Right on Red Arrow

[cl94]

MUTCD [~4D.04] requires a sign if turns are allowed on a red arrow.

As long as the FHWA allows state supplements, this rule has no meaning.

Partially. Standards can only be removed if they're in conflict with state law. From the FAQ section of the MUTCD site:

Q: What does substantial conformance mean in regard to State Supplements and State MUTCDs?
A: In 2006 a specific definition of substantial conformance was added to the Code of Federal Regulations. 23 CFR 655.603(b) states that "substantial conformance means that the State MUTCD or supplement shall conform as a minimum to the standard statements included in the National MUTCD" and that "the guidance statements contained in the National MUTCD shall also be in the State Manual or supplement unless the reason for not including it is satisfactorily explained based on engineering judgment, specific conflicting State law, or a documented engineering study." This section of the CFR also allows FHWA to grant exceptions in cases where a State MUTCD or supplement cannot conform to standard statements in the National MUTCD because of the requirements of a specific State law that was in effect prior to the January 16, 2007 effective date of this provision, if FHWA determines the non-conformance does not create a safety concern. Also, legal precedents have determined that State Supplements and State MUTCDs can be more prescriptive than the national MUTCD. This means that a State can make a national MUTCD "should" condition a "shall" condition in that State, can allow in that State only one of several national MUTCD optional designs for a particular device, or can prohibit the use in that State of a particular optional device. However, State Supplements and State MUTCDs cannot omit or change a national MUTCD "shall" to a "should" or change a "should" to a "may". The FHWA reviews each State Supplement and State MUTCD and makes determinations as to substantial conformance.

Going back to Illinois, the supplement complies with 4D.04 by requiring an R10-17a in locations where turns on red are allowed and a right arrow is used:

Section 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications
Support:
The Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-306) permits a right turn (or a left turn from a one-way street to a one-way street) on a red arrow after stopping under the same conditions as with a red ball. This conflicts with Section 4D.04 which prohibits turning after stopping on a red arrow unless specifically permitted by signs or other traffic control devices.

Standard:
Where it is intended to prohibit turns on red arrows after stopping where such turns would otherwise be permitted under the Illinois Vehicle Code, NO TURN ON RED ARROW(R10-I102) word message signs shall be installed.

Guidance:
Where it is intended to permit turns on red, a red ball rather than a red arrow should be used.

[jakeroot]

MUTCD [~4D.04] requires a sign if turns are allowed on a red arrow.

As long as the FHWA allows state supplements, this rule has no meaning.

Partially. Standards can only be removed if they're in conflict with state law.

Honestly, I don't know what any of that meant. So here's Washington's modifications on signal meanings:

Pursuant to RCW 46.61.055, amend paragraph 03 in the Standard of MUTCD Section 4D.04, item C.1, to read:
Vehicle operators facing a steady circular red signal may, after stopping, proceed to make a right turn from a one-way or two-way street into a two-way street or into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn; or a left turn from a one-way or two-way street into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn; unless a sign posted by a competent authority prohibits such movement. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall remain stopped to allow other vehicles lawfully within or approaching the intersection control area to complete their movements. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall also remain stopped for pedestrians who are lawfully within the intersection control area.

Pursuant to RCW 46.61.055, amend the Standard of MUTCD Section 4D.04, item C.2, to read:
Vehicle operators facing a steady red arrow indication may, after stopping, proceed to make a right turn from a one-way or two-way street or into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn, or a left turn from a one-way street or two-way street into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn, unless a sign posted by a competent authority prohibits such movement. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall remain stopped to allow other vehicles lawfully within or approaching the intersection control area to complete their movements. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall also remain stopped for pedestrians who are lawfully within the intersection control area.

Take from it what you may. These laws are laid out in RCW 46.61.055.

Also note this amdendment:

((A steady RED ARROW signal indication shall be displayed when it is intended to prohibit vehicular traffic from entering the intersection or other controlled area to make the indicated turn when regulatory signing is in place prohibiting such movement. Pedestrians directed by a pedestrian signal head may enter the intersection or other controlled area.)) A steady RED ARROW signal indication shall be displayed when it is intended to prohibit vehicular traffic from entering the intersection or other controlled area to make the indicated turn when regulatory signing is in place prohibiting such movement. Pedestrians directed by a pedestrian signal head may enter the intersection or other controlled area.

[UCFKnights]

Surely in any state that does not explicitly disallow a right turn on red arrow, it is an unintentional loophole. Otherwise, what is the point of the red arrow?

They've definitely been playing with using right red arrows for pedestrian safety, along with flashing yellow arrows which gives the right turn a red arrow as well, usually without the intention of prohibiting a right turn on red. This one was recently installed in Florida and gives a red when a pedestrian activated the push button or the opposing left has a green, but otherwise displays green all the time:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6146901,-82.3913396,3a,30.9y,242.23h,92.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sntQ82pn1wms51W14OoJNQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm a big fan of this setup as it then requires a stop and seems like it would be the most likely to get noticed for pedestrian safety. And since it is activated by the pedestrian push button, it gives a clear purpose to the button encouraging its use, and provides an extra safety feature for them. Interestingly, the side street here has the right turn lane with its own 5 segment display, and when the pedestrian button is not activated during the cycle for the side street, the green arrow and green ball both appear for this lane. When the pedestrian button IS activated, it gives the green ball without the green arrow, which is totally non-obvious to drivers.

I'll tell you nobody interprets this as no turn on red even though there isn't a supplement sign. And honestly, if a cop tried to enforce it without a sign, I'd think the person would be right to be pretty pissed about the associated ticket.

Edit: Come to think of it, its almost like they reversed the installation of the signals from their more typical setup, so I wonder if this was intentional or just a mistake where they accidentally swapped the signals. They typically would have used the same signals, just the 5 segment on the main road and the 3 segment on the side road.

[jeffandnicole]

With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)

Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.

[MASTERNC]

Bump...

I've been spending a lot of time studying Virginia/DC roads lately (in preparation for my move). While most double right turns prohibit turns from the non-curb lane on red, I finally found one that permits the movement from all lanes: https://goo.gl/28WH1n

I don't think I've ever seen so many "no turn on red from outer lane" signs in my life. Building a second right turn lane, but disallowing turns on red from the inner lane, dramatically reduces the capacity of the turn. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone just piles into the lane that allows turning on red, and/or just turns from the outer lane anyway.

I've been through that intersection.  I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.

[briantroutman]

If you move forward on Street View:

[jakeroot]

[clipped]

I've been through that intersection.  I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.

If you move forward on Street View:

Shit, you're right. And here I was thinking I found a unicorn.

[bzakharin]

With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)

Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.

Yeah, there's almost always a sign when any sort of arrow (permissive or restrictive) exists, but I can't think of any red right arrows in NJ. Nor can I think of any double turn lanes where turning on red is only permitted from one of them. The most unusual turn-related situation I've seen is at this intersection https://goo.gl/TX1q25 . It's the only place I know where you *must* turn on red.

[cl94]

With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)

Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.

Yeah, there's almost always a sign when any sort of arrow (permissive or restrictive) exists, but I can't think of any red right arrows in NJ. Nor can I think of any double turn lanes where turning on red is only permitted from one of them. The most unusual turn-related situation I've seen is at this intersection https://goo.gl/TX1q25 . It's the only place I know where you *must* turn on red.

Wonder what school buses and other vehicles that can't turn on red do there.

[jakeroot]

With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)

Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.

Yeah, there's almost always a sign when any sort of arrow (permissive or restrictive) exists, but I can't think of any red right arrows in NJ. Nor can I think of any double turn lanes where turning on red is only permitted from one of them. The most unusual turn-related situation I've seen is at this intersection https://goo.gl/TX1q25 . It's the only place I know where you *must* turn on red.

Wonder what school buses and other vehicles that can't turn on red do there.

Is that a New Jersey law? I always that was one of those laws that everyone thought was a law but actually wasn't. Definitely not a law out here.

[cl94]

With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)

Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.

Yeah, there's almost always a sign when any sort of arrow (permissive or restrictive) exists, but I can't think of any red right arrows in NJ. Nor can I think of any double turn lanes where turning on red is only permitted from one of them. The most unusual turn-related situation I've seen is at this intersection https://goo.gl/TX1q25 . It's the only place I know where you *must* turn on red.

Wonder what school buses and other vehicles that can't turn on red do there.

Is that a New Jersey law? I always that was one of those laws that everyone thought was a law but actually wasn't. Definitely not a law out here.

Need a NJ person to confirm that, but it is the law in many eastern states, plus many contractors forbid drivers from doing so even in states where it is legal. Definitely a law in New York (hazmats can't turn on red either).

[jeffandnicole]

With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)

Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.

Yeah, there's almost always a sign when any sort of arrow (permissive or restrictive) exists, but I can't think of any red right arrows in NJ. Nor can I think of any double turn lanes where turning on red is only permitted from one of them. The most unusual turn-related situation I've seen is at this intersection https://goo.gl/TX1q25 . It's the only place I know where you *must* turn on red.

Wonder what school buses and other vehicles that can't turn on red do there.

Is that a New Jersey law? I always that was one of those laws that everyone thought was a law but actually wasn't. Definitely not a law out here.

Need a NJ person to confirm that, but it is the law in many eastern states, plus many contractors forbid drivers from doing so even in states where it is legal. Definitely a law in New York (hazmats can't turn on red either).

To be technical, I can't spot anywhere in the NJ State Statutes where it states a school bus cannot turn right on red.  I also can't, via a Google Search, find any indication where this is illegal in NJ, other than in some forums where people say it's not legal (of course, they don't have any proof either).

I have seen bus drivers make that right turn on red.  Of course, bus companies can make their own rules though, prohibiting their drivers from turning right on red as well.

[bzakharin]

I'm an NJ person, though I don't know whether school buses can turn on red here either. answers.com says no, but I haven't found a relevant law. At any rate, I'd assume they would  avoid approaching this intersection from this direction. There are plenty of other NJ 73 South entrances nearby controlled by stop signs. Or turn left and use NJ 38 to NJ 41 to NJ 73 to make a U-Turn.

The reason I'm familiar with this intersection is that it allows one to reach I-295 spending the minimum amount of time on NJ 73 which tends to back up here (it's even better for coming back from 295 South because you can avoid 73 entirely).

[jakeroot]

What's the idea behind the setup anyway?

[cl94]

Because New Jersey. It's a three phase intersection: NJ 73, left turns, straight/left from Willow. Volumes from Willow are probably high due to the shopping center. My guess is that traffic off of Waverly is minimal.

[briantroutman]

I don't know whether it's a matter of law or not, but I've seen a number of busses, student transportation vans, telephone company service trucks, etc. with a sticker on the back that says something like: This Vehicle Does NOT Turn Right on Red. So it may be at least be a company/agency/school district policy.

What's the idea behind the setup anyway?

My guess is that, if Willow wasn't there, NJ 73's median barrier would continue unbroken through the intersection and Waverly would be posted with a STOP and ALL TRAFFIC MUST TURN RIGHT. What's there now is basically that...plus a protected left phase that may take a long time to trigger.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

The situations described in this thread lead me to believe there should be one uniform set of rules for driving in this country.  In most states, you cannot turn right on red arrow, you cannot make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way, and you can make a left on red from a one-way to a one-way.  This should be the default rule nationwide.  If specific states, localities, or intersections justify an exception, it should be signed for the exception.

You can thank the FHWA for the MUTCD and the way they worded it, plus the freedom to allow all states to interperate all common laws (road or otherwise) differently in certain situations.

[1995hoo]

[clipped]

I've been through that intersection.  I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.

If you move forward on Street View:

Shit, you're right. And here I was thinking I found a unicorn.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any intersection in Virginia with dual right-turn lanes that does not have some sort of sign prohibiting right turns on red from any lane other than the curb lane (the wording will vary, but the point is consistent). That doesn't mean there might not be one somewhere where it's allowed, but I can't think of one. Oddly, however, the same is NOT true at intersections where left on red is permitted and there are multiple turn lanes. I can think of three of those off the top of my head and none has a sign prohibiting left on red from a lane other than the curb lane.

[plain]

[clipped]

I've been through that intersection.  I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.

If you move forward on Street View:

Shit, you're right. And here I was thinking I found a unicorn.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any intersection in Virginia with dual right-turn lanes that does not have some sort of sign prohibiting right turns on red from any lane other than the curb lane (the wording will vary, but the point is consistent). That doesn't mean there might not be one somewhere where it's allowed, but I can't think of one. Oddly, however, the same is NOT true at intersections where left on red is permitted and there are multiple turn lanes. I can think of three of those off the top of my head and none has a sign prohibiting left on red from a lane other than the curb lane.

The only place I can think of is in Hampton, where VA 415 leaves W. Queen St to follow Power Plant Pkwy (formally Powhatan Pkwy). No restrictions for either right turn lane.

https://goo.gl/maps/tfRmZSC2jWM2

[jakeroot]

[clipped]

I've been through that intersection.  I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.

If you move forward on Street View:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4511/37206204890_c63824dfde_b.jpg

Shit, you're right. And here I was thinking I found a unicorn.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any intersection in Virginia with dual right-turn lanes that does not have some sort of sign prohibiting right turns on red from any lane other than the curb lane (the wording will vary, but the point is consistent). That doesn't mean there might not be one somewhere where it's allowed, but I can't think of one. Oddly, however, the same is NOT true at intersections where left on red is permitted and there are multiple turn lanes. I can think of three of those off the top of my head and none has a sign prohibiting left on red from a lane other than the curb lane.

The only place I can think of is in Hampton, where VA 415 leaves W. Queen St to follow Power Plant Pkwy (formally Powhatan Pkwy). No restrictions for either right turn lane.

https://goo.gl/maps/tfRmZSC2jWM2

Nice! An actual example. Can't help but wonder if it's a mistake.

[plain]

[clipped]

I've been through that intersection.  I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.

If you move forward on Street View:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4511/37206204890_c63824dfde_b.jpg

Shit, you're right. And here I was thinking I found a unicorn.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any intersection in Virginia with dual right-turn lanes that does not have some sort of sign prohibiting right turns on red from any lane other than the curb lane (the wording will vary, but the point is consistent). That doesn't mean there might not be one somewhere where it's allowed, but I can't think of one. Oddly, however, the same is NOT true at intersections where left on red is permitted and there are multiple turn lanes. I can think of three of those off the top of my head and none has a sign prohibiting left on red from a lane other than the curb lane.

The only place I can think of is in Hampton, where VA 415 leaves W. Queen St to follow Power Plant Pkwy (formally Powhatan Pkwy). No restrictions for either right turn lane.

https://goo.gl/maps/tfRmZSC2jWM2

Nice! An actual example. Can't help but wonder if it's a mistake.

I doubt it. This double right turn have been here for at least 25 years now. Interestingly both right turn signals were originally doghouses. They were replaced about ten years ago.

[signalman]

The only place I can think of is in Hampton, where VA 415 leaves W. Queen St to follow Power Plant Pkwy (formally Powhatan Pkwy). No restrictions for either right turn lane.

https://goo.gl/maps/tfRmZSC2jWM2

Nice! An actual example. Can't help but wonder if it's a mistake.

I doubt it. This double right turn have been here for at least 25 years now. Interestingly both right turn signals were originally doghouses. They were replaced about ten years ago.

Also note that both right turn lanes have circular red indications as opposed to red arrows.  IMO, this should be the national standards to denote whether a turn is or is not permitted on red.

[plain]

The only place I can think of is in Hampton, where VA 415 leaves W. Queen St to follow Power Plant Pkwy (formally Powhatan Pkwy). No restrictions for either right turn lane.

https://goo.gl/maps/tfRmZSC2jWM2

Nice! An actual example. Can't help but wonder if it's a mistake.

I doubt it. This double right turn have been here for at least 25 years now. Interestingly both right turn signals were originally doghouses. They were replaced about ten years ago.

Also note that both right turn lanes have circular red indications as opposed to red arrows.  IMO, this should be the national standards to denote whether a turn is or is not permitted on red.

I was actually thinking that was the case but other posters pointed out that some states doesn't follow such a standard.. there are jurisdictions that allow a turn on a red arrow

[signalman]

Also note that both right turn lanes have circular red indications as opposed to red arrows.  IMO, this should be the national standards to denote whether a turn is or is not permitted on red.

I was actually thinking that was the case but other posters pointed out that some states doesn't follow such a standard.. there are jurisdictions that allow a turn on a red arrow

I know some jurisdictions allow turns against red arrows.  If I'm somewhere I don't frequent and I'm not 100% certain that I'm allowed to turn against a red arrow, I won't.  The same goes for LTOR, whether it be arrow or circular red.

I personally interpret a red arrow to mean you can't make the movement and must wait for green.  I guess I view it the same way as circular red and my intended movement was thru...I'd have to wait for green to proceed.  I see nothing wrong with turning against a circular red (unless a sign says otherwise or I'm in NYC) but a red arrow just seems wrong to me.

[jakeroot]

I see nothing wrong with turning against a circular red (unless a sign says otherwise or I'm in NYC) but a red arrow just seems wrong to me.

It seems wrong to you because turning against a red arrow has been ingrained into you as illegal. This isn't the case for others, such as myself. Where I'm from, right red arrows are used because it's consistent with the way left turn signals are designed. Left turn lanes get left turn arrows. Right turn lanes get right turn arrows (instead of plastering the mast arm with "LEFT/RIGHT TURN ONLY" or "LEFT/RIGHT TURN SIGNAL" signs). It wasn't until this site that I realized that about half of US states don't permit turns on red arrows. Seems odd to me, because it's just a different shape. But whatever.

Here in the Seattle area, there are several signals in the CBD [along one-way streets] that have a red arrow pointing left or right at the same time that a green signal is displayed for the through movement. The red arrow is used because a red orb would not be allowed while a green signal is also being displayed (arrow or ball). The arrow is used to protect pedestrians and cyclists. Most of these signals have "NO TURN ON RED" signs, so, in that sense, sign clutter does become an issue due to the law normally allowing turns against red arrows. But I see more of these red arrows pointing right in the suburbs than in downtown areas, and at those intersections, turns on red are allowed.