No Thru Traffic

[empirestate]

Here's something I posted about on m.t.r. a while back, but I'm re-posting it here because it came up again the other day, and I think I may be in trouble with the law. 

I got off NY 17 westbound at Wurtsboro and headed north on Us 209 into the village, where I gassed up at the Stewart's on the corner of 209 and Sullivan St. To get back onto NY 17 westbound, I went west on Sullivan St. (CR 172) and used the freeway entrance west of the village.

As soon as you turn onto Sullivan from 209, there's a "No Thru Traffic" sign posted. It's black-on-white and rectangular, so presumably my compliance with its message is mandatory. Problem is, I don't know whether I was thru traffic or not.  I did go "thru" the village. I did pass the sign only once–I didn't have to turn around and pass it going the other way–so I did find a way "thru", and of course the road is passable for many miles in either direction (it's old NY 17).

Am I OK because I got back on 17, rather than going "thru" to the next town? Or was I OK because I didn't come from the east on Sullivan St., so I wasn't going fully "thru" on it? Assuming this sign was posted by the village of Wurtsboro, was I OK until I reached the village line, at which point I should have turned back? But then why does the highway cross the village line in the first place if that's not allowed?

As you can see, I've always had trouble with the logic of this sign, wherever it's posted. Of course I know full well that it's meant to mean "We'd prefer you didn't pass through town on this surface street instead of on the freeway," but since it's a regulatory sign that requires my compliance, I'm always unsure of what action I'm theoretically supposed to take, or not take, to avoid becoming thru traffic. What's more, there's a No Thru Traffic sign on the street that I live on, so I need to know at what point I can be officially and justifiably annoyed at individual motorists who violate it, so I can practice being an old guy on the sidewalk who shakes his fist at passing cars. 

[1995hoo]

This would be a lot easier to envision if you had a picture of the sign. I zoomed in using Google Street View but couldn't see anything. Bing doesn't have any images there.

Where on Sullivan is the sign posted? The reason I wonder is that I've seen black-on-white "No Thru Traffic" signs posted by gas station owners in such a way that they might appear to be referring to the main street but in fact they're telling people not to pull the "Esso Asso" move where you drive through the gas station to avoid stopping at the red light. Just based on looking at the map of the area that seems more plausible than the idea that they're trying to restrict the entire street.

[empirestate]

This would be a lot easier to envision if you had a picture of the sign. I zoomed in using Google Street View but couldn't see anything. Bing doesn't have any images there.

Where on Sullivan is the sign posted? The reason I wonder is that I've seen black-on-white "No Thru Traffic" signs posted by gas station owners in such a way that they might appear to be referring to the main street but in fact they're telling people not to pull the "Esso Asso" move where you drive through the gas station to avoid stopping at the red light. Just based on looking at the map of the area that seems more plausible than the idea that they're trying to restrict the entire street.

Yeah, I couldn't find the sign on Street View either; it must be new. It's posted immediately west of the gas station exit on Sullivan, such that I could read the sign from the gas pump. I don't think it referred to the gas station cut-thru move, since the pump island and driveway configuration is really too crowded for that to be convenient. And certainly, the one by my home can only be referring to the street itself, since there's no gas station there.

For what it's worth, although this topic is mostly just a mind game to me, a quick Google search shows me that it's actually an important question for a lot of people who have gotten tickets for it and so forth. Who knows, some day it might become more than just a curiosity of logic for me as well!

[kphoger]

because it came up again the other day, and I think I may be in trouble with the law. 

And there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there.  Mother rapers.  Father stabbers.  Father rapers!  Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me!  And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean 'n' ugly 'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me and said, "Kid, whad'ya get?"  I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage."  He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?" And I said, "Littering."  And they all moved away from me on the bench
there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things.

[cpzilliacus]

My guess is that (unlike NO THRU TRUCKS signs), these are unenforceable, and as such their use ought to be proscribed by the MUTCD on public streets and roads.

These signs were once common along Md. 185 (Connecticut Avenue) in Chevy Chase, but many of them seem to have gone away.  I found one on GSV at Woodbine Street (here), where the DO NOT ENTER signs are effective from 7:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M.  The DO NOT ENTER on the right side of the street shows the hours when DO NOT ENTER is in effect, the one on the left has a NO THRU TRAFFIC instead.

The municipalities of Chevy Chase (there are several of them) have their own police force, and I am pretty certain that they will enforce the DO NOT ENTER sign, but I don't think they can do anything about someone violating the NO THRU TRAFFIC sign (for one thing, what does it really mean?).

[Mr_Northside]

It doesn't really answer the technical (legal?) aspects of your situation... but I'd say you're good since you bought gas in their village.  Drive that shit.  If they don't like it, take your business elsewhere next time!

[NE2]

If the Google Street View van can drive past these signs, so can roadgeeks seeing the roads.

For the record, Florida says these are unenforceable because they aren't in the MUTCD: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C

[empirestate]

It doesn't really answer the technical (legal?) aspects of your situation... but I'd say you're good since you bought gas in their village.  Drive that shit.  If they don't like it, take your business elsewhere next time!

Indeed, I did conduct business there, so that makes me "local" traffic instead of "thru" which is the implicit distinction. But what if I hadn't? What if a cop had been following me, thinking to himself, "As soon as this guy does ____, I'll pull him over because he will have become thru traffic and violated that sign."? What's in the blank? Crossed the village line? Turned onto NY 17? Not turned onto NY 17? Would it be different if I had gotten back on NY 17 at the same exit where I got off, making me out-and-back traffic instead of thru?

If the Google Street View van can drive past these signs, so can roadgeeks seeing the roads.

Presuming the intent of the sign is to prohibit traffic without any business in the village, that begs the question: what is business? For commercial vehicles it's straightforward: a delivery truck makes a delivery, or it doesn't. But for private motorists, what counts? Sightseeing? Roadgeeking? Seeing if there's a motel in town for next month's trip? If cited for not having business, how on earth do you produce that burden of proof?

For the record, Florida says these are unenforceable because they aren't in the MUTCD: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C

"No Thru Street" is one word different from "No Thru Traffic"; would that make any difference? If a municipality posts "No Thru Street" on a street that actually does pass through, does it suffer any penalty for lying via signage?

[NE2]

For the record, Florida says these are unenforceable because they aren't in the MUTCD: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C

"No Thru Street" is one word different from "No Thru Traffic"; would that make any difference?

Neither is in the MUTCD, so the legal opinion applies equally to both.

[Scott5114]

Presuming the intent of the sign is to prohibit traffic without any business in the village, that begs the question: what is business? For commercial vehicles it's straightforward: a delivery truck makes a delivery, or it doesn't. But for private motorists, what counts? Sightseeing? Roadgeeking? Seeing if there's a motel in town for next month's trip? If cited for not having business, how on earth do you produce that burden of proof?

Exactly why I doubt anyone would even bother to attempt serious enforcement of this–a cop doesn't want to have to explain his interpretation of this to a judge and probably end up having the case thrown out anyway.

[agentsteel53]

indeed, for me driving the old alignment would be a legitimate business application.  I'd see if there were any old signs, which I can then use to further my knowledge of signage practices, allowing me to be more effective in my sales.

I wouldn't have to do anything that would appear different from the actions of a "through" motorist.  I'd drive through, and look.  that is it.

[Alps]

I plan to be driving all of old NY 17 early next year, which will undoubtedly take me past the sign. I will be "Thru Traffic" in that sense, because I will be following a continuous route through town without stopping. My guess, though, is that it's only enforced when you have a backup on 17 and traffic wants to try to use the old road to cut around it.

[kphoger]

My guess, though, is that it's only enforced when you have a backup on 17 and traffic wants to try to use the old road to cut around it.

Which begs the question:  How is it even enforceable at those times?

[Alps]

My guess, though, is that it's only enforced when you have a backup on 17 and traffic wants to try to use the old road to cut around it.

Which begs the question:  How is it even enforceable at those times?

Local ordinance?

[empirestate]

My guess, though, is that it's only enforced when you have a backup on 17 and traffic wants to try to use the old road to cut around it.

Which begs the question:  How is it even enforceable at those times?

Local ordinance?

My guess is that's not far from the truth. Local municipalities do have the power to designate "through highways" within their borders (even if it's somebody else's road, such as the state, though that's not the case here). They may simply have not designated old NY 17 as such a route, so that more restrictive traffic ordinances apply to it, the kind that would normally apply only to side streets. Probably, in effect, commercial traffic is banned from the road, unless it has a specific destination along it. But I don't know why they wouldn't use the usual "No Trucks Except Local Deliveries" sign for that.

[Brandon]

My guess, though, is that it's only enforced when you have a backup on 17 and traffic wants to try to use the old road to cut around it.

Which begs the question:  How is it even enforceable at those times?

Local ordinance?

Still strikes me as unenforceable.  As long as traffic follows the limit, stops at stop signs/signals, etc, it is unenforceable.  We have similar signs around here, but they are on a black on yellow diamond.

[Duke87]

Presumably if a cop follows you from one end of the road to the other and you don't stop, they could demonstrate that you had used the road as a "through" road and could stop you then.

Still, a lot of effort for little gain. Easier to just run radar.

[cpzilliacus]

Presumably if a cop follows you from one end of the road to the other and you don't stop, they could demonstrate that you had used the road as a "through" road and could stop you then.

The only place I am aware of that sort of enforcement being done is at Washington Dulles Airport in Loudoun and Fairfax Counties, and only because people illegally use the  Dulles Airport Access Road (instead of the Toll Road) to evade tolls and  HOV restrictions on I-66 inside the Capital Beltway.

Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only  - Other uses prohibited."

[NE2]

Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only  - Other uses prohibited."

This is presumably allowed because it's not a public road.

[deathtopumpkins]

Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only  - Other uses prohibited."

This is presumably allowed because it's not a public road.

Isn't it though? The Toll Road and Access Road (as opposed to the Dulles Greenway) are owned by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is a public agency, so wouldn't that make them public roads?

[kphoger]

Airport cops will sometimes follow drivers through the airport watching for people that are just driving completely through without stopping, and issue them a ticket for illegal use of the Access Road (which is marked as being for "Airport Use Only  - Other uses prohibited."

This is presumably allowed because it's not a public road.

Isn't it though? The Toll Road and Access Road (as opposed to the Dulles Greenway) are owned by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is a public agency, so wouldn't that make them public roads?

Wouldn't that also make the roadways at a federal prison "public roads"?  But that doesn't mean they can't be restricted.

[NE2]

And the roads into the back areas of the airport are certainly not open to the public.

[deathtopumpkins]

I never said they couldn't be restricted. You said the road wasn't a public road, and I said yes it was.

[NE2]

A public road is a road that has been officially laid out for public use (or become a de facto public road through continuous use), not any road owned by a public agency.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmsmanl/chapt2.cfm
A public road is any road or street owned and maintained by a public authority and open to public travel. [23 U.S.C. 101(a)].

[deathtopumpkins]

I was only speaking with regards to that first criterion (public authority) but doesn't the second hold true as well? It's open to public travel since anyone going to the airport is free to use it.