Right on Red

[RobbieL2415]

We've had this discussion before, and I took the same position. Someone at that time pointed out that there are jurisdictions that word the law as 'shall' rather than 'may'. But most do not.

My initial question was did people turn right on red even though it was illegal in in some states until the 70s?

[PHLBOS]

PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.

By "changed to" do you mean "allowed"?  I've lived in the Keystone State for nearly 26 years and RTOR has always been allowed unless signed to the contrary.  I have a 1990-91 Driver's Manual at home and can verify.

As far as states go; I believe that Massachusetts was one of the last (if not the last state) to adopt RTOR.  The reasoning for implementing such was as a fuel saving measure (less idling = less gas used).

As far as allowing LTOR for 2 intersecting one-way streets; I'm not sure that all states allow for such.  I know that PA and MA do.

I also know that New York City does not allow RTOR unless signed otherwise.

[Brandon]

PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.

By "changed to" do you mean "allowed"?  I've lived in the Keystone State for nearly 26 years and RTOR has always been allowed unless signed to the contrary.  I have a 1990-91 Driver's Manual at home and can verify.

As far as states go; I believe that Massachusetts was one of the last (if not the last state) to adopt RTOR.  The reasoning for implementing such was as a fuel saving measure (less idling = less gas used).

As far as allowing LTOR for 2 intersecting one-way streets; I'm not sure that all states allow for such.  I know that PA and MA do.

Then there's Washington and Michigan which both allow LTOR from a two-way to a one-way street (or freeway entrance ramp).

[RobbieL2415]

PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.

By "changed to" do you mean "allowed"?  I've lived in the Keystone State for nearly 26 years and RTOR has always been allowed unless signed to the contrary.  I have a 1990-91 Driver's Manual at home and can verify.

As far as states go; I believe that Massachusetts was one of the last (if not the last state) to adopt RTOR.  The reasoning for implementing such was as a fuel saving measure (less idling = less gas used).

As far as allowing LTOR for 2 intersecting one-way streets; I'm not sure that all states allow for such.  I know that PA and MA do.

I also know that New York City does not allow RTOR unless signed otherwise.

CT's ROTR law didn't go into effect until June 1st of 1979.  Now if they could only legalize left on red...

[roadman65]

I believe then that NYC is the only place that does not allow RTOR.   All because New York State made that disclosure that any municipality of 2 million or more in population is forbidden to allow such.  Being NYC has over 12 thousand signalized intersection with Manhattan having over 3 million people within its 23 square miles at peak daytime hours, it would be a major task to install that many signs to say NO TURN ON RED. 

However, thank goodness that NYC uses the double guy mast arm so that when along the Queens/ Nassau Border you can tell which side of the line you are on so you can make the turn or not.  As the rest of NY uses span wire signals you can distinguish between the two areas.

[jeffandnicole]

I thought NJ prohibited right turns on red arrows, but not only can I not find anything regarding red arrows (at least looking quickly), I can't find anything regarding yellow arrows either.  The state statutes appear to only address green arrows.

Regardless, it appears to be policy to post a "No Turn On Red" at intersections with red arrows.  When turning right is permitted at red arrows, a sign stating "Right Turn On Red Permitted After Full Stop" or similar is posted, so there's generally no ambiguity.

IIRC, Ohio started allowing right turns on red on July 1, 1976, and may have been one of the first states (if not the first) to do so.  At least one signal had a sign from before then, reading "Right turn on red after stop"; it was at a freeway on-ramp, and was taken down sometime after the new law took effect. Of course, the familiar square "No Turn On Red" signs started appearing all around, even in places where it was really not clear that it was needed.

If they enacted RTOR in 1976, they were one of the last states to do so, not the first.  Again, most states west of the Mississippi allowed it well before the 1970's.

I don't think the motorist is obliged to make a right-on-red, correct?

NJ is a 'Shall' turn right on red: "39:4-115.  The driver of a vehicle or the motorman of a streetcar: a. intending to turn to the right or left at an intersection where traffic is controlled by traffic control signals or by a traffic or police officer, shall proceed to make either turn with proper care to avoid accidents and, except as provided in b. below, only upon the "go" signal unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer, an official sign or special signal; or b. intending to turn right at an intersection where traffic is controlled by a traffic control signal shall, unless an official sign of the State, municipality, or county authority having jurisdiction over the intersection prohibits the same, proceed to make the turn upon a "stop" or "caution" signal with proper care to avoid accidents after coming to a full stop, observing traffic in all directions, yielding to other vehicular traffic traveling in a direction in which the turn will be made, and stopping and remaining stopped for pedestrians crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk, or at an unmarked crosswalk, into which the driver is turning.  Both the approach for and the turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless such intersection is otherwise posted."

PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.

ALL states have allowed RTOR since 1978.

[vdeane]

I understand right-on-red in rural areas, but it's a scourge anywhere else.

It puts pedestrians at risk, because the person turning right-on-red is just looking to their left to size up a gap, and if the pedestrian is crossing with the signal, the driver won't see them. I know this, because I was hit in just such a situation.

You also have chronic violation of the rule that you're supposed to come to a stop at the stop bar, and then proceed right if all of right-of-way traffic is clear. Yet, around here, you're lucky if people even yield.

I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.

Right-on-red should be banned in populated areas.

It was Woody Allen in Annie Hall, discussing why he didn't want to move to California:

I don't want to move to a city where the only cultural advantage is being able to make a right turn on a red light.

If you strictly enforced the "stop at the stop bar", right turn on red would be de facto illegal because stop bars are put so far back that you can hardly see anything.  And that's assuming that the guy in the other lane doesn't creep forward and block even more of your view!

I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.

So have I.  I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.

Why not? Unless a sign specifically prohibits RTOR, no camera will be taking your photo, so long as you stop first. If it takes a photo, dispute it. No need to be paranoid about it.

Red light cameras are notoriously unreliable.  People HAVE gotten tickets for making rights on red before.  Heck, people have even gotten tickets when they entered before the light turned red, just because they were moving faster than the camera expected and it assumed they wouldn't have made the light.

[Jardine]

I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.

So have I.  I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.

If there is a specific right turn lane, and the bozo behind me is not signalling a right turn, I don't go.

Tee hee.


Sux to not use blinkers don't it assbungwipelicker  ??

[AlexandriaVA]

If you strictly enforced the "stop at the stop bar", right turn on red would be de facto illegal because stop bars are put so far back that you can hardly see anything.  And that's assuming that the guy in the other lane doesn't creep forward and block even more of your view!

So basically you're saying that other rules should be ignored simply so that RTOR can be preserved. With mindests like that, no wonder this country has a terrible safety record for automobile-caused fatalities.

I personally have no problem with banning RTOR due to intersection conditions. After all, state DOT engineers refuse to put in crosswalks on all sorts of busy roads on the basis that it would be "too difficult" for motorists to stop in time. If an intersection is fundamentally unsound for a RTOR after stopping at the stop bar, then ban RTOR until the intersection is modified.

[1995hoo]

I understand right-on-red in rural areas, but it's a scourge anywhere else.

It puts pedestrians at risk, because the person turning right-on-red is just looking to their left to size up a gap, and if the pedestrian is crossing with the signal, the driver won't see them. I know this, because I was hit in just such a situation.

You also have chronic violation of the rule that you're supposed to come to a stop at the stop bar, and then proceed right if all of right-of-way traffic is clear. Yet, around here, you're lucky if people even yield.

I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.

Right-on-red should be banned in populated areas.

It was Woody Allen in Annie Hall, discussing why he didn't want to move to California:

I don't want to move to a city where the only cultural advantage is being able to make a right turn on a red light.

I agree with some of your concerns and I note the problem that people think they are entitled to turn on red regardless of what other traffic there may be. The key principle, IMO, is that you have a RED LIGHT. Turning on red is an exception to the rule that you have to wait for the green, and it should be strictly construed. You must yield to anyone else who's entitled to go, and that includes U-turners who have a green arrow (I'm thinking in particular of the intersection of Edsall and Van Dorn where the Mr. Wash and the McDonald's generate a lot of U-turns).

But I don't think banning it entirely is the way to go. I would first ban it during daytime hours. Fairfax County used to have a fair number of "no turn on red 7 AM to 7 PM" restrictions. That'd be a good starting point because there's less traffic outside those times. Or use light-up signs for part-time restrictions at particular lights where certain hours are problems, perhaps near schools or the like.

[JMAN_WiS&S]

I am not sure if right turn on red right arrows are allowed in Wisconsin,  because when they install 3 section right turn signals,  they always have red ball indications.

[vdeane]

If you strictly enforced the "stop at the stop bar", right turn on red would be de facto illegal because stop bars are put so far back that you can hardly see anything.  And that's assuming that the guy in the other lane doesn't creep forward and block even more of your view!

So basically you're saying that other rules should be ignored simply so that RTOR can be preserved. With mindests like that, no wonder this country has a terrible safety record for automobile-caused fatalities.

I personally have no problem with banning RTOR due to intersection conditions. After all, state DOT engineers refuse to put in crosswalks on all sorts of busy roads on the basis that it would be "too difficult" for motorists to stop in time. If an intersection is fundamentally unsound for a RTOR after stopping at the stop bar, then ban RTOR until the intersection is modified.

If you strictly adhered to every single rule of the road, driving would be essentially impossible.  One has to be flexible.  As for "with mindsets like that, no wonder this country has a terrible safety record", I have NEVER been involved in an accident major enough to warrant calling police/insurance and I've never gotten a ticket.  Perhaps if more people drove like me, we wouldn't have as many accidents.  In any case, your anti-car attitude is showing.

I would MUCH rather we increase licensing standards rather than ban things to cater to the lowest common denominator.  If someone isn't capable of exercising the judgement to make a right on red, they shouldn't be driving.  If I had my way, a top-notch driver's ed course would be MANDATORY, the written test would be a lot harder (all questions would be short answer/essay, for example), and the road test would include things like accelerating on a freeway and driving in the middle of a blizzard (if that means you need to wait for a blizzard to take the test, so be it).  People would be re-tested every time they renew their license, and if someone was at-fault for an accident that cause injuries/fatalities, they would be banned from operating a motor vehicle for LIFE (if the accident did not cause injuries/fatalities but created a backup on the road, then a temporary license suspension would occur) (also, being at-fault for an accident involving fatalities would result in mandatory jail time).  Meanwhile, I would eliminate speed traps, camera enforcement, and checkpoints and remove many of the laws/issues put in place because so many drivers are bad (such as artificially low speed limits and the proliferation of speed bumps and all-way stops).

[jeffandnicole]

Right-on-red should be banned in populated areas.

It is, when necessary.  That's what the "No Turn On Red" sign is for.  If an agency deems it safe enough to turn, they don't post the sign.

When doing a blanket ban, you're bound to come across areas where there's no need to ban it.

[wxfree]

The "shall" and "may" question is very interesting to me.  If a law said, basically, that a person shall make a right turn after stopping and yielding the right-of-way when facing a red light, I would read that to mean that he shall not make that turn without stopping and yielding.

If you read the King James Version of the Bible or the US Constitution, you'll see very different uses of "shall," and many of them are only very subtly different.  I don't know the technical terminology, but the word has what I call an "absolute future" tense.

The Constitution states: "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

That last "shall" is interesting.  It isn't a command.  It isn't prophecy, which the KJV uses the word a lot to refer to.  It's more like an "if."  It's kind of like a "conditional absolute future" sense of the word, saying that if a thing in the future does actually happen, that's when the rest of the sentence applies.

Due the very flexible nature of the word and some of the things it can mean, I think it's reasonable to conclude that "shall turn right after..." means "shall not turn right before..."

[AlexandriaVA]

Right-on-red should be banned in populated areas.

It is, when necessary.  That's what the "No Turn On Red" sign is for.  If an agency deems it safe enough to turn, they don't post the sign.

When doing a blanket ban, you're bound to come across areas where there's no need to ban it.

By that logic, there's no need for a blanket ban on DUI, right? After all, there's no need for it in rural areas and such.

[vdeane]

Driving while impaired is dangerous no matter where one is driving.  Doesn't matter if it's rural or not.

[wxfree]

Is right on a red arrow legal? They added some right red arrows to the Terre Haute area and I'm not 100% sure if I can turn right on red legally or not. I've been just waiting until they turn green.

Indiana's vehicle code indicates how drivers should heed green or yellow arrows, but not red arrows.  So I'm not sure the answer to your question is even legally defined.

(3) Steady red indication means the following:
(A) Except as provided in clause (B), vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. However, if there is no clearly marked stop line, vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. If there is no crosswalk, vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.
(B) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn described in this subdivision, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal, after coming to a complete stop, may cautiously enter the intersection to do the following:
(i) Make a right turn.
(ii) Make a left turn if turning from the left lane of a one-way street into another one-way street with the flow of traffic.
Vehicular traffic making a turn described in this subdivision shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic using the intersection.
(C) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal pedestrians facing a steady circular red signal alone may not enter the roadway.

I'd argue that "facing a steady red signal" in the part that authorizes a right turn includes a steady red arrow.  This part is separate from the "steady circular red signal" above.  The lack of a description of shape would mean that it applies to all steady red lights of any shape.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem to require the the complete stop when facing a red arrow occur before entering the crosswalk or intersection, as required when there's a circle.

On a third hand, there's an apparent conflict where it says "Except as provided in clause (B)" because that seems to link the red circle with the red signal of no particular shape.  However, I don't think it is a conflict, because what it seems to mean is that turning right when facing a red circle is allowed as described in (B), but (B) also allows turning right when facing a red arrow.

[jeffandnicole]

Right-on-red should be banned in populated areas.

It is, when necessary.  That's what the "No Turn On Red" sign is for.  If an agency deems it safe enough to turn, they don't post the sign.

When doing a blanket ban, you're bound to come across areas where there's no need to ban it.

By that logic, there's no need for a blanket ban on DUI, right? After all, there's no need for it in rural areas and such.

Um, no, there absolutely no logical connection between permitting or prohibiting right on red at an intersection and comparing it with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. 

[AlexandriaVA]

Driving while impaired is dangerous no matter where one is driving.  Doesn't matter if it's rural or not.

But you already established that rules should be flexible based on local conditions and such. If you're the only one on a dirt road, who are you harming by driving drunk?

[jeffandnicole]

Driving while impaired is dangerous no matter where one is driving.  Doesn't matter if it's rural or not.

But you already established that rules should be flexible based on local conditions and such. If you're the only one on a dirt road, who are you harming by driving drunk?

Yourself.  And anyone else walking along or near that dirt road.  What if there's a house on that dirt road and people are outside, and the drunk flies off the road.  Or what if the drunk flies off the road and hits the house?

Seat Belts work the same way.  The only one I harm is myself.  No dead person ever went to their governor crying that he/she should make everyone else wear seatbelts. 

You do understand the rules for turning right on red haven't really changed for decades, right?  The only people that really want blanket RTOR restrictions are the same ones that seem to enjoy bicycle lanes and other anti-car initiatives. 

[AlexandriaVA]

Let me put it another way.

Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?

[empirestate]

My initial question was did people turn right on red even though it was illegal in in some states until the 70s?

Just bumping this, since I'd also be curious to know the answer.

[jeffandnicole]

Let me put it another way.

Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?

[AlexandriaVA]

I'm just curious why RTOR is safe and LTOR isn't.

[1995hoo]

Let me put it another way.

Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?

The cyclists certainly seem to think they have that right and that pedestrians who have the "walk" sign are supposed to stay out of their way.....