"Left Turn Yield On Green" Sign

Started by 7/8, June 18, 2017, 10:48:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

US 89

Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 07:53:28 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 07:09:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 09:11:46 AM
I agree with your point on colour blindness, since my Dad is red-green colourblind (the most common type) and he tends to distinguish the lights based on their vertical position. I think 5-head signals would be the best, but my area seems to prefer 4-head siignals.

AFAIK, 5-section signals aren't used in Canada, at least anymore? I know some exist (none in British Columbia for sure), but I don't think they're still installed.

There's a couple of 5-head signals in Waterloo Region.

Here's one at River Rd and King St in Kitchener

http://i.imgur.com/0mYnpoI.jpg

That one's a bit odd. Typically, the top three signals might be one assembly, and the bottom two would be the left turn assembly. A typical "Tacoma Tower" (Tacoma, WA's version of a PPLT, different from most of Washington which uses four-section signals or doghouses almost exclusively) has the two arrows stuck onto the bottom of the left-most overhead signal as a way to implement PPLT phasing at a later date (though this practice has ended with the advent of FYAs):



Why must the lights be different sizes????


7/8

Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 08:25:18 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 07:53:28 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 07:09:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 09:11:46 AM
I agree with your point on colour blindness, since my Dad is red-green colourblind (the most common type) and he tends to distinguish the lights based on their vertical position. I think 5-head signals would be the best, but my area seems to prefer 4-head siignals.

AFAIK, 5-section signals aren't used in Canada, at least anymore? I know some exist (none in British Columbia for sure), but I don't think they're still installed.

There's a couple of 5-head signals in Waterloo Region.

Here's one at River Rd and King St in Kitchener

http://i.imgur.com/0mYnpoI.jpg

That one's a bit odd. Typically, the top three signals might be one assembly, and the bottom two would be the left turn assembly. A typical "Tacoma Tower" (Tacoma, WA's version of a PPLT, different from most of Washington which uses four-section signals or doghouses almost exclusively) has the two arrows stuck onto the bottom of the left-most overhead signal as a way to implement PPLT phasing at a later date (though this practice has ended with the advent of FYAs):

http://i.imgur.com/97TtsR9.png

Maybe it would be odd in the US, but it seems reasonable in Ontario. The signal head pattern in my photo from top to bottom is red ball, yellow ball, green ball, yellow solid arrow, and flashing green arrow (like your Tacoma example). So it's basically like a standard Ontario PPLT 4-head signal, except the green and yellow arrows each get their own signal head.

But such a setup would imply that the bottom three signals replaced a single, maybe green arrow? If the bottom lens was already a green orb, why replace it? Just add on the two arrows to the bottom. Your photo seems to imply that the local authority left the top two signals of the original light, replacing the bottom lens (whatever it originally was) with three lenses.

Here's a signal on the SFPR (Hwy 17) in metro Vancouver. While the bottom bi-modal flashing green arrow/solid yellow arrow lens has always been there, the setup implies that the top three signals are one assembly, and the bottom lens is another assembly (though placed directly next to each other). Unlike the Ontario example, the BCMOT could easily remove the bottom lens from the setup without adversely affecting the original three-orb assembly. Removing the bottom assembly from your photo would leave the light without a green indication.

http://i.imgur.com/7c33vud.png

Oh, I see what your saying now. The reason it looks like that is because the bottom three signal heads are McCain PV's. Either way, in this example, they likely wouldn't get rid of the arrows since most traffic is turning left.

jakeroot

Quote from: roadguy2 on June 19, 2017, 08:27:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 07:53:28 PM
A typical "Tacoma Tower" (Tacoma, WA's version of a PPLT, different from most of Washington which uses four-section signals or doghouses almost exclusively) has the two arrows stuck onto the bottom of the left-most overhead signal as a way to implement PPLT phasing at a later date (though this practice has ended with the advent of FYAs):

http://i.imgur.com/97TtsR9.png

Why must the lights be different sizes????

Most signals in my area that were installed before, roughly, 2002 were of the 12-8-8 variety. This particular signal was constructed in the 80s. The arrows were added on later. By the time they added the arrows, the federal manual must have required 12-inch arrows, so they had no choice but to add 12 inch arrows below the 8-inch yellow and green indications.

jakeroot

Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 08:31:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 08:25:18 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 07:53:28 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 07:09:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 09:11:46 AM
I agree with your point on colour blindness, since my Dad is red-green colourblind (the most common type) and he tends to distinguish the lights based on their vertical position. I think 5-head signals would be the best, but my area seems to prefer 4-head siignals.

AFAIK, 5-section signals aren't used in Canada, at least anymore? I know some exist (none in British Columbia for sure), but I don't think they're still installed.

There's a couple of 5-head signals in Waterloo Region.

Here's one at River Rd and King St in Kitchener

http://i.imgur.com/0mYnpoI.jpg

That one's a bit odd. Typically, the top three signals might be one assembly, and the bottom two would be the left turn assembly. A typical "Tacoma Tower" (Tacoma, WA's version of a PPLT, different from most of Washington which uses four-section signals or doghouses almost exclusively) has the two arrows stuck onto the bottom of the left-most overhead signal as a way to implement PPLT phasing at a later date (though this practice has ended with the advent of FYAs):

http://i.imgur.com/97TtsR9.png

Maybe it would be odd in the US, but it seems reasonable in Ontario. The signal head pattern in my photo from top to bottom is red ball, yellow ball, green ball, yellow solid arrow, and flashing green arrow (like your Tacoma example). So it's basically like a standard Ontario PPLT 4-head signal, except the green and yellow arrows each get their own signal head.

But such a setup would imply that the bottom three signals replaced a single, maybe green arrow? If the bottom lens was already a green orb, why replace it? Just add on the two arrows to the bottom. Your photo seems to imply that the local authority left the top two signals of the original light, replacing the bottom lens (whatever it originally was) with three lenses.

Here's a signal on the SFPR (Hwy 17) in metro Vancouver. While the bottom bi-modal flashing green arrow/solid yellow arrow lens has always been there, the setup implies that the top three signals are one assembly, and the bottom lens is another assembly (though placed directly next to each other). Unlike the Ontario example, the BCMOT could easily remove the bottom lens from the setup without adversely affecting the original three-orb assembly. Removing the bottom assembly from your photo would leave the light without a green indication.

http://i.imgur.com/7c33vud.png

Oh, I see what your saying now. The reason it looks like that is because the bottom three signal heads are McCain PV's. Either way, in this example, they likely wouldn't get rid of the arrows since most traffic is turning left.

But that doesn't really explain why. Why is it that the bottom three lenses are McCain PV's, and not just the bottom two? I don't really expect you to answer this question. It's very much rhetorical, especially considering the age of the signal, and that whoever was responsible for the signal has long since retired. I just thought it was strange.

7/8

Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 08:38:06 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 08:31:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 08:25:18 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 07:53:28 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 07:09:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 09:11:46 AM
I agree with your point on colour blindness, since my Dad is red-green colourblind (the most common type) and he tends to distinguish the lights based on their vertical position. I think 5-head signals would be the best, but my area seems to prefer 4-head siignals.

AFAIK, 5-section signals aren't used in Canada, at least anymore? I know some exist (none in British Columbia for sure), but I don't think they're still installed.

There's a couple of 5-head signals in Waterloo Region.

Here's one at River Rd and King St in Kitchener

http://i.imgur.com/0mYnpoI.jpg

That one's a bit odd. Typically, the top three signals might be one assembly, and the bottom two would be the left turn assembly. A typical "Tacoma Tower" (Tacoma, WA's version of a PPLT, different from most of Washington which uses four-section signals or doghouses almost exclusively) has the two arrows stuck onto the bottom of the left-most overhead signal as a way to implement PPLT phasing at a later date (though this practice has ended with the advent of FYAs):

http://i.imgur.com/97TtsR9.png

Maybe it would be odd in the US, but it seems reasonable in Ontario. The signal head pattern in my photo from top to bottom is red ball, yellow ball, green ball, yellow solid arrow, and flashing green arrow (like your Tacoma example). So it's basically like a standard Ontario PPLT 4-head signal, except the green and yellow arrows each get their own signal head.

But such a setup would imply that the bottom three signals replaced a single, maybe green arrow? If the bottom lens was already a green orb, why replace it? Just add on the two arrows to the bottom. Your photo seems to imply that the local authority left the top two signals of the original light, replacing the bottom lens (whatever it originally was) with three lenses.

Here's a signal on the SFPR (Hwy 17) in metro Vancouver. While the bottom bi-modal flashing green arrow/solid yellow arrow lens has always been there, the setup implies that the top three signals are one assembly, and the bottom lens is another assembly (though placed directly next to each other). Unlike the Ontario example, the BCMOT could easily remove the bottom lens from the setup without adversely affecting the original three-orb assembly. Removing the bottom assembly from your photo would leave the light without a green indication.

http://i.imgur.com/7c33vud.png

Oh, I see what your saying now. The reason it looks like that is because the bottom three signal heads are McCain PV's. Either way, in this example, they likely wouldn't get rid of the arrows since most traffic is turning left.

But that doesn't really explain why. Why is it that the bottom three lenses are McCain PV's, and not just the bottom two? I don't really expect you to answer this question. It's very much rhetorical, especially considering the age of the signal, and that whoever was responsible for the signal has long since retired. I just thought it was strange.

I think I understand why this is. There's a railway track just before the intersection (the 5-head signal in question is in the background showing red).


They wouldn't want anyone to see the green ball, yellow arrow, or green arrow at King St before passing this railway track in case it distracts them from the possible red light at the railway track's 3-head signal. In fact, I think the green ball (the middle of the 5-head signal) is the most important signal head for needing a PV at this intersection.

jakeroot

Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 08:51:34 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 08:38:06 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 08:31:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 08:25:18 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 08:04:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 07:53:28 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 07:09:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 09:11:46 AM
I agree with your point on colour blindness, since my Dad is red-green colourblind (the most common type) and he tends to distinguish the lights based on their vertical position. I think 5-head signals would be the best, but my area seems to prefer 4-head siignals.

AFAIK, 5-section signals aren't used in Canada, at least anymore? I know some exist (none in British Columbia for sure), but I don't think they're still installed.

There's a couple of 5-head signals in Waterloo Region.

Here's one at River Rd and King St in Kitchener

http://i.imgur.com/0mYnpoI.jpg

That one's a bit odd. Typically, the top three signals might be one assembly, and the bottom two would be the left turn assembly. A typical "Tacoma Tower" (Tacoma, WA's version of a PPLT, different from most of Washington which uses four-section signals or doghouses almost exclusively) has the two arrows stuck onto the bottom of the left-most overhead signal as a way to implement PPLT phasing at a later date (though this practice has ended with the advent of FYAs):

http://i.imgur.com/97TtsR9.png

Maybe it would be odd in the US, but it seems reasonable in Ontario. The signal head pattern in my photo from top to bottom is red ball, yellow ball, green ball, yellow solid arrow, and flashing green arrow (like your Tacoma example). So it's basically like a standard Ontario PPLT 4-head signal, except the green and yellow arrows each get their own signal head.

But such a setup would imply that the bottom three signals replaced a single, maybe green arrow? If the bottom lens was already a green orb, why replace it? Just add on the two arrows to the bottom. Your photo seems to imply that the local authority left the top two signals of the original light, replacing the bottom lens (whatever it originally was) with three lenses.

Here's a signal on the SFPR (Hwy 17) in metro Vancouver. While the bottom bi-modal flashing green arrow/solid yellow arrow lens has always been there, the setup implies that the top three signals are one assembly, and the bottom lens is another assembly (though placed directly next to each other). Unlike the Ontario example, the BCMOT could easily remove the bottom lens from the setup without adversely affecting the original three-orb assembly. Removing the bottom assembly from your photo would leave the light without a green indication.

http://i.imgur.com/7c33vud.png

Oh, I see what your saying now. The reason it looks like that is because the bottom three signal heads are McCain PV's. Either way, in this example, they likely wouldn't get rid of the arrows since most traffic is turning left.

But that doesn't really explain why. Why is it that the bottom three lenses are McCain PV's, and not just the bottom two? I don't really expect you to answer this question. It's very much rhetorical, especially considering the age of the signal, and that whoever was responsible for the signal has long since retired. I just thought it was strange.

I think I understand why this is. There's a railway track just before the intersection (the 5-head signal in question is in the background showing red).

http://i.imgur.com/QxNFGBv.jpg

They wouldn't want anyone to see the green ball, yellow arrow, or green arrow at King St before passing this railway track in case it distracts them from the possible red light at the railway track's 3-head signal. In fact, I think the green ball (the middle of the 5-head signal) is the most important signal head for needing a PV at this intersection.

BAAAAMM!! Nice work. That's exactly what I was looking for.

7/8

Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 09:11:46 AM
Waterloo Region (Ontario) uses flashing green left arrows (including on three-head signals), while right arrows are non-flashing. It looks weird in this instance, since they're side-by-side.

Huh. What an odd choice. ICBC (i.e. the government) explains the purpose of the flashing green arrow here (page "45"). Does the MTO have a similar explanation (which may explain why left turns flash but not those pointing right)?

From what I see in Ontario's OTM Book 12, it looks like the MTO prefers flashing green arrows. Page 67 says "The national standards, as given in the TAC MUTCD, use flashing arrow signals only and do not recognize steady arrow or flashing circular displays". [...] "In areas where circular flashing advanced greens are predominant, it is suggested that a program be undertaken to firstly reconstruct these to steady arrow control and then a separate program be undertaken to convert the arrows to flashing advanced green arrows at a later date".

So far, I can't find anything that distinguishes left and right turn arrows (in regards to flashing vs steady). So I'm not really sure why Waterloo Region is using steady right arrows and flashing left arrows :hmmm:

Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 10:34:18 PM
BAAAAMM!!

Peanut butter and jam! I'm not sure if I'm using too many Trailer Park Boys references, but it's hard not too! :-D

roadfro

Quote from: roadguy2 on June 19, 2017, 02:45:38 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 19, 2017, 02:33:41 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 18, 2017, 11:21:26 PM
Quote from: 7/8 on June 18, 2017, 10:48:46 PM
Sorry if this is a silly question, but I'm curious about this sign since we don't have them in Ontario (and I think all of Canada for that matter).



Why is this sign needed? This seems like a common sense rule to me. Would it not be better to sign the opposite situation instead (no left without arrow?), or are there places where permissive lefts are rare? I'm guessing that in most places, permissive lefts are more common than protected-only lefts.

Also, are these signs required at all permissive left intersections, or only some?

The sign is needed because some people will see that there can be an arrow signal, and so they wait for it even though it's a permissive intersection. The sign reminds these people that these intersections are not protected only.

Here in UT, the signs are installed with every doghouse signal, but never with any other signals. They also use a "Left then yield on flashing yellow arrow" with every FYA installed. There are a few "left on green arrow only" signs scattered around at protected only signals, but they are not installed regularly. I wish they were, but from a financial standpoint they probably are not needed, since a red arrow always means stop.

From what I understand from your post, all protected-only lefts in Utah would use a red left arrow to tell drivers to not make a permissive left. If this is the case, then shouldn't drivers realize that at a doghouse signal, they can make a permissive left, since there's no red left arrow? If drivers could figure this out, the DOT could probably save decent money by not needing these signs.

The only use I see so far that makes a lot of sense to me is when a signal is changed from protected-only to allowing permissive lefts. Otherwise, the sign just seems like an expensive reminder that most motorists shouldn't need.

That is correct, all protected lefts use a red left arrow here to indicate "don't turn left, wait for a green left arrow". And you're right, drivers really should realize that they can make a permissive left on a doghouse, but as always, the DOT has to cater to the lowest common denominator of driver. The reasoning is that some drivers think along the lines of "well, since there is a space for a green arrow, and it's off, I have to wait until it comes on". I agree with you that these signs could be removed (or just not installed anymore) and it wouldn't really make a difference.

For what it's worth, these signs are so common around here that something seems off to me if I see a doghouse without one.

Another potential rationale/explanation for this sign: In Nevada, it is uncommon to see the 5-section display as a shared signal face, since 99% of new signal construction uses the "one signal head per lane" approach (so the doghouse is usually centered above the left turn lane). However, the circular green is still tied to the adjacent through lanes (except in limited cases in the Vegas area where Dallas Phasing hasn't yet been converted to FYA). So this sign, with it's slightly larger "Yield" word, serves as a reminder to drivers that the circular green is not a protected left turn, and one can make the permitted left during that interval.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

bzakharin

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 19, 2017, 12:03:20 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2017, 12:01:16 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 18, 2017, 11:58:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2017, 11:50:29 PM
They have been used in Vancouver. This one always sticks out to me (Sea Island Way @ Great Canadian Way, Richmond):

http://i.imgur.com/06i0Sbs.jpg

Is that a split phased intersection? The 4-section signal head seems to suggest it, although that type of intersection would have no need for the sign.

No that's the normal PPLT display used in Canada. The bottom lens is a dual flashing green arrow/solid yellow arrow. Flashing green arrow in most of Canada means protected left.

NJ uses 4 head signals statewide.

And they use this sign statewide as well.
I would not say statewide for the sign. It seems pretty random where they have it and where they don't.

jwolfer

I think it may be going back to when doghouses were nee and unexpected to the general motoring public. I see no need for them any longer.. Soer od like the supplementary texts on diagramatic signs ehen the first rolled out

LGMS428


ilpt4u

There are 5 section tower interchanges in St Louis, that I have driven thru, which are NOT PPLT -- that are Protected only, or Left on Arrow Only. And some are not signed, so you end up in a "Yellow Trap" type situation if you are not a Local and don't know its an "Arrow Only" movement

That being said, in IL, the Left turn yield on Green Ball sign is much more common in Southern IL than it is in Northern IL at 5 signal towers, and I'm guessing it is due to the nearby STL area which has a tendency to use 5 towers for "On Arrow Only" movements, which I don't think I've ever seen in IL (or anywhere else, for that matter)

That being said, my time driving around the STL area, I've noticed the Locals aren't as aggressive about getting out in the intersection during the "Green" Permissive phase of a Permissive Left anyway, compared to how I learned how to drive in IL anyway =)

jakeroot

Quote from: ilpt4u on June 20, 2017, 10:07:13 PM
There are 5 section tower interchanges in St Louis, that I have driven thru, which are NOT PPLT -- that are Protected only, or Left on Arrow Only. And some are not signed, so you end up in a "Yellow Trap" type situation if you are not a Local and don't know its an "Arrow Only" movement

That being said, in IL, the Left turn yield on Green Ball sign is much more common in Southern IL than it is in Northern IL at 5 signal towers, and I'm guessing it is due to the nearby STL area which has a tendency to use 5 towers for "On Arrow Only" movements, which I don't think I've ever seen in IL (or anywhere else, for that matter)

That being said, my time driving around the STL area, I've noticed the Locals aren't as aggressive about getting out in the intersection during the "Green" Permissive phase of a Permissive Left anyway, compared to how I learned how to drive in IL anyway =)

Do you have a link to an example of this 5-section "on arrow only" signal in STL? The only time I've ever seen this was on Michigan Ave and (I think) a couple of signals on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago (where the signal indicates "yield" but the regulatory sign directly below indicates that you cannot, and must wait for the next green arrow).

ilpt4u

#37
One that sticks out in my mind, has since been replaced...It was the Southbound Skinker Blvd left turn to enter I-64/US 40 East, as Clayton Rd is also intersected (very weird intersection)

Streetview shows the old, and also the new/rebuilt configurations (with your standard dedicated 3-head Left Arrow lights)

Old (with the fuzzy Left only on Left Arrow sign) https://goo.gl/maps/S6vQgKpXxhr https://goo.gl/maps/wrSyd9Lu89P2

Current (and more typical) https://goo.gl/maps/87dCBjyWsbu

I haven't driven thru this intersection in a while, and certainly not since it has been redone, but we have the opposite, if you are taking the I-64/US 40 West exit onto Clayton Rd/Skinker Blvd: You have a 3-section Left Signal, complete with a Red Arrow, that is signed for Left Turn Yield on Green Ball

https://goo.gl/maps/v4guTUWWmwA2

Northbound Skinker at Clayton Rd and the I-64/US 40 Ramps, is neither signed for PPLT nor Protected Only Lefts to Westbound Clayton, but from memory and from the way the Locals are pictured in the Historical Street Views (with a Green Ball but no Green Arrow), I think this was supposed to be Left on Arrow Only. I think this was one of the lights that I ate the "Yellow Trap" on...The Street Views show no cars in the intersection waiting to turn Left on a Green Ball "beyond the line."

https://goo.gl/maps/s9MfQaDQUeL2

And currently, still is not signed for PPLT or Protected Only Lefts, tho I would assume Protected Only, due to use of 3-section Left Arrow lights, but again, the West to South Left movement is signed for PPLT, despite 3-section Left Arrow signals...

https://goo.gl/maps/M7AWLvocqQB2

jakeroot

Jesus, that whole intersection was a disaster! I actually lived in STL on and off from 2009 to 2011 (the 64 had just been rebuilt). I wasn't a roadgeek at the time, so I never paid much attention to the signals or traffic control of the area. Honestly, I don't think I ever exited there (but I remember the Amoco sign very clearly, as it was highly visible from the freeway).

I never thought those "left turn on green arrow only" signs were common with 5-section, seemingly "yield" signals, but maybe they're more common than I realized? They seem like a gigantic abuse of the MUTCD and driver expectancy...I would have pulled forward first, realized that the sign said "only on green arrow", and while I would have finished my turn, I would, for the next several miles, ponder why exactly they'd install permissive signals for a protected-only movement.

I suspect these signs are/were ignored to some degree. Any locals care to shed light? (perhaps you, ilpt4u?)

ilpt4u

#39
STL is a good 2 hour drive away for me now, usually only head up there to go to the Airport or take in a game (when the Cubs or Blackhawks are in town, of course!), but I lived in the immediate area for a few years, 02-05.

Different driving patterns there. And I know I encountered other 5-section towers that did the "Left on Arrow Only" deal in/around STL, I just can't exactly place them, other than the Skinker/Clayton/I-64&US 40 intersection -- probably because I got "stuck" when my Green Ball went Red, and oncoming traffic still had a Green Ball, and I'm out in the intersection, with nowhere to go...whoops!

I do remember enough, that the Locals still refer to the I-64/US 40 Freeway as Highway 40 or simply 40, more than the Interstate designation of 64 -- so to go West Coast where Freeways are "The ##" -- probably more STL correct to refer to it as "The 40" than "The 64"

Unless someone got permission to take it down, the Amoco sign should be there to this day. I believe is an official National Landmark. Thats why BP has not been able to take it down or change it to a BP logo (supposedly).

US 89

Quote from: ilpt4u on June 21, 2017, 01:14:43 AM
because I got "stuck" when my Green Ball went Red, and oncoming traffic still had a Green Ball, and I'm out in the intersection, with nowhere to go...whoops!

That sounds a lot like a yellow trap. I thought that wasn't allowed unless there was a sign that said "oncoming traffic has extended green". What do you do in that case, just wait for oncoming traffic to let up and then go, even though your light is red?

jakeroot

Quote from: roadguy2 on June 23, 2017, 04:21:33 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 21, 2017, 01:14:43 AM
because I got "stuck" when my Green Ball went Red, and oncoming traffic still had a Green Ball, and I'm out in the intersection, with nowhere to go...whoops!

That sounds a lot like a yellow trap. I thought that wasn't allowed unless there was a sign that said "oncoming traffic has extended green". What do you do in that case, just wait for oncoming traffic to let up and then go, even though your light is red?

I've wondered the same thing. In theory, you still entered on green, so you didn't break any laws. I think the point of the sign is simply to tell you not to go immediately after the light goes red (because you'll plow into oncoming traffic) -- rather, to wait until oncoming traffic stops, and then finish your turn. Or, to simply not pull forward (I'd still rather pull forward and awkwardly wait in the middle).

Brandon

Quote from: jakeroot on June 23, 2017, 04:41:01 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 23, 2017, 04:21:33 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 21, 2017, 01:14:43 AM
because I got "stuck" when my Green Ball went Red, and oncoming traffic still had a Green Ball, and I'm out in the intersection, with nowhere to go...whoops!

That sounds a lot like a yellow trap. I thought that wasn't allowed unless there was a sign that said "oncoming traffic has extended green". What do you do in that case, just wait for oncoming traffic to let up and then go, even though your light is red?

I've wondered the same thing. In theory, you still entered on green, so you didn't break any laws. I think the point of the sign is simply to tell you not to go immediately after the light goes red (because you'll plow into oncoming traffic) -- rather, to wait until oncoming traffic stops, and then finish your turn. Or, to simply not pull forward (I'd still rather pull forward and awkwardly wait in the middle).

If it were to occur in Illinois (not sure about Missouri), then you could sit there all day until opposing traffic clears as long as you entered on green or yellow.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

jakeroot

Quote from: Brandon on June 23, 2017, 05:38:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 23, 2017, 04:41:01 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 23, 2017, 04:21:33 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 21, 2017, 01:14:43 AM
because I got "stuck" when my Green Ball went Red, and oncoming traffic still had a Green Ball, and I'm out in the intersection, with nowhere to go...whoops!

That sounds a lot like a yellow trap. I thought that wasn't allowed unless there was a sign that said "oncoming traffic has extended green". What do you do in that case, just wait for oncoming traffic to let up and then go, even though your light is red?

I've wondered the same thing. In theory, you still entered on green, so you didn't break any laws. I think the point of the sign is simply to tell you not to go immediately after the light goes red (because you'll plow into oncoming traffic) -- rather, to wait until oncoming traffic stops, and then finish your turn. Or, to simply not pull forward (I'd still rather pull forward and awkwardly wait in the middle).

If it were to occur in Illinois (not sure about Missouri), then you could sit there all day until opposing traffic clears as long as you entered on green or yellow.

I think the law is the same here. As long as you entered on green, you're golden.

ilpt4u

#44
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 23, 2017, 04:21:33 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on June 21, 2017, 01:14:43 AM
because I got "stuck" when my Green Ball went Red, and oncoming traffic still had a Green Ball, and I'm out in the intersection, with nowhere to go...whoops!

That sounds a lot like a yellow trap. I thought that wasn't allowed unless there was a sign that said "oncoming traffic has extended green". What do you do in that case, just wait for oncoming traffic to let up and then go, even though your light is red?
Lets see, after taking horns from other drivers, I laid on mine and went thru when a few oncoming drivers slowed enough I felt it safe enough to go

No, I learned driving around St Louis in MO, don't enter an intersection on a Permissive Left Turn, because they do them differently there, and most locals I've noticed around there don't enter the intersection during a Permissive phase either

And I think that is directly related to why Southern IL uses the "Left Turn Yield On Green Ball" signs at most lights in that part of the state

Up North, you will find them, but not nearly like every intersection

Of course, if you are in Peoria, you get that silly Flashing Yellow Left Arrow thing...it can stay in that part of the state. I'm not a fan (yes, I know, there is a big thread on this board on the Flashing Yellow)

jeffandnicole

Quote from: jakeroot on June 24, 2017, 02:58:44 AM
According to a Washington DOL spokesman:

Quote
A vehicle turning left at a signal-controlled intersection is allowed to enter the intersection if the light is green and wait for a safe gap in traffic to complete the turn. In heavy traffic, this might be when oncoming traffic stops for a yellow or red signal. Once oncoming traffic stops, the vehicle is allowed to complete the turn.

A vehicle waiting behind the white stop line cannot enter the intersection once the light turns yellow or red. Because of this, a left-turning driver who doesn’t enter the intersection on a green light may be trapped behind the white stop line for many cycles of the traffic light. This will not only cost the driver extra time, but it will frustrate any drivers behind also waiting to turn left.

I disagree with the "not allowed to enter on yellow" bit, but whatever.

The yellow is there to encourage people to slow down prior to approaching the light as it will turn red, unless you're so close where stopping is a hazard to you and the people behind you.  If you're already stopped behind the stop line when the light turns yellow, you should just remain there until the next light cycle.  The all-red phase was developed to help clear out the intersection of people already in it; not to encourage people to enter it at the last possible second on the yellow. 

Technically, once the other direction has a green and someone is still in the intersection, then the person in the intersection is obstructing traffic.  Of course it may have been due to someone coming the other way speeding thru the yellow (or even the very beginning of the red), but the chances of locating that offending vehicle is nil.

jakeroot

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2017, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 24, 2017, 02:58:44 AM
According to a Washington DOL spokesman:

Quote
A vehicle turning left at a signal-controlled intersection is allowed to enter the intersection if the light is green and wait for a safe gap in traffic to complete the turn. In heavy traffic, this might be when oncoming traffic stops for a yellow or red signal. Once oncoming traffic stops, the vehicle is allowed to complete the turn.

A vehicle waiting behind the white stop line cannot enter the intersection once the light turns yellow or red. Because of this, a left-turning driver who doesn't enter the intersection on a green light may be trapped behind the white stop line for many cycles of the traffic light. This will not only cost the driver extra time, but it will frustrate any drivers behind also waiting to turn left.

I disagree with the "not allowed to enter on yellow" bit, but whatever.

The yellow is there to encourage people to slow down prior to approaching the light as it will turn red, unless you're so close where stopping is a hazard to you and the people behind you.  If you're already stopped behind the stop line when the light turns yellow, you should just remain there until the next light cycle.  The all-red phase was developed to help clear out the intersection of people already in it; not to encourage people to enter it at the last possible second on the yellow.

As I understand it, you are under no legal obligation to stop on a yellow light, even if you think you could stop.

Keep in mind that the spokesman says "a vehicle waiting behind the white stop line cannot enter the intersection once the light turns yellow". Legally, you can. According to the Revised Code of Washington (our set of laws),

Quote from: RCW 46.61.055 Traffic control signal legend
~2(a) -- Vehicle operators facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal are thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection. Vehicle operators shall stop for pedestrians who are lawfully within the intersection control area as required by RCW 46.61.235(1).

There is nothing about "stopping if you can" or whatever.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2017, 10:12:23 AM
Technically, once the other direction has a green and someone is still in the intersection, then the person in the intersection is obstructing traffic.  Of course it may have been due to someone coming the other way speeding thru the yellow (or even the very beginning of the red), but the chances of locating that offending vehicle is nil.

From a technical standpoint, sure. But from a practical standpoint, that's not a situation where one would be considered obstructing for the purposes of handing out a ticket for said offence. At least not in my experience.

UCFKnights

#47
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2017, 10:12:23 AM
The yellow is there to encourage people to slow down prior to approaching the light as it will turn red, unless you're so close where stopping is a hazard to you and the people behind you.  If you're already stopped behind the stop line when the light turns yellow, you should just remain there until the next light cycle.  The all-red phase was developed to help clear out the intersection of people already in it; not to encourage people to enter it at the last possible second on the yellow. 
In context, I imagine he's referring to the people who stop at a freshly yellow light in a left turn lane, especially on protected left, and especially when there is a long line of people and the light cycle is not long enough to accommodate everyone. My general rule is you're a bit of an ass if you managed to bring your vehicle to a complete stop while the light is still yellow (unless you otherwise would have been blocking the intersection, likely the reason why you'd be stopped at a green). If your close enough to get your vehicle stopped before the light changed to red, you were surely close enough to go. There's a few lights here with real short greens (3-5 seconds) as a result of generally very few people turning, and occasionally the person in front isn't paying attention when the light changes, and sometimes when I honk, they look, see its green, take their foot off the  break, start to go, and then the light turns yellow, and they freaking stop. And wait for the next cycle. And once, I had someone do that for 2 straight cycles (on the third cycle, I hit my horn when the preceding lights cycle turned yellow to alert them its time to pay attention)

jakeroot

Quote from: UCFKnights on June 24, 2017, 01:26:29 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2017, 10:12:23 AM
The yellow is there to encourage people to slow down prior to approaching the light as it will turn red, unless you're so close where stopping is a hazard to you and the people behind you.  If you're already stopped behind the stop line when the light turns yellow, you should just remain there until the next light cycle.  The all-red phase was developed to help clear out the intersection of people already in it; not to encourage people to enter it at the last possible second on the yellow. 

In context, I imagine he's referring to the people who stop at a freshly yellow light in a left turn lane, especially on protected left, and especially when there is a long line of people and the light cycle is not long enough to accommodate everyone. My general rule is you're a bit of an ass if you managed to bring your vehicle to a complete stop while the light is still yellow (unless you otherwise would have been blocking the intersection, likely the reason why you'd be stopped at a green). If your close enough to get your vehicle stopped before the light changed to red, you were surely close enough to go. There's a few lights here with real short greens (3-5 seconds) as a result of generally very few people turning, and occasionally the person in front isn't paying attention when the light changes, and sometimes when I honk, they look, see its green, take their foot off the  break, start to go, and then the light turns yellow, and they freaking stop. And wait for the next cycle. And once, I had someone do that for 2 straight cycles (on the third cycle, I hit my horn when the preceding lights cycle turned yellow to alert them its time to pay attention)

Right. That particular situation is very annoying, but almost worse is when somebody slams on the breaks on yellow (at a 5-section PPLT) when the through traffic has a green light...we can keep going, mate! The yellow means our protected phase is ending. Oncoming traffic is still 3-4 seconds away from setting off.

US 89

Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2017, 10:12:23 AM
Technically, once the other direction has a green and someone is still in the intersection, then the person in the intersection is obstructing traffic.

While this is true (and that is why you don't go through if you can't clear the intersection) a green light does not give you the right of way. If you have a green light, you must still yield to vehicles that are already in the intersection before you can go.

Once you pass the stop line (legally), I am fairly sure you have the right of way even if your light turns red.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.