with on a regular basis to be major pains in the ass. Indeed, I have been known to find alternate routes which take no longer time just to avoid a Michigan Left—just ask my wife. However, I will admit to having little tolerance for what seems to be a segment of the population who believe Michigan Lefts the worst traffic engineering solution since inside passing lanes ("Suicide Lanes") solely because "they look real dumb." It's almost shocking how many of the "I hate them because they're just real, real dumb looking" people end up truly appreciating them (not necessarily like them, however) once they understand the logic and actually utilize them with some regularity. There have been several instances of the "they look real dumb"-type of editing on this article in the past, so I am a bit more sensitive to it than I may otherwise be. To address your remaining points, allow me to trot out the ubiquitous bullets again:

• 1. I can attempt to revise the statement, but I won't deny it may be difficult because even upon revision, it will not be correct.
• 2. Good to hear you didn't sustain heavy damage. The statement was still offered, however, and more idiotic reasons for making an edit to an article have been used in the past.
• 3. (I guess we're not worried about this one.)
• 4. Even if I granted you that most Michigan Left crossovers do not feature a dedicated right-turn-only lane immediately opposite them, it would make no difference to the discussion at hand—that a driver utilizing said crossover can legally turn into any appropriate lane on the opposing side of the divided highway. Sometimes there are dedicated right-turn-only lanes immediately across from it, sometimes there are not, yet the driver has the ability (both legally and realistically) to turn into whichever lane he/she finds necessary and appropriate. No "forcing" into the "fast lane" is present.
• 5. Several items here. First, a main source of accidents on dual-Michigan Lefts is the center lane on a three-lane roadway—it is sometimes unclear which driver has "dibs" on that lane coming out of the dual-Michigan Left. Does Mr. Left have the right to turn into the left OR center lane or does Mrs. Right have rights to the right OR center lane? Question for the ages. Or the state legislature. Second, your admission that you came to your "dislike of Michigan lefts" is what concerns me about editors of this article and, I must admit, I had already assumed you had a great distain for them, noting your previous edits. Obviously, when someone who has professed a hatred for the feature being written about is helping to edit an article, I will keep an extra close eye on those edits. I, myself, have studied the history and background of Michigan Lefts, have had many discussions with the engineers who decide when and where to put them, and have spent time critically analyzing this little bit of traffic engineering. (Just don't let my wife know. Please.) I am a proponent of facts, not the Michigan Left in and of itself.
• 6. I belive you missed the point of No.6, which was to further illustrate that users of a Michigan Left are not "forced" to turn into the "fast lane" of a "busy highway." While No.5 showed there is no legal motivation, No.6 attempted to show a certain type of Michigan Left will not allow a driver to turn into the "fast lane" of that "busy highway" by design. So, your insistence that ALL Michigan Lefts FORCED drivers to turn left into high-speed traffic is blatantly not correct. On top of that, you show a definite "Detroit bias" in that more roads which feature Michigan Lefts do not have more than two through lanes in each direction. There are very few (non-freeway) highways outside Metro Detroit which have more than three lanes in each direction and not all of those feature Michigan Lefts. It is the Gratiots and Telegraphs and Woodwards and Grand Rivers and Eight Miles (and so on) of Metro Detroit that feature this configuration. However, many miles of Metro Detroit divided roadway are four lanes, as are nearly all of the divided highways in outstate Michigan. I try hard to bring a wider, statewide view of these topics than a view which concentrates on one region to the exclusion of all others. (Recall, there are Michigan Lefts in the U.P., too!)
• 7. Again, you may have missed my point. Anywhere there is sufficient traffic to warrant a dedicated left turn signal/phase at a traditional intersection, the Michigan Left implemented at this same location would also warrant a traffic signal. This nullifies your point that the traditional dedicated left-turn signal treatment is "not difficult", as a Michigan Left with its own signal is similarly "not difficult" (or, as the point I was attempting to make, no "less safe"). As for your "personal experience," I have yet to either experience the same thing myself or hear of anyone else who had to "circle back around" like that. At the risk of sounding callous (not intended), I have to wonder if your admitted "dislike" of Michigan Lefts and later introduction to them has accounted for your bad luck with the movement. I have heard much anecdotal evidence that Michiganders who grew up with them have no problems with them as they are second nature and just an everyday part of living in Michigan. If that is what you were trying to get at, the "potential confusion" angle is already covered under "Disadvantages."

In the end—and let's all hope we've beaten this dead horse enough by now—I still find it improper to cite the same reason as both an advantage and disadvantage. Studies from the 1960s through today continue to bear out that the number and severity of accidents are reduced where Michigan Lefts are implemented. This does include the main intersection as well as the one, two, three or four Michigan Left crossovers which are associated with it, so to say that a lack of safety is a disadvantage when statistics show that the intersection is safer is contradictory and, in my opinion, completely false. Heck, if I wanted, I could easily argue that "joining" traffic is inherently much safer than having to cross directly through it, as one would in a traditional left-turn setup. Thus, your "traffic has to join the opposing traffic flow at the U turn" is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

I hope we can agree that—at a minimum—elmiminating the "having to join" and "fast lane" references are necessary for that statement. But I maintain once you do that, which essentially elmininates your admitted bias against Michigan Lefts, the statement essentially becomes an "Advantage," as joining traffic all going the same direction is much safer than turning directly across it. (As an aside, may I suggest in your travels around Detroit, not taking the first Michigan Left crossover after the intersection, but going on down to the next one in order to give you some more "wiggle room" to get into the right lane on the other side of the highway...) — CBessert 06:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a small note 2 years after this discussion... from [9] "(d) Where both streets or roadways are 1-way, both the approach for a left turn and a left turn shall be made as close as practicable to the left-hand curb or edge of the roadway." The U-turn lane is one-way. The divided highway one is merging onto in 1 way. Thus, section D applies. Therefor, hopping lanes, as per CBessert's instruction, is a civil infraction. Kyle van der Meer (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Left definition question

If the U Turn portions also has their own traffic signals (in addition to the main interception that prohbits left turns) and is otherwise looks exactly like a Michigan left described, would that be considered a Michigan Left, or is that something else? MODOT now seems to proposing that for a major very busy interception and calling it a Michigan left after some objection to the original crossover design we're used too. (Missouri state law also prohibits left turns on Red onto one way roads unlike Michigan.) Jon (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's still a Michigan Left, with or without u-turn traffic signals. --Millbrooky (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the turnarounds are one-way they can either be signalized or just have a stop sign depending on traffic volumes. But if the turnarounds are not unidirectional, then it isn't a Michigan left. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As someone who lives in southern Michigan, and who has been in such cities as South Bend, Fort Wayne, and Toledo where there are dual surface highways, I have never seen any "Michigan Left" in northern Indiana or northwestern Ohio. Pbrower2a (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Article rename

What is your source backing up the new name of the article? Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, more specificially, why was this article title renamed/moved. Using Google search results for

"Michigan left": 3,140 [10]

"Michigan left turn": 694 [11]

"Median u-turn crossover": 310 [12]

Meaning that the Michigan left term is 10 times more commonly used online, and Michigan left turn is twice as common online as the new title of this article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Its the term used by the Federal Highway Administration as well as in textbooks such as Handbook of transportation engineering as well as federal government reports on the subject such as those from National Cooperative Highway Research Program and National Research Council on Transportation, as well as journals on the subject such as Transportation quarterly. The informal Michigan title is in use and should be included the article as well as a redirect but the article should be titled using the more formal one rather than the regional one.--RadioFan (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I initially agreed with Imzadi1979, but this intersection style is named "Median U-Turn Crossover" at the federal highway site linked as a reference. I tend to think the FHWA would be a Reliable Source thereby trumping the fact that everyone refers to it as a "Michigan Left". -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but in the process of renaming/moving the article, almost all traces of the Michigan Left name were excised. The facts still remain that 1) Michigan Left is a much more commonly used name for this style of intersection, 2) the Michigan Left was invented in, well, Michigan and 3) RadioFan's edits to the article originally unbolded and removed all but 2 usages of the term in the main body of the article. I reinstated the bolding in the lead per MOS:Bold, but I feel the common name has been downplayed way too much, especially given the fact that this intersection style id actually quite uncommon outside the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's in the 2nd sentence as a commonly used alternative name. Bolding of names is generally only done for the article title but it was added here as well in the introduction. This wasn't to downplay the name, bolding is generally not done throughout the article. --RadioFan (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're correct about the bolding. I restored it on first usage of the name in the lead, per MOS:BOLD as I said above. But the name has been downplayed throughout the article though, even though as I've shown above, it is the most commonly-used name for this style of intersection, and it originates in its namesake state. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, are you implying that MDOT isn't a Reliable Source as to the name of this type of intersection, considering they either helped or outright developed it? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In revisiting this issue, I still disagree with the renaming, and I found the policy on the matter, WP:COMMONNAME, which says "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name". As such it says to title an article "Guinea pig" instead of the Latin Cavia porcellus, and "Nazi Party" instead of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. The fact remains, even if FHWA calls it one thing, the common name based on usages online can outweigh that. Imzadi 1979 → 05:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree especially since Michigan Left has been marked as an unusual article. If nobody objects I am going to change it back.Sturmovik (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the CSD request on the redirect so the page can be moved back. After this much time, if anyone else was interested enough to object, they would have by now. Imzadi 1979 → 02:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lithuania

Lithuania apparently has them, as on its A3 highway near Vilnius.

http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=54.63763,25.36729&z=17&t=S&marker0=39.31583%2C-120.32139%2

A full crossing of the A3 highway from a side road is apparently impossible, but making a left involves a maneuver much like a Michigan Left (right turn and a U-turn in a defined crossing in the median. In one satellite version a car is shown in the U-turn crossing.

This data is not ready for inclusion in the main article, as I cannot discern whether the highway is of Lithuanian or Soviet design. Pbrower2a (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving of old discussions

When I saw that a bot had archived some of the discussion, I was tempted to undo it. Much of the discussion on this talk page seems to have advanced/aided the main article's shape and direction. Some of the archived discussion is relatively irrelevant, but I do think that some of it should stay "permanently" here for the sake of preventing edits which have already been discussed in depth. Any thoughts by anyone else? Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The archive was a good idea, because of the length of the discussions. Any issue can be further discussed on whatever the main talk page is. That said, someone said that Michigan lefts were dangerous in snowy conditions, but since the boulevard implies that it's a main road, it would be one of the first roads to be cleared. MMetro (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Stylized depiction

I find the stylized depiction diagram here, File:Michigan Left.svg, for a narrow median, very useful [even if it is tagged as "excessively detailed" :) ]. I wonder, though, if the article should include a diagram for the "rule" as well as this one for the "exception". I'm thinking about boldly copying the "wide median" version from the FHWA document cited in the article and including it here. If that seems like a good idea, I'd also ask the diagram authors to make prettier versions, as they did for "narrow". --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Examples in Europe

I currently live in Cologne, where they have a lot of these. I'm not sure about the rest of Germany - but it did strike me as an unusual but convenient arrangement. I don't have any sources though - should I include it anyway? Vroomfundel (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You can always use a satellite view of an intersection in Google Maps. Locate one, click the chain/link button to get the URL for that specific location, and use that in {{google maps}} for a citation. Imzadi 1979 → 17:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh my gosh!

I grew up in Detroit and thought the strange left turns on Woodward Avenue were 'normal'. My mother used to cruise up and down Woodward in the 50s as a teenager looking for fun (and anyone she knew that had a convertible). NOW I have learned how she made left turns on her stomping grounds! Deeply moved,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)