News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Left on Red Scenarios

Started by coatimundi, November 25, 2016, 11:38:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

jakeroot

Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2016, 08:42:41 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough.  If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.

It's a state law. Turns on red banned unless specifically allowed in municipalities over a certain size.

That's hardly any more effective than posting a sign at the city limits. Not everyone is aware of the population of each city, nor how big a city needs to be before turns on red are banned.


hotdogPi

Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2016, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2016, 08:42:41 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough.  If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.

It's a state law. Turns on red banned unless specifically allowed in municipalities over a certain size.

That's hardly any more effective than posting a sign at the city limits. Not everyone is aware of the population of each city, nor how big a city needs to be before turns on red are banned.

The New York law applies to any city of 1 million of more, which is only New York City. If another city starts to approach 1 million, the number will be increased so that it still only applies to New York City.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

kphoger

Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PMThere is a benefit of having ... exceptions CLEARLY* posted where warranted.

I agree with this statement inasmuch as it relates to prohibitions. But I see little to no benefit in posting when something usually prohibited is actually allowed.

Besides which, a statewide law is, IMHO, wide enough to not warrant special signage. Nationwide, in the USA, is too wide of a blanket. Statewide is more reasonable. And so, for example, I'm frustrated that Chicago can blanket-ban U-turns while the rest of Illinois permits them. And that my city can ban on-street parking by writ on specific streets only without signage. A driver shouldn't be expected to keep track of laws that vary from city to city. But knowing what laws change across state lines is more reasonable.

And the New York state law was obviously custom-drafted for NYC. Calling it a state law is barely speaking the truth.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

jakeroot

Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:03:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2016, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2016, 08:42:41 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough.  If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.

It's a state law. Turns on red banned unless specifically allowed in municipalities over a certain size.

That's hardly any more effective than posting a sign at the city limits. Not everyone is aware of the population of each city, nor how big a city needs to be before turns on red are banned.

The New York law applies to any city of 1 million of more, which is only New York City. If another city starts to approach 1 million, the number will be increased so that it still only applies to New York City.

Regardless,

Quote from: me a few minutes ago
Not everyone is aware of the population of each city, nor how big a city needs to be before turns on red are banned

jeffandnicole

Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2016, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on December 01, 2016, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 26, 2016, 01:50:50 AM
(With that said, I don't know if I'd take the left for sure without being there in person to better gauge the distances between my vehicle and any vehicles in that outer opposing left turn lane...)

For the five-way intersection, the bus is really careful about this turn, and typically does not take it if there's anyone coming up in the oncoming right lane of Lighthouse. From my vantage point, it looks like the bus encroaches into that lane when turning, but I can't know for sure without standing outside and looking, of course.
The curb doesn't have a lot of angle there, so I would guess that it is actually encroaching but, even if it's not, it's probably too close for anyone's comfort.

Tucson has so few one-way streets but also never posted signs about left on reds being permitted when there were situations where it was permitted. Probably as a result of that, I got honked at a couple of times for turning left on red there.

If it's a legal move, there's no reason to post signage. When signage is posted it's usually due to unusual circumstances.

A legal move in a minority of jurisdictions, but unusual in the vast majority of the country and the MUTCD.  And it becomes difficult to remember where one rule applies and one rule doesn't.  There is a benefit of having a uniform driving law across 50 states with exceptions CLEARLY* posted where warranted.

* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough.  If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.


The basic rule is you must stop on red.

The exception is you may turn right or left on red after stopping when state law permits it.  The exception to that is you can't turn when signage is posted.

Which exception do you sign?

hotdogPi

Quote from: kphoger on December 04, 2016, 09:11:17 PM
Besides which, a statewide law is, IMHO, wide enough to not warrant special signage. Nationwide, in the USA, is too wide of a blanket. Statewide is more reasonable. And so, for example, I'm frustrated that Chicago can blanket-ban U-turns while the rest of Illinois permits them. And that my city can ban on-street parking by writ on specific streets only without signage. A driver shouldn't be expected to keep track of laws that vary from city to city. But knowing what laws change across state lines is more reasonable.

So I have to keep track of which states allow:

  • Left on red from one-way to one-way
  • Left on red from two-way to one-way
  • Turn on red arrow
  • A cracked windshield
  • A single burned headlight
  • Cellphone use (not texting) while driving
  • Going up to 5 mph over the speed limit when passing
  • The use of speed cameras
  • The use of red light cameras

And default speed limits vary by state, too.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

cl94

It's not like NYC doesn't post that turns on red are banned. Not only is it posted at almost every entrance to the City, it's posted regularly along major streets. And it's not like you could safely make a turn on red in a lot of the city, anyway.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

AlexandriaVA

It's almost like it's a good idea to know the driving laws of the state you're about to drive in...

SidS1045

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 04, 2016, 10:25:35 PMIt's almost like it's a good idea to know the driving laws of the state you're about to drive in...

While not complete, this site covers most of the important laws state-by-state:

http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." - Edward R. Murrow

mrsman

#34
Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:18:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 04, 2016, 09:11:17 PM
Besides which, a statewide law is, IMHO, wide enough to not warrant special signage. Nationwide, in the USA, is too wide of a blanket. Statewide is more reasonable. And so, for example, I'm frustrated that Chicago can blanket-ban U-turns while the rest of Illinois permits them. And that my city can ban on-street parking by writ on specific streets only without signage. A driver shouldn't be expected to keep track of laws that vary from city to city. But knowing what laws change across state lines is more reasonable.

So I have to keep track of which states allow:

  • Left on red from one-way to one-way
  • Left on red from two-way to one-way
  • Turn on red arrow
  • A cracked windshield
  • A single burned headlight
  • Cellphone use (not texting) while driving
  • Going up to 5 mph over the speed limit when passing
  • The use of speed cameras
  • The use of red light cameras

And default speed limits vary by state, too.

In answering your question:  YES.

And that's the problem.  Our country allows and promotes freedom of travel and the automobile truly allows the people to travel among the states anytime you want.  Why should the public be burdened with keeping track of all of this information?  There really is no good reason.


And in a similar vein, there is a national push to have one national toll transponder.  EZ-Pass is wonderful in that I can pay for toll facilities in VA, IL, and ME and nearly all states in between.   But what if I drive to KS or TX or even CA?  A single national transponder will make interstate travel easier.

mrsman

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2016, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2016, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on December 01, 2016, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 26, 2016, 01:50:50 AM
(With that said, I don't know if I'd take the left for sure without being there in person to better gauge the distances between my vehicle and any vehicles in that outer opposing left turn lane...)

For the five-way intersection, the bus is really careful about this turn, and typically does not take it if there's anyone coming up in the oncoming right lane of Lighthouse. From my vantage point, it looks like the bus encroaches into that lane when turning, but I can't know for sure without standing outside and looking, of course.
The curb doesn't have a lot of angle there, so I would guess that it is actually encroaching but, even if it's not, it's probably too close for anyone's comfort.

Tucson has so few one-way streets but also never posted signs about left on reds being permitted when there were situations where it was permitted. Probably as a result of that, I got honked at a couple of times for turning left on red there.

If it's a legal move, there's no reason to post signage. When signage is posted it's usually due to unusual circumstances.

A legal move in a minority of jurisdictions, but unusual in the vast majority of the country and the MUTCD.  And it becomes difficult to remember where one rule applies and one rule doesn't.  There is a benefit of having a uniform driving law across 50 states with exceptions CLEARLY* posted where warranted.

* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough.  If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.


The basic rule is you must stop on red.

The exception is you may turn right or left on red after stopping when state law permits it.  The exception to that is you can't turn when signage is posted.

Which exception do you sign?

The existing law of 38 states allows right turn on red after stopping and left turn on red from a one-way to a one-way after stopping.  This should be the national  rule enshrined in state laws and clearly pronounced in state driving manuals and taught in driving schools nationwide.

Then, on an intersection by intersection basis, signed exceptions where warranted should be signed. 

Will this lead to too many signs?  Perhaps.  But I believe it will also lead to more judicious application of the exception.  If NYC were forced to pay for a NTOR sign at every intersection with NTOR, there would be fewer intersections with a NTOR restriction.  Sure, there would be plenty of NTOR signs in Manhattan, but I believe that many more intersections in the outer-boroughs, particularly areas beyond the reach of the subway lines and thus with fewer pedestrians, would simply allow turning on red by default.

And that would be a good thing.

vdeane

Indeed.  IMO, with each state having different laws on everything, it's too much to expect a reasonable person to remember.  What do they think, that traveling out of state is unusual or something?  You're just crossing a line on the map within the same country!

Perhaps we should have a state decide to drive on the left side of the road too.  We have just about every other difference.  What's the point of even having a MUTCD if states are all going to do their own thing?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cl94

The MUTCD is different from traffic law. Traffic laws are delegated to the states. Good luck getting that one changed.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

mrsman

Quote from: cl94 on December 05, 2016, 03:11:06 PM
The MUTCD is different from traffic law. Traffic laws are delegated to the states. Good luck getting that one changed.

It is true that traffic is a state law, but states arms can be twisted by the federal government in order to conform.  Change the non-conforming law or we will withhold federal highway money.

This has happened with things like the original 55 MPH speed limit in the 1970's, 21 year old drinking age, 16 year old driving age, and RTOR.

There is no reason that this can't be done with the left on red scenarios discussed upthread if the federal DOT thinks that these rules should be uniform.

Brandon

Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2016, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 05, 2016, 03:11:06 PM
The MUTCD is different from traffic law. Traffic laws are delegated to the states. Good luck getting that one changed.

It is true that traffic is a state law, but states arms can be twisted by the federal government in order to conform.  Change the non-conforming law or we will withhold federal highway money.

This has happened with things like the original 55 MPH speed limit in the 1970's, 21 year old drinking age, 16 year old driving age, and RTOR.

There is no reason that this can't be done with the left on red scenarios discussed upthread if the federal DOT thinks that these rules should be uniform.

No we don't need all the laws the same.  As for the 16 year old driving age, what country are you in?  Some states (South Dakota) allow 14 year olds to drive, while one must be 18 to drive in New York City.  It's not that uniform.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

cl94

Quote from: Brandon on December 05, 2016, 10:18:06 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2016, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 05, 2016, 03:11:06 PM
The MUTCD is different from traffic law. Traffic laws are delegated to the states. Good luck getting that one changed.

It is true that traffic is a state law, but states arms can be twisted by the federal government in order to conform.  Change the non-conforming law or we will withhold federal highway money.

This has happened with things like the original 55 MPH speed limit in the 1970's, 21 year old drinking age, 16 year old driving age, and RTOR.

There is no reason that this can't be done with the left on red scenarios discussed upthread if the federal DOT thinks that these rules should be uniform.

No we don't need all the laws the same.  As for the 16 year old driving age, what country are you in?  Some states (South Dakota) allow 14 year olds to drive, while one must be 18 to drive in New York City.  It's not that uniform.

This. It's not even uniform across some states. What's the driving age in New York? Depends on where you are. In NYC, you need to be 17 with a full license (which means Driver's Ed and a road test) to even drive in a car without dual brakes, let alone drive by yourself. Upstate, you can drive alone at 16.5 in a normal car if you've passed the road test.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

vdeane

Perhaps I should have clarified: the meaning of traffic control devices.  If I get to a red light, what is and is not permissible to do shouldn't vary by jurisdiction.  Laws applying to vehicles (cracked windshield etc.) should be enforced as the less restrictive of the state the vehicle is in and the state it's registered to.  Stuff like speed limits (though one should not be required to memorize every default if it's complicated, but "50 unless otherwise posted" at the border isn't unreasonable) and age to get a licence can be left to the states, but if you have a valid licence in one state, it should be valid everywhere (graduated licence classes are a bit more complicated and I'm not entirely sure how to resolve those; perhaps something similar to my proposal for vehicle laws?).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

UCFKnights

Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:18:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 04, 2016, 09:11:17 PM
Besides which, a statewide law is, IMHO, wide enough to not warrant special signage. Nationwide, in the USA, is too wide of a blanket. Statewide is more reasonable. And so, for example, I'm frustrated that Chicago can blanket-ban U-turns while the rest of Illinois permits them. And that my city can ban on-street parking by writ on specific streets only without signage. A driver shouldn't be expected to keep track of laws that vary from city to city. But knowing what laws change across state lines is more reasonable.

So I have to keep track of which states allow:

  • Left on red from one-way to one-way
  • Left on red from two-way to one-way
  • Turn on red arrow
  • A cracked windshield
  • A single burned headlight
  • Cellphone use (not texting) while driving
  • Going up to 5 mph over the speed limit when passing
  • The use of speed cameras
  • The use of red light cameras

And default speed limits vary by state, too.
Don't forget states that have it illegal to have a radar detector and you have to take it down at the state border on the interstate!

And once you get out of talking about driving, you have to keep track of all the other laws that are still different in every state (and city). Gun laws, how it needs to be stored when traveling in each state, drinking laws that vary all over for when we stop at a hotel while we're traveling... hell, some states still have (typically unenforced) laws about who you can cohabitat with while you're within their borders. I mean, even if you pick a single state, you can't possibly learn and know all the regulation or rules on what you can and cannot do (feeding the homeless is illegal  in my area as well)

jeffandnicole

If you're observant, you'll see a no turn on red from a one way to a leftward one way. That's a pretty good sign left turn on red is permitted!

I'm not sure if you should really worry about if a state allows a burned out headlight. That's a safety issue that should be fixed asap.

As far as an issue defaulting to the less restrictive state, that would require cops to know the laws of all 50 states. Not reasonable.

Use of red light cameras? Um...just stop at a red light!

vdeane

Many of us don't trust red light cameras.  If you're in an area with them, you need to drive lower than the speed limit to make sure a short yellow doesn't cause you to run the light, and you need to avoid making a right on red or turning on a green arrow, just in case (people really did get ticketed for the latter around here).

As for less restrictive state... cops have computers in their cars.  I could see something along the lines of the motorist getting pulled over, driver saying it's legal in their state, cop looking it up, and then the traffic stop ending.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

coatimundi

Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2016, 09:54:13 PM
Many of us don't trust red light cameras.  If you're in an area with them, you need to drive lower than the speed limit to make sure a short yellow doesn't cause you to run the light, and you need to avoid making a right on red or turning on a green arrow, just in case (people really did get ticketed for the latter around here).

As for less restrictive state... cops have computers in their cars.  I could see something along the lines of the motorist getting pulled over, driver saying it's legal in their state, cop looking it up, and then the traffic stop ending.

I got a red light camera ticket in Delaware almost ten years ago now. The rental car company charged me a service fee to look up my info to send me the ticket, but that's all I've ever paid on it. It's a bullshit ticket. For one, the initial correspondence came from a company in West Virginia. Then they eventually sold the debt. Now I occasionally still get letters about it from various debt collectors, even though the debt expired several years ago, just hoping I'm a sucker.
However, I would fathom that Delaware changed their rules to make it harder to dodge these things. It seemed to often be the case when red light cameras first appeared that they were all bullshit, but the states slowly caught on.
I went into a traffic court in Arizona a couple of years after I got that Delaware ticket (the Arizona one was a valid speeding ticket, issued by a cop, but I ended up getting out of it easily) and, right before I went up, the judge said, "Listen, everyone. If you get a red light camera ticket in the mail, don't pay it. Throw it away. Because as soon as you acknowledge it, that's it, and there's no contesting it. But it's not a real ticket until you do."
In Arizona, and in a lot of California, it's still not a real ticket. You don't have to pay it.

In Tucson, they were very problematic because of the way the signals work there. Most signals in town allow left on solid green even when there's an arrow at the light, but they also typically always have lagging left arrows. This meant that there was a very small period between the solid green and the green arrow where the camera was erroneously going off, as well as going off when the light turned red, even though you could legally still turn left on red if you were already in the intersection.
They ended up getting rid of all of them.

And realize with this that I'm just baiting all of you Boy Scouts into a lecture on responsibility. And to continue the off-topic torpedo on my own thread.

RobbieL2415

Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:03:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2016, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2016, 08:42:41 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough.  If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.

It's a state law. Turns on red banned unless specifically allowed in municipalities over a certain size.

That's hardly any more effective than posting a sign at the city limits. Not everyone is aware of the population of each city, nor how big a city needs to be before turns on red are banned.

The New York law applies to any city of 1 million of more, which is only New York City. If another city starts to approach 1 million, the number will be increased so that it still only applies to New York City.
What happens if Hempstead reaches 1 million?  It's incorporated as a town.  Do you think they'd still raise it?

uknowbeers

Here's one for you. In downtown Orlando there is an intersection where I think left on red is legal, but I've never seen anyone do it. The opposing traffic is two-way, but the cross street and your street are one-way. Think it's legal?
Orange Ave. at South Street
https://goo.gl/maps/JuPKAStJLCE2

(BTW, at a nearby intersection, there is a double left turn one-way to one-way where the sign encourages left on red)

SR408 exit to South Street
https://goo.gl/maps/VoNMgsT8feG2

Ace10

Here's the law for Florida:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.075.html

Quote
316.075 Traffic control signal devices
(1)(c)Steady red indication
1. b. The driver of a vehicle on a one-way street that intersects another one-way street on which traffic moves to the left shall stop in obedience to a steady red signal, but may then make a left turn into the one-way street, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that municipal and county authorities may prohibit any such left turn as described, which prohibition shall be effective when a sign giving notice thereof is attached to the traffic control signal device at the intersection.

The law, at least my interpretation of it, would seem to allow the turn from Orange Ave onto South St. The conditions for being able to legally make the left appear to be made: the street you're on is one-way, and the street you're turning into is one-way. The one- or two-way status of other streets isn't mentioned in the law, except for a general "yield [...] to [...] other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection".

The only reason oncoming two-way traffic would matter is if someone is sitting there waiting to make a right on red and there aren't enough lanes available for everyone to make their respective right- or left-turns on red without coming into conflict. Since the left-turners can't see the opposing right-turner's signal, it would be difficult to determine who might have the right-of-way, and a right-turner not expecting the left-turner to enter the intersection may not be looking in that direction and a collision could occur.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Ace10 on December 09, 2016, 12:52:35 AM
Here's the law for Florida:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.075.html

Quote
316.075 Traffic control signal devices
(1)(c)Steady red indication
1. b. The driver of a vehicle on a one-way street that intersects another one-way street on which traffic moves to the left shall stop in obedience to a steady red signal, but may then make a left turn into the one-way street, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that municipal and county authorities may prohibit any such left turn as described, which prohibition shall be effective when a sign giving notice thereof is attached to the traffic control signal device at the intersection.

The law, at least my interpretation of it, would seem to allow the turn from Orange Ave onto South St. The conditions for being able to legally make the left appear to be made: the street you're on is one-way, and the street you're turning into is one-way. The one- or two-way status of other streets isn't mentioned in the law, except for a general "yield [...] to [...] other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection".

The only reason oncoming two-way traffic would matter is if someone is sitting there waiting to make a right on red and there aren't enough lanes available for everyone to make their respective right- or left-turns on red without coming into conflict. Since the left-turners can't see the opposing right-turner's signal, it would be difficult to determine who might have the right-of-way, and a right-turner not expecting the left-turner to enter the intersection may not be looking in that direction and a collision could occur.

And even though it's a left red arrow, Florida permits turning on a red arrow, so in this example you are permitted to turn left on 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.