Misleading Traffic Signal

[webny99]

Here's an interesting situation I've encountered twice recently at this intersection up in Webster, NY. The intersection was recently revamped to add a west-to-north turning lane and a southbound green arrow (and FYA's on eb, wb, and sb approaches). Northbound, there's no FYA, but you get this instead:



Your first thought might be that the third (far left) signal head serves as a green arrow. But no! Despite the triple-green, there's still cross traffic that also has a green! I foresee a lot of confused drivers and potential accidents here unless this is fixed.

What would you do if you were turning left here? I was confused - I almost went ahead until I realized that approaching southbound traffic wasn't stopping! Do signals set up in this misleading way exist elsewhere?

[adventurernumber1]

I haven't a clue why Imgur is being unreliable, but after pressing "quote," I clicked the link, then took the slap-it-together man's route and took a picture of what I saw on my phone, then posted it here via Tapatalk. Here it is: 

[webny99]

Well, thank you sir! 

For now, unless I get my image figured out, I just changed it to a direct link. Now, you all can click that, or just see above, to see how strange of a situation this is, with three green signal heads (including in front of the left turn lane) but still with cross traffic.

All of the other approaches have three signal heads too, but on the other three approaches, the far left head is exclusively for left turns, as it should be.

[signalman]

For now, unless I get my image figured out, I just changed it to a direct link. Now, you all can click that, or just see above, to see how strange of a situation this is, with three green signal heads (including in front of the left turn lane) but still with cross traffic.

All of the other approaches have three signal heads too, but on the other three approaches, the far left head is exclusively for left turns, as it should be.

First, I assume you mean opposing traffic, not cross traffic.  The latter would indeed be extremely dangerous.  Based on the picture, if I intended to turn left here; I'd expect there to be opposing traffic that I might have to yield to.

For the second part, I'm not quite getting what you're saying.  Are you saying the other 3 approaches have protected lefts?  If so, that's odd that this approach doesn't have one too.

[vdeane]

Imgur probably disabled hotlinking.  Unfortunately, browsers no longer show image download placeholders, making it impossible for users to see that something is missing (and also impossible for web developers to force pages to be their true size even before images finish downloading by specifying the width and height).

[Big John]

Perhaps a R10-12 sign (Left turn yield on green [green ball]) could be added

[webny99]

First, I assume you mean opposing traffic, not cross traffic.  The latter would indeed be extremely dangerous.

Well, yes. My bad. Southbound traffic is "cross traffic" in the sense that it's a stream of traffic you have to cross when turning left, but I suppose "opposing" is the right term.

For the second part, I'm not quite getting what you're saying.  Are you saying the other 3 approaches have protected lefts?  If so, that's odd that this approach doesn't have one too.

The signals on the other three approaches have the exact same appearance, but the left one (on all three) has four balls and functions as your typical FYA. This approach has never had the demand for a green arrow, so why they bothered with the third set at all is beyond me.

My main beef is that it creates a false expectation given the contrast in function (but not appearance) to the other approaches.

[webny99]

Keep in mind, too, that there's only one through lane. This isn't visible from the image, but there's one through lane and a turn lane for each direction.

Looking at it now I can see how you could easily picture two through lanes. But there again, three heads is even more odd when you consider the presence of only one lane to go straight.

[Brandon]

I haven't a clue why Imgur is being unreliable, but after pressing "quote," I clicked the link, then took the slap-it-together man's route and took a picture of what I saw on my phone, then posted it here via Tapatalk. Here it is: 

I fail to see the issue here.  So, there's three green balls for all traffic.  That's just a permitted, unprotected left, and nothing more.

[webny99]

I fail to see the issue here.  So, there's three green balls for all traffic.  That's just a permitted, unprotected left, and nothing more.

... and FYA's on all other approaches
... and only one through lane
... and an unnecessary third head
... and just overall inconsistency (on a new install, no less), and I like consistency 

On desktop, right click the image, select "Copy image address" and paste the link in img tags, like this:

Code Select Expand

[img]https://i.imgur.com/gJKXLS4.jpg[/img]

To get this:

Thank you sir 
Will fix at the next opportunity.

[RobbieL2415]

One SPL with directional signage for turning lane(s).  No left arrow and a doghouse for right turning traffic to allow protected turns when cross traffic is moving in a contrary direction.

Doesn't confuse me.

[Brandon]

I fail to see the issue here.  So, there's three green balls for all traffic.  That's just a permitted, unprotected left, and nothing more.

... and FYA's on all other approaches
... and only one through lane
... and an unnecessary third head
... and just overall inconsistency (on a new install, no less), and I like consistency 

So, there are three signals for the through movement.  In some states (Illinois), that's standard.  To me, it doesn't look odd at all.  It's just missing a second signal for the right turn movement (IDOT has historically dictated two signals per turning movement).

So what on FYAs for the other three approaches.  It wouldn't be the first signal I've seen with an unprotected left from one approach when the others are protected/permitted.

[kalvado]

I saw some close calls with a dedicated green ball displayed for turning lane. It may be all up to specs - but that only means specs are designed to be confusing.

[jeffandnicole]

What I don't like about it is the turn arrows on the mast.  There is a potential for confusion because people may relate the turning sign to the traffic light, and the permitted movement when the light is green.

I don't necessarily see confusion because of what the other 3 directions have as their signals. 

[Eth]

What I don't like about it is the turn arrows on the mast.  There is a potential for confusion because people may relate the turning sign to the traffic light, and the permitted movement when the light is green.

I don't necessarily see confusion because of what the other 3 directions have as their signals. 

I agree. Remove those signs and all ambiguity is gone. (In Georgia, those turn arrows would likely be mounted on span wire in advance of the intersection.)

[Big John]

Another idea for the leftmost signal is to make it a 3-section FYA without the green arrow section.  I have seen this elsewhere ad meant for turning traffic to see the FYA showing no protected phase.

[US 89]

What I don't like about it is the turn arrows on the mast.  There is a potential for confusion because people may relate the turning sign to the traffic light, and the permitted movement when the light is green.

I don't necessarily see confusion because of what the other 3 directions have as their signals. 

I agree. Remove those signs and all ambiguity is gone. (In Georgia, those turn arrows would likely be mounted on span wire in advance of the intersection.)

The right-turn sign might be able to stay, but the left-turn sign needs to go for sure.

In Utah, that left-arrow sign is only used with protected lefts. The right turn arrow is rarely used to emphasize that it isn't a shared through/right lane. Usually in this case, a "right lane must turn right" sign is used instead, upstream of the intersection. Right-arrow signs are mostly used on dual right turns.

[webny99]

The most sensible solution is still to eliminate the leftmost signal altogether*. I can't think of one reason to justify it even being there, and I'm sure it's substandard (though I don't know what the MUTCD has to say on the issue).

*Removing the left turn only arrow would certainly help (as far as preventing potential confusion), but still bypasses the root of the issue - the extra signal head

[freebrickproductions]

The most sensible solution is still to eliminate the leftmost signal altogether*. I can't think of one reason to justify it even being there, and I'm sure it's substandard (though I don't know what the MUTCD has to say on the issue).

*Removing the left turn only arrow would certainly help (as far as preventing potential confusion), but still bypasses the root of the issue - the extra signal head

Maybe it should be changed to a three-section (R-Y-Y) Flashing Yellow Arrow?

[Brandon]

The most sensible solution is still to eliminate the leftmost signal altogether*. I can't think of one reason to justify it even being there, and I'm sure it's substandard (though I don't know what the MUTCD has to say on the issue).

*Removing the left turn only arrow would certainly help (as far as preventing potential confusion), but still bypasses the root of the issue - the extra signal head

The signal head is not the problem.  As I stated, some states mandate three for the through movement.

Here's an example from Illinois with three direction having a protected left, and the fourth does not:
Far view: https://goo.gl/maps/jKDdiRMJJv82
At signal: https://goo.gl/maps/ZWpe3bvgLck

The only problem is having the signage on the mastarm.

[webny99]

Maybe it should be changed to a three-section (R-Y-Y) Flashing Yellow Arrow?

But as it stands, there isn't a protected phase at all, and there isn't really demand for one, either. It would be much easier to just remove it entirely, though of the solutions that keep that signal, yours is definitely the best so far.

Here's an example from Illinois with three direction having a protected left, and the fourth does not:
Far view: https://goo.gl/maps/jKDdiRMJJv82
At signal: https://goo.gl/maps/ZWpe3bvgLck

Right... and the fourth direction, in that case, only has two signal heads. That's how it should be done.

The MUTCD says one signal per lane, so its existence is very legit.

Aha! The signal directly facing the left turn lane is green when there's oncoming traffic that also has a green. You can't argue that the leftmost signal doesn't apply to the left lane - if anything, it should only apply to the left lane!

But it only snows occasionally...

At the location of this signal (in Webster, NY, basically the zenith of the Lake Ontario snowbelt) it certainly snows a lot more than "occasionally". 110 inches per year, on the average.

[kalvado]

The MUTCD says one signal per lane, so its existence is very legit.

Aha! The signal directly facing the left turn lane is green when there's oncoming traffic that also has a green. You can't argue that the leftmost signal doesn't apply to the left lane - if anything, it should only apply to the left lane!

Apparently, MUTCD assumes that green ball doesn't mean left turn is protected - so it doesn't relay that message. Now using dedicated green ball to relay "yield" message is not very intuitive.
I can see both arguments as valid - but since there are situations when confusion can lead to an accident - I am not a big fan of "but it IS legal!" approach.

[Bitmapped]

It's a green ball, not a green arrow. I'd remove the turn arrow signs, but otherwise, I don't see a problem with this.

FWIW, this signal configuration is PennDOT-standard for a situation where there is a perm/prot right turn arrow. I don't know why, but right turn doghouses are almost always accompanied by at least two other heads. PennDOT will, on the other hand, do a left-turn doghouse with just a single 3-section head.

[Brandon]

Maybe it should be changed to a three-section (R-Y-Y) Flashing Yellow Arrow?

But as it stands, there isn't a protected phase at all, and there isn't really demand for one, either. It would be much easier to just remove it entirely, though of the solutions that keep that signal, yours is definitely the best so far.

Here's an example from Illinois with three direction having a protected left, and the fourth does not:
Far view: https://goo.gl/maps/jKDdiRMJJv82
At signal: https://goo.gl/maps/ZWpe3bvgLck

Right... and the fourth direction, in that case, only has two signal heads. That's how it should be done.

If you note, all directions have a minimum of three signals.  There's two on the mastarm and one on the pole for that direction.  The exact same number of signal heads in the signal you were complaining about.

[freebrickproductions]

Maybe it should be changed to a three-section (R-Y-Y) Flashing Yellow Arrow?

But as it stands, there isn't a protected phase at all, and there isn't really demand for one, either. It would be much easier to just remove it entirely, though of the solutions that keep that signal, yours is definitely the best so far.

That's why I suggested an R-Y-Y permissive-only FYA signal.