News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Right on Red Arrow

Started by doogie1303, May 30, 2016, 09:30:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

hbelkins

Quote from: myosh_tino on May 31, 2016, 02:15:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 31, 2016, 01:48:53 PM
... I make no distinction between a red ball and a red arrow when driving.

Out of curiosity, is your thinking the same for a left red arrow?

If turning from a one-way street to another one-way street where such turns are legal, then yes. I know that left turns on red from one one-way street onto another is legal in Kentucky, I am unsure about other states.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.


roadman

Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
I care that the rule should be the same across the USA, with clearly signed exceptions if warranted.  If the national rule is NTOR arrow, then provide a flahsing red arrow or a sign (RT permitted after stop) where the turn should be permitted.  If the national rule is RTOR permitted at red arrow, then sign a NTOR sign where it is not permitted.

Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule.  Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign.  And it's easier for drivers to remember.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

vdeane

Quote from: roadman on June 03, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
I care that the rule should be the same across the USA, with clearly signed exceptions if warranted.  If the national rule is NTOR arrow, then provide a flahsing red arrow or a sign (RT permitted after stop) where the turn should be permitted.  If the national rule is RTOR permitted at red arrow, then sign a NTOR sign where it is not permitted.

Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule.  Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign.  And it's easier for drivers to remember.
If that's the rule used, you might as well remove right red arrows (and left on a one way) from the MUTCD.  There will be no reason to ever post them any more.  I would find it to be more confusing if turning right on red was allowed at some red arrows and not others.

IMO the states that allow right turns on red arrows are doing it wrong.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

opspe

Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2016, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 03, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
I care that the rule should be the same across the USA, with clearly signed exceptions if warranted.  If the national rule is NTOR arrow, then provide a flahsing red arrow or a sign (RT permitted after stop) where the turn should be permitted.  If the national rule is RTOR permitted at red arrow, then sign a NTOR sign where it is not permitted.

Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule.  Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign.  And it's easier for drivers to remember.
If that's the rule used, you might as well remove right red arrows (and left on a one way) from the MUTCD.  There will be no reason to ever post them any more.  I would find it to be more confusing if turning right on red was allowed at some red arrows and not others.

IMO the states that allow right turns on red arrows are doing it wrong.

Beaverton, OR has found a way around that.  They simply put independently operated ball signals for right turn lanes, alongside ball lights for through traffic and an arrow light for left turn.  Examples:

https://goo.gl/maps/Vnqx4Puuq422
https://goo.gl/maps/A1jpeNQtzCH2

Of course, it might be a bit confusing with the lack of green arrow, but at the very least it resolves the right on red arrow problem.

vdeane

What's wrong with using a red ball with green and yellow arrows?  That's what NY does for right turn lanes.  We also have a few right turn doghouses as well.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

opspe

Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2016, 01:15:37 PM
What's wrong with using a red ball with green and yellow arrows?  That's what NY does for right turn lanes.  We also have a few right turn doghouses as well.

That's what the province of BC does, on the rare occasion it puts up right turn signals.  Well, they use a yellow ball, but same idea.

Oregon used to do the same, but the two ball lenses were 6" while the arrow lens was 12", but that died out 15-20 years ago, and I think I only ever saw that for left turn signals.

jakeroot

Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2016, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 03, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
I care that the rule should be the same across the USA, with clearly signed exceptions if warranted.  If the national rule is NTOR arrow, then provide a flahsing red arrow or a sign (RT permitted after stop) where the turn should be permitted.  If the national rule is RTOR permitted at red arrow, then sign a NTOR sign where it is not permitted.

Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule.  Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign.  And it's easier for drivers to remember.

If that's the rule used, you might as well remove right red arrows (and left on a one way) from the MUTCD.  There will be no reason to ever post them any more.  I would find it to be more confusing if turning right on red was allowed at some red arrows and not others.

What if you're using a right-facing FYA, for when the crosswalk signal is on? Generally, FYA's do not use red orbs (not any of the ones I've ever seen). Banning right-turns-on-red-arrows would put a blanket ban on right turns w/ FYAs. This isn't a common setup, granted, but I'm seeing it more and more in my area.

IMO, most intersections should permit right turns on red. Just because an arrow is used shouldn't ban the right turn...the signal and the movement don't have any thing to do with one another.

US 41

I know I'll be in the minority, but I think right on red should be illegal. IMO you should only be allowed to go if there is a green light or if there is a flashing yellow arrow.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

roadfro

Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2016, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 03, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
I care that the rule should be the same across the USA, with clearly signed exceptions if warranted.  If the national rule is NTOR arrow, then provide a flahsing red arrow or a sign (RT permitted after stop) where the turn should be permitted.  If the national rule is RTOR permitted at red arrow, then sign a NTOR sign where it is not permitted.

Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule.  Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign.  And it's easier for drivers to remember.
If that's the rule used, you might as well remove right red arrows (and left on a one way) from the MUTCD.  There will be no reason to ever post them any more.  I would find it to be more confusing if turning right on red was allowed at some red arrows and not others.

IMO the states that allow right turns on red arrows are doing it wrong.

Agreed.

Quote from: opspe on June 03, 2016, 01:11:13 PM
Beaverton, OR has found a way around that.  They simply put independently operated ball signals for right turn lanes, alongside ball lights for through traffic and an arrow light for left turn.  Examples:

https://goo.gl/maps/Vnqx4Puuq422
https://goo.gl/maps/A1jpeNQtzCH2

Of course, it might be a bit confusing with the lack of green arrow, but at the very least it resolves the right on red arrow problem.

Beaverton is doing it wrong, at least according to the 2009 MUTCD. (Section 4D.22 para 02. Standard: "If a separate right-turn signal face is being operated in a permissive only right-turn mode, a CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication shall not be used in that face.")

These examples show a dedicated right turn lane with separate signal face. Using a green ball for the right turn signal head indicates a purely permissive right turn movement. So the proper application is a FYA signal.

Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2016, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2016, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 03, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule.  Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign.  And it's easier for drivers to remember.

If that's the rule used, you might as well remove right red arrows (and left on a one way) from the MUTCD.  There will be no reason to ever post them any more.  I would find it to be more confusing if turning right on red was allowed at some red arrows and not others.

What if you're using a right-facing FYA, for when the crosswalk signal is on? Generally, FYA's do not use red orbs (not any of the ones I've ever seen). Banning right-turns-on-red-arrows would put a blanket ban on right turns w/ FYAs. This isn't a common setup, granted, but I'm seeing it more and more in my area.

IMO, most intersections should permit right turns on red. Just because an arrow is used shouldn't ban the right turn...the signal and the movement don't have any thing to do with one another.

I agree that most intersections should permit RTOR, but disagree about the arrows. But more importantly, I believe right red arrows should not be used when there is not a need to prohibit RTOR.

Note that the MUTCD does allow the use of either a red arrow or circular red in a right turn FYA display. If the red arrow is used, a sign can be used to permit RTOR after stop. If the circular red is used, and it is sometimes displayed when adjacent through vehicles have a green, the red indication must be louvered/visibility limited/shielded from through lanes (unless a "Right turn signal" sign is used).
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

Quote from: roadfro on June 03, 2016, 09:36:11 PM
I agree that most intersections should permit RTOR, but disagree about the arrows. But more importantly, I believe right red arrows should not be used when there is not a need to prohibit RTOR.

I agree on your second point, but...

Quote from: roadfro on June 03, 2016, 09:36:11 PM
Note that the MUTCD does allow the use of either a red arrow or circular red in a right turn FYA display. If the red arrow is used, a sign can be used to permit RTOR after stop. If the circular red is used, and it is sometimes displayed when adjacent through vehicles have a green, the red indication must be louvered/visibility limited/shielded from through lanes (unless a "Right turn signal" sign is used).

...if we have to result to using louvres or "right turn signal" signs, aren't we sort of taking a step backwards?

At least around here, there seems to be a growing number of red right arrows (less channelized right turns has resulted in many right-turn-only lanes). If the ability to turn right against red arrows is outlawed, we're gonna end up littering our intersections with "right turn okay after stop" signs.

cl94

Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2016, 10:16:36 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 03, 2016, 09:36:11 PM
Note that the MUTCD does allow the use of either a red arrow or circular red in a right turn FYA display. If the red arrow is used, a sign can be used to permit RTOR after stop. If the circular red is used, and it is sometimes displayed when adjacent through vehicles have a green, the red indication must be louvered/visibility limited/shielded from through lanes (unless a "Right turn signal" sign is used).

...if we have to result to using louvres or "right turn signal" signs, aren't we sort of taking a step backwards?

At least around here, there seems to be a growing number of red right arrows (less channelized right turns has resulted in many right-turn-only lanes). If the ability to turn right against red arrows is outlawed, we're gonna end up littering our intersections with "right turn okay after stop" signs.

Then use a red ball. There is no situation without NTOR where a right turn lane cannot go at the same time as the straight lane.
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)

Revive 755

Quote from: cl94 on June 03, 2016, 10:36:37 PM
Then use a red ball. There is no situation without NTOR where a right turn lane cannot go at the same time as the straight lane.

Probably only theoretical:  You could get a case where the through lanes go green but the right turn lane keeps the circular red for a couple more seconds due to an adjacent crosswalk.  It would be a more efficient leading ped interval.

roadfro

Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2016, 10:16:36 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 03, 2016, 09:36:11 PM
I agree that most intersections should permit RTOR, but disagree about the arrows. But more importantly, I believe right red arrows should not be used when there is not a need to prohibit RTOR.

I agree on your second point, but...

Quote from: roadfro on June 03, 2016, 09:36:11 PM
Note that the MUTCD does allow the use of either a red arrow or circular red in a right turn FYA display. If the red arrow is used, a sign can be used to permit RTOR after stop. If the circular red is used, and it is sometimes displayed when adjacent through vehicles have a green, the red indication must be louvered/visibility limited/shielded from through lanes (unless a "Right turn signal" sign is used).

...if we have to result to using louvres or "right turn signal" signs, aren't we sort of taking a step backwards?

At least around here, there seems to be a growing number of red right arrows (less channelized right turns has resulted in many right-turn-only lanes). If the ability to turn right against red arrows is outlawed, we're gonna end up littering our intersections with "right turn okay after stop" signs.

Yet another option I didn't mention in my previous post is that the MUTCD also allows for a different protected/permitted right turn display, which is an all arrow signal that has both steady and flashing red arrows. It has a couple variants. But it allows for permissive RTOR on flashing red arrow after stop, and no signs/louvers required. (One variant allows the steady red arrow to be a circular red instead, but that makes it subject to the sign/louver.)

However, this display employs a green arrow section meant for protected movements...which I guess would never have to display if you just wanted a permitted lane. Theoretically, that could probably be replaced by a flashing yellow arrow, but the MUTCD doesn't have any provision for that...
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

Quote from: Revive 755 on June 03, 2016, 11:02:12 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 03, 2016, 10:36:37 PM
Then use a red ball. There is no situation without NTOR where a right turn lane cannot go at the same time as the straight lane.

Probably only theoretical:  You could get a case where the through lanes go green but the right turn lane keeps the circular red for a couple more seconds due to an adjacent crosswalk.  It would be a more efficient leading ped interval.

My thought as well. Case in point: right-facing flashing yellow arrows, which normally use a red arrow as the top-most signal face. You could use an orb for the top signal, but, as you've brought up, you can't operate the signal separately from the through lanes (any time the through lanes had a green, the FYA would have to display either a flashing yellow or green arrow, otherwise you'd have green and red orbs mismatching). Seeing as the leading ped interval has gained popularity, I'd rather see FYA's stick to using a four-arrow setup.

Of course, none of this matters if you permit right turns on red arrows, which I still feel is okay. I cannot think of any situation where "no right turn on red" signs wouldn't do the job more effectively. Not permitting right turns on red arrows has, evidently, come down more to a matter of principle, which is a silly argument IMHO.

Quote from: roadfro on June 04, 2016, 12:13:01 AM
Yet another option I didn't mention in my previous post is that the MUTCD also allows for a different protected/permitted right turn display, which is an all arrow signal that has both steady and flashing red arrows. It has a couple variants. But it allows for permissive RTOR on flashing red arrow after stop, and no signs/louvers required. (One variant allows the steady red arrow to be a circular red instead, but that makes it subject to the sign/louver.)

However, this display employs a green arrow section meant for protected movements...which I guess would never have to display if you just wanted a permitted lane. Theoretically, that could probably be replaced by a flashing yellow arrow, but the MUTCD doesn't have any provision for that...

At what point would the flashing red arrow become a steady red arrow, and vice-versa? Leading ped interval?

myosh_tino

Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2016, 12:20:37 AM
Of course, none of this matters if you permit right turns on red arrows, which I still feel is okay.

So if you were to encounter an intersection with signals set up like...



You would treat Signal A (left red arrow) as a normal signal and would wait for the green arrow *but* treat Signal B (right red arrow) as essentially a stop sign where you would make your turn after coming to a stop first?  That would mean a red arrow would have two different meanings depending on which way it's pointing which, to me, is very confusing.  A red arrow should have the same meaning regardless of which direction it's pointing.
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

US 41

Here's a red right arrow in Lafayette at the corner of the new US 231 / Sagamore Pkwy intersection. It has a sign that permits you to make a right on red. I think that should be the standard if you are allowed to make a right turn on a red arrow.

Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM

Pete from Boston

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 30, 2016, 11:36:09 AM
If every state listed all their traffic laws on signs, the signs would be 500 feet tall with itty-bitty fonts, or you would have 1 sign every foot for miles on end. 

Of all the times for there not to be an easily-findable photo online of the New Jersey Turnpike fine-print regulations one is presumably assumed to have consented to by passing the illegible sign.

Revive 755

Quote from: myosh_tino on June 04, 2016, 04:26:18 AM
So if you were to encounter an intersection with signals set up like...


I would first be grumbling about the agency in charge of that signal failing to meet the MUTCD requirement for having two primary heads for the through movement. :)

Quote from: myosh_tino on June 04, 2016, 04:26:18 AMYou would treat Signal A (left red arrow) as a normal signal and would wait for the green arrow *but* treat Signal B (right red arrow) as essentially a stop sign where you would make your turn after coming to a stop first?  That would mean a red arrow would have two different meanings depending on which way it's pointing which, to me, is very confusing.  A red arrow should have the same meaning regardless of which direction it's pointing.

An easy fix would be to just have the red arrow for the right turn movement be flashing the whole time it is displayed.

We can already get into multiple meanings for similar indications anyway with flashing yellow arrows.  If used for a left turn a flashing yellow arrow means yield, but if used for a right turn with no pedestrian conflict (since using a steady green arrow would be wrong if the opposing left turn is permitted) it is not really a yield indication.

jeffandnicole

Hell, we can have the same argument for full round red lights.  At a normal + intersection, traffic going straight and turning left isn't permitted to move.  Traffic turning right is permitted to turn. 

The main reason why arrows are used is because the traffic light is over the lane where the only permitted movement is shown via the arrows.

jakeroot

#69
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 04, 2016, 04:26:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2016, 12:20:37 AM
Of course, none of this matters if you permit right turns on red arrows, which I still feel is okay.

So if you were to encounter an intersection with signals set up like...

http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/turns_on_redArrow.png

You would treat Signal A (left red arrow) as a normal signal and would wait for the green arrow *but* treat Signal B (right red arrow) as essentially a stop sign where you would make your turn after coming to a stop first?  That would mean a red arrow would have two different meanings depending on which way it's pointing which, to me, is very confusing.  A red arrow should have the same meaning regardless of which direction it's pointing.

I've just decided to make a video demonstrating exactly how I treat red arrows here in Washington State. As you can see in the video, the only time I wait for the green is when I'm turning left onto a two-way street:

https://youtu.be/2Qa7vD0_TkY

kphoger

Quote from: Revive 755 on June 03, 2016, 11:02:12 PM
You could get a case where the through lanes go green but the right turn lane keeps the circular red for a couple more seconds due to an adjacent crosswalk.  It would be a more efficient leading ped interval.

This issue has not been sufficiently dealt with in the thread thus far, in my opinion.  A specific example was even identified up-thread, but I see no resolution from the "ban it" crowd.  The possibility exists for the straight-through movement to receive a green light but the right-turn movement to receive a red light.

Imagine, if you will, that you're on a one-way street approaching a two-way cross street.  Your light is red, while cross traffic completes its green cycle.  Pedestrians going straight across have pressed the crosswalk button.  When it's time for your direction of travel to get the green, the pedestrians also get a WALK indication.  If there is a lot of pedestrian traffic at this location, it might be prudent to display a red indication for right-turning traffic only, in order to prevent pedestrian injuries from drivers failing to yield.  This is why there is need for a red right-turn arrow.  Without permitting RTORArrow, however, drivers facing such a signal would not be allowed to turn right on red even after all pedestrians clear, which is not optimal either (unless you're US 41).
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.

1995hoo

Quote from: Revive 755 on June 03, 2016, 11:02:12 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 03, 2016, 10:36:37 PM
Then use a red ball. There is no situation without NTOR where a right turn lane cannot go at the same time as the straight lane.

Probably only theoretical:  You could get a case where the through lanes go green but the right turn lane keeps the circular red for a couple more seconds due to an adjacent crosswalk.  It would be a more efficient leading ped interval.

That's what happens at the intersection shown in the Street View link below. There aren't any Street View images showing it, but the straight-ahead traffic coming from the camera's viewpoint gets a green circular light while the right-turning traffic retains the red arrow. The sign across the way says "Turn Right on Green -> Only." The green arrow comes on partway through the cycle. As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, the problem is that the pedestrians refuse to obey the "Don't Walk" sign that comes on, making it very difficult to make the right turn legally.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9034814,-77.0416909,3a,75y,15.28h,74.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWbpHB_00-m_P4ArcPhWyWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


The opposite scenario happens at the other intersection I mentioned earlier in the thread (seen below), where the red arrow comes on partway through and two signs say "Right Turn on Green Arrow Only." The problem there is drivers refusing to obey the red arrow, coupled with people turning out of whichever lane they like (in the image linked below, if you click ahead you'll see the bus illegally turning right out of the lane that's supposed to remain on the circle). I almost got hit twice yesterday, once in the morning walking to work and once in the afternoon walking back, at a different light on that circle, both times by people running red lights when I had a "Walk" sign. I hate driving through there so much that I use alternate routes if I have to drive in that area.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9020737,-77.0505014,3a,75y,95.42h,70.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6IV2MXsU6bsryIIFHgPN0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

myosh_tino

Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2016, 03:26:46 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 03, 2016, 11:02:12 PM
You could get a case where the through lanes go green but the right turn lane keeps the circular red for a couple more seconds due to an adjacent crosswalk.  It would be a more efficient leading ped interval.

This issue has not been sufficiently dealt with in the thread thus far, in my opinion.  A specific example was even identified up-thread, but I see no resolution from the "ban it" crowd.  The possibility exists for the straight-through movement to receive a green light but the right-turn movement to receive a red light.

Imagine, if you will, that you're on a one-way street approaching a two-way cross street.  Your light is red, while cross traffic completes its green cycle.  Pedestrians going straight across have pressed the crosswalk button.  When it's time for your direction of travel to get the green, the pedestrians also get a WALK indication.  If there is a lot of pedestrian traffic at this location, it might be prudent to display a red indication for right-turning traffic only, in order to prevent pedestrian injuries from drivers failing to yield.  This is why there is need for a red right-turn arrow.  Without permitting RTORArrow, however, drivers facing such a signal would not be allowed to turn right on red even after all pedestrians clear, which is not optimal either (unless you're US 41).

That probably wouldn't happen in California.  In most cases, the green light and the WALK indication would come on at the same time and it would be the driver's responsibility to notice the pedestrians and wait until they clear.  I know that's not ideal as the possibility of an auto-ped collision does increase with this setup.

In some cases, a R-Y-G-YRtArrow-GRtArrow 5-section signal is installed low on both the far and near side of the intersection.  When the through movement gets a green ball, the special signal displays both a green ball and a green right arrow while holding pedestrians with a DON'T WALK indication.  Pedestrians get the WALK indication after the protected right turn time has elapsed (the special signal would only display a green ball).  There is such a signal on westbound Hamilton Avenue at it's intersection with Winchester Blvd in Campbell, CA (https://goo.gl/maps/JjV6c9rp9iS2).
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

MASTERNC

Was just reading the Pennsylvania Driver's Manual to see if they added flashing yellow arrows (they did).  They also changed the wording about red arrows (which used to just say it was uncommon in PA and that you could not turn where the arrow pointed).  The text seems to imply that a turn on a red arrow is permitted in PA if the same turn would be permitted on a red ball (absent a "No Turn on Red" sign).

QuoteThe same turns-on-red that are allowed for a steady red signal are allowed for a steady red arrow.

jakeroot

Apologies for bumping this thread, but I stumbled upon a well-written paragraph that explains the use of left/right-on-red with an arrow, and it reminded me of this discussion. It comes from Rick Perez, P.E., the city traffic engineer for Federal Way, WA.

Quote
The purpose of the arrow is to communicate that the signal head applies to the movement, not to negate the ability to make an otherwise legal turn on red.  Putting ball indications would merely require us to put explanatory signing next to the signal explaining that the head was for a left or right turn only, not the through movement.  This is far less intuitive than an arrow, and requires more time for the driver to process the information.

Any thoughts?



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.