Right on Red Arrow

[jeffandnicole]

I'm too lazy to look it up now, but I know we've discussed flashing yellow arrow (FYA) used for right turns.  Would this be more clear to drivers than red indications that differ from state to state?

Just think, if you REALLY trusted drivers, you could give FYA to through movements where lefts got protected movements 

No, because FYAs aren't used throughout the country. Many states still haven't adopted them yet.

The DOT can't just start installing FYAs whenever they want. It would first require a change to state law.

Usually has nothing to do with state law...just transportation policy.

If you were to look at NJ law for example, it simply refers to what to do at a red, yellow, and green light, and green arrow. It doesn't even reference bimodels. It does reference using LEDs though!

[mrsman]

A "NO TURN ON RED" sign could also be used for situations where turning on red is hazardous...

Driving in an unfamiliar area shouldn't present an issue. There are minor differences in laws from state to state, but none that present an inherent danger. This being one of them.

My understanding of red arrow is that it is basically an alternative to NTOR (yes, for me red arrow = no turn)

Yes, that is its purpose, as far as I can tell. A several thousand dollar variant of the R10-11b sign.

To be honest, my problem with eliminating turns on red arrows is that it would prevent me turning left on red onto a freeway on-ramp or other one-way street from a two-way street. WSDOT is really bad about using protected-only lefts for freeway interchanges. Changing the law would prevent me from performing this maneuver (a maneuver that's only legal here, in OR, ID, MI, and BC).

What if a flashing red arrow meant a turn was allowed after stopping? That would eliminate that situation.

That would be a happy middle-ground, but only if they were set to flash red by default (for situations where turning on red would have otherwise been legal). There's a double left turn near my house, onto a one way, that I make on red all the time. I'd be afraid that WSDOT would not use FRAs there, effectively making the turn on green arrow only (right now, I think they take solace in knowing that no one knows the law, because double left yields, what that turn effectively is, is expressly prohibited on state highways (that are maintained by the state)).

Jakeroot - I'm trying to understand your last point.  Are you saying that if you are on a 2-way street in WA state with a dual left that turns onto a one-way street (or more likely the diamond ramp of a freeway on-ramp), you are generally allowed to make that turn against both a red ball and a red arrow so long as the street is not a state highway but if it is a state highway you must wait for the green arrow?


I think that it is inherently dangerous to allow people to make this left turn agaisnt a red arrow for the simple reason that the driver making the left will have to keep track of two separate movements of traffic.  At a normal permissive left turn, you keep track of opposing traffic only and you make your left when there is a gap.  You never make the turn when your light is green (or FYA) knowing that cross traffic has a red light and is not your concern.  But if you are also generally allowed to make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way (which is only the law in WA and a few other states in the NW)  then your focus will be on making the left by keeping track of cross traffic and not worrying about opposing traffic.  At a simple intersection where there are no arrows, you may be able to keep track of the difference due to the difference in your light being red or green.  But where there are all these arrows that permit or restrict turns are you able to keep track of which direction has the green in a safe manner?  (If you are so focused on finding the gap in cross traffic, will you be aware when opposing traffic gets the green?)

So in some sense, going back to an earlier point, the uniformity of these laws do in fact involve safety.  For while many can safely make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way safely, it seems that it is the judgment of the FHWA that it is generally not a safe manuever and it is generally banned, even though there are a few states that allow it.

[US 89]

As a Utah driver, the way I think about arrows seems to be quite different from the PacNW but consistent with the rest of the country. For me, a red arrow is an explicit prohibition of the movement it indicates (and that's the law here, though red right arrows will usually be accompanied by a NO TURN ON RED sign for those drivers who think red right arrows are equivalent to red balls).

The concept of turning left on red in any situation, even if it's onto a one way street, seems extremely odd and dangerous to me. I don't understand how that makes a difference, since you are still turning from a 2-way. Left on red from a one-way onto a one-way does make sense to me (and it is legal in UT, though I can't think of anywhere that actually applies in UT since almost all our roads are 2-way).

As for dual right turn lanes on red as discussed upthread, both lanes (not just the curb lane) can turn right on red here. Personally I'd feel safer doing this in the curb lane, but it is legal from either.

[jakeroot]

What if a flashing red arrow meant a turn was allowed after stopping? That would eliminate that situation.

That would be a happy middle-ground, but only if they were set to flash red by default (for situations where turning on red would have otherwise been legal). There's a double left turn near my house, onto a one way, that I make on red all the time. I'd be afraid that WSDOT would not use FRAs there, effectively making the turn on green arrow only (right now, I think they take solace in knowing that no one knows the law, because double left yields, what that turn effectively is, is expressly prohibited on state highways (that are maintained by the state)).

Jakeroot - I'm trying to understand your last point.  Are you saying that if you are on a 2-way street in WA state with a dual left that turns onto a one-way street (or more likely the diamond ramp of a freeway on-ramp), you are generally allowed to make that turn against both a red ball and a red arrow so long as the street is not a state highway but if it is a state highway you must wait for the green arrow?

Sorry, that reply was very poorly written. Even I had trouble figuring out what I was trying to say!

I was partly speaking hypothetically. Today, all left turns on red are legal, so long as the left turn is onto a one-way street. The signal can be a red arrow or red ball. The only way to prohibit the movement would be to post a sign, which WSDOT never has (I've never seen a "NO TURN ON RED" sign posted by WSDOT under these circumstances).

In the context of flashing red arrows, 1 proposed them to replace left or right turns that currently use solid red arrows (leaving SRA's to mean "no turn on red in this direction"). In Washington, left turns onto one-way streets are technically all permissive, even if they have red arrows, because turning left on red is legal. This is great, because if I'm turning left onto a freeway on-ramp, I never have to wait for a green arrow. Even in situations where there is more than one left turn lane, turning left on red is still legal, because the maneuver is still onto a one-way street. My expectation, under 1's hypothetical situation, is that WSDOT would replace left turns onto one-way streets with flashing red arrows, because they are technically already permissive movements under current law. However, WSDOT prefers to use protected-only turns at on-ramps, so I fear the possibility of these left turns remaining solid red arrows, rendering my exploit of the current law useless.

For additional context, check this out:

Right now, this left turn in Washington is permissive, so long as you stop: https://goo.gl/xPeMYJ

Under 1's hyopothetical scenario where flashing red arrows replace solid red arrows where turning on red is acceptable, this is what should replace the above setup: https://goo.gl/i1kg7V

However, I am almost certain that it would not, due to WSDOT's preference towards protected-only turns at off-ramps. I sincerely believe that WSDOT does not realise that left on red is legal. If they knew this, I am almost certain that they would install far more "NO TURN ON RED" signs at freeway on-ramps.

As for the "double left yields" comment, Washington's MUTCD supplement bans dual permissive left turns, however, WSDOT technically installs them all the time anyways, since left on red is always legal unless otherwise posted. The first link above is technically a dual permissive left, albeit with a stop required.

[jakeroot]

I think that it is inherently dangerous to allow people to make this left turn agaisnt a red arrow for the simple reason that the driver making the left will have to keep track of two separate movements of traffic.  At a normal permissive left turn, you keep track of opposing traffic only and you make your left when there is a gap.  You never make the turn when your light is green (or FYA) knowing that cross traffic has a red light and is not your concern.  But if you are also generally allowed to make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way (which is only the law in WA and a few other states in the NW)  then your focus will be on making the left by keeping track of cross traffic and not worrying about opposing traffic.  At a simple intersection where there are no arrows, you may be able to keep track of the difference due to the difference in your light being red or green.  But where there are all these arrows that permit or restrict turns are you able to keep track of which direction has the green in a safe manner?  (If you are so focused on finding the gap in cross traffic, will you be aware when opposing traffic gets the green?)

So in some sense, going back to an earlier point, the uniformity of these laws do in fact involve safety.  For while many can safely make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way safely, it seems that it is the judgment of the FHWA that it is generally not a safe manuever and it is generally banned, even though there are a few states that allow it.

Turning left onto one-way streets from two-way streets is definitely a learned skill. There's four parts to it:

1) watching traffic from your right, who has a green
2) watching oncoming traffic who may proceed on green while you're looking right
3) watching your signal to ensure you don't camp on green because you're too busy looking right
4) ensuring you don't pull too far forward while waiting, because you might get in the way of traffic from your right that intends to turn left

Part 4 is the problem I encounter most, and it ties into part 1. Left turns here generally lead, so I usually don't have to worry about part 2, and part 3 isn't too big of a deal because you can sense it coming when traffic from your right begins to slow down.

The photo below demonstrates how parts 4 and 1 become a problem: You pull forward for improved visibility, however, you inevitably get in the way of someone coming from your right intending to turn left (you're basically sitting directly in their turning path).

[US 89]

I think that it is inherently dangerous to allow people to make this left turn agaisnt a red arrow for the simple reason that the driver making the left will have to keep track of two separate movements of traffic.  At a normal permissive left turn, you keep track of opposing traffic only and you make your left when there is a gap.  You never make the turn when your light is green (or FYA) knowing that cross traffic has a red light and is not your concern.  But if you are also generally allowed to make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way (which is only the law in WA and a few other states in the NW)  then your focus will be on making the left by keeping track of cross traffic and not worrying about opposing traffic.  At a simple intersection where there are no arrows, you may be able to keep track of the difference due to the difference in your light being red or green.  But where there are all these arrows that permit or restrict turns are you able to keep track of which direction has the green in a safe manner?  (If you are so focused on finding the gap in cross traffic, will you be aware when opposing traffic gets the green?)

So in some sense, going back to an earlier point, the uniformity of these laws do in fact involve safety.  For while many can safely make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way safely, it seems that it is the judgment of the FHWA that it is generally not a safe manuever and it is generally banned, even though there are a few states that allow it.

Turning left onto one-way streets from two-way streets is definitely a learned skill. There's four parts to it:

1) watching traffic from your right, who has a green
2) watching oncoming traffic who may proceed on green while you're looking right
3) watching your signal to ensure you don't camp on green because you're too busy looking right
4) ensuring you don't pull too far forward while waiting, because you might get in the way of traffic from your right that intends to turn left

Part 4 is the problem I encounter most, and it ties into part 1. Left turns here generally lead, so I usually don't have to worry about part 2, and part 3 isn't too big of a deal because you can sense it coming when traffic from your right begins to slow down.

The photo below demonstrates how parts 4 and 1 become a problem: You pull forward for improved visibility, however, you inevitably get in the way of someone coming from your right intending to turn left (you're basically sitting directly in their turning path).

*snipped photo*

You might as well be doing a checklist to see if you can safely run the red light going straight. To me, that actually seems safer, since you don't have to worry about the oncoming traffic.

[jakeroot]

You might as well be doing a checklist to see if you can safely run the red light going straight. To me, that actually seems safer, since you don't have to worry about the oncoming traffic.

The only thing worse than left on red onto one-way streets from two way streets is turning left on red onto a two-way street from another two way street. Going straight, at least you [generally] won't get in the way of turning traffic.

[US 89]

You might as well be doing a checklist to see if you can safely run the red light going straight. To me, that actually seems safer, since you don't have to worry about the oncoming traffic.

The only thing worse than left on red onto one-way streets from two way streets is turning left on red onto a two-way street from another two way street. Going straight, at least you [generally] won't get in the way of turning traffic.

So why isn't it legal to drive through red lights in Washington if the coast is clear?

[jakeroot]

You might as well be doing a checklist to see if you can safely run the red light going straight. To me, that actually seems safer, since you don't have to worry about the oncoming traffic.

The only thing worse than left on red onto one-way streets from two way streets is turning left on red onto a two-way street from another two way street. Going straight, at least you [generally] won't get in the way of turning traffic.

So why isn't it legal to drive through red lights in Washington if the coast is clear?

You'll have to ask now-dead law makers, or still-alive former Governor Dan Evans. The law has been the same since at least 1965: https://goo.gl/NdbM2z

[bzakharin]

In an ideal world, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever as to what's allowed. E.g. if right on red is permitted, there would be a flashing red right arrow, which would mean the same thing as a flashing red ball (stop and proceed when safe). Same with left. If a signal has no arrows, it should control all movements in the same way. No supplemental signs needed. This would make things a lot easier on the driver, as there is only one set of rules to learn (stop on red, go on green, proceed with caution on flashing yellow, etc), and a lot less things to figure out (is this a one way street? Is there a "No turn on red" sign I can't see from here?). But in the absence of that, at least consistency and common sense (no turn on solid red arrow, ever, just like turning on solid green arrow is always permitted)

[jakeroot]

In an ideal world, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever as to what's allowed. E.g. if right on red is permitted, there would be a flashing red right arrow, which would mean the same thing as a flashing red ball (stop and proceed when safe).

What would you do if there was no right turn lane (instead, an option straight/right lane)? Can't (or shouldn't) use arrows in that setup.

[bzakharin]

In an ideal world, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever as to what's allowed. E.g. if right on red is permitted, there would be a flashing red right arrow, which would mean the same thing as a flashing red ball (stop and proceed when safe).

What would you do if there was no right turn lane (instead, an option straight/right lane)? Can't (or shouldn't) use arrows in that setup.

Why not? You only need a (flashing) red arrow between the red ball and the yellow and green balls. The rest of the light would be shared between right turning and straight ahead traffic.

[jakeroot]

In an ideal world, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever as to what's allowed. E.g. if right on red is permitted, there would be a flashing red right arrow, which would mean the same thing as a flashing red ball (stop and proceed when safe).

What would you do if there was no right turn lane (instead, an option straight/right lane)? Can't (or shouldn't) use arrows in that setup.

Why not? You only need a (flashing) red arrow between the red ball and the yellow and green balls. The rest of the light would be shared between right turning and straight ahead traffic.

Oh, I see. Yes, I suppose that would work. A bit unorthodox, but not unprecedented (I've seen right turn filter signals used when there wasn't a dedicated right turn lane, but only in Vancouver).

[jakeroot]

A permissive left after stop is, in my understanding, a left turn on a red light.  In this situation, you conflict with oncoming traffic turning right on red (or on a green arrow if present) as well as cross-traffic coming through on a green light.  This is not similar, because you're contending with two conflicting streams, which also happen to be about 100° apart from each other.

I think the conversation turned more to "left on red from one-way to one-way" instead of "left on red from two-way to one way". In the former situation, there is no oncoming traffic, just traffic (and pedestrians) from your right. Basically a mirrored right turn on red.

[kphoger]

A permissive left after stop is, in my understanding, a left turn on a red light.  In this situation, you conflict with oncoming traffic turning right on red (or on a green arrow if present) as well as cross-traffic coming through on a green light.  This is not similar, because you're contending with two conflicting streams, which also happen to be about 100° apart from each other.

I think the conversation turned more to "left on red from one-way to one-way" instead of "left on red from two-way to one way". In the former situation, there is no oncoming traffic, just traffic (and pedestrians) from your right. Basically a mirrored right turn on red.

Oh, I thought everyone on the forum was on board with that one.  See, I'm all confused now.

[jakeroot]

A permissive left after stop is, in my understanding, a left turn on a red light.  In this situation, you conflict with oncoming traffic turning right on red (or on a green arrow if present) as well as cross-traffic coming through on a green light.  This is not similar, because you're contending with two conflicting streams, which also happen to be about 100° apart from each other.

I think the conversation turned more to "left on red from one-way to one-way" instead of "left on red from two-way to one way". In the former situation, there is no oncoming traffic, just traffic (and pedestrians) from your right. Basically a mirrored right turn on red.

Oh, I thought everyone on the forum was on board with that one.  See, I'm all confused now.

We were. What happened was, roadguy2 commented...

I don't think there should ever be left turns allowed if any cross traffic has a green.

Which, at least as far as some of us understood, meant that he was against left turn on red under all circumstances. "Cross traffic" could be interpreted to mean either "traffic coming towards you" or "traffic from any direction"; some of us took it to mean the latter, and attempted to point out that left turns on red from one-way to one-way streets is the norm in almost all states, and that it's really not any more dangerous than right turn on red, since both are curb-to-curb movements.

[US 89]

A permissive left after stop is, in my understanding, a left turn on a red light.  In this situation, you conflict with oncoming traffic turning right on red (or on a green arrow if present) as well as cross-traffic coming through on a green light.  This is not similar, because you're contending with two conflicting streams, which also happen to be about 100° apart from each other.

I think the conversation turned more to "left on red from one-way to one-way" instead of "left on red from two-way to one way". In the former situation, there is no oncoming traffic, just traffic (and pedestrians) from your right. Basically a mirrored right turn on red.

Oh, I thought everyone on the forum was on board with that one.  See, I'm all confused now.

We were. What happened was, roadguy2 commented...

I don't think there should ever be left turns allowed if any cross traffic has a green.

Which, at least as far as some of us understood, meant that he was against left turn on red under all circumstances. "Cross traffic" could be interpreted to mean either "traffic coming towards you" or "traffic from any direction"; some of us took it to mean the latter, and attempted to point out that left turns on red from one-way to one-way streets is the norm in almost all states, and that it's really not any more dangerous than right turn on red, since both are curb-to-curb movements.

Ok, I'll clarify. I'm good with left turn on red from a one-way onto another one-way.
But if there are any two-way streets involved (whether you're on one or you're crossing one) there should not be any left turns on red if traffic coming from the left or coming from the right has a green.

[mrsman]

However, I am almost certain that it would not, due to WSDOT's preference towards protected-only turns at off-ramps. I sincerely believe that WSDOT does not realise that left on red is legal. If they knew this, I am almost certain that they would install far more "NO TURN ON RED" signs at freeway on-ramps.

As for the "double left yields" comment, Washington's MUTCD supplement bans dual permissive left turns, however, WSDOT technically installs them all the time anyways, since left on red is always legal unless otherwise posted. The first link above is technically a dual permissive left, albeit with a stop required.

So basically, Wash State DOT is unaware of the rules of driving in  Wash State.

And the only way to have a protected only left in Wash is with a sign that says left on arrow only.

[roadfro]

In an ideal world, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever as to what's allowed. E.g. if right on red is permitted, there would be a flashing red right arrow, which would mean the same thing as a flashing red ball (stop and proceed when safe).

What would you do if there was no right turn lane (instead, an option straight/right lane)? Can't (or shouldn't) use arrows in that setup.

Why not? You only need a (flashing) red arrow between the red ball and the yellow and green balls. The rest of the light would be shared between right turning and straight ahead traffic.

Oh, I see. Yes, I suppose that would work. A bit unorthodox, but not unprecedented (I've seen right turn filter signals used when there wasn't a dedicated right turn lane, but only in Vancouver).

In a hypothetical U.S. where all turns on red can only be made with a flashing indication, this could work. In the current U.S., I don't think that signal arrangement is currently allowed in the MUTCD.

[jeffandnicole]

However, I am almost certain that it would not, due to WSDOT's preference towards protected-only turns at off-ramps. I sincerely believe that WSDOT does not realise that left on red is legal. If they knew this, I am almost certain that they would install far more "NO TURN ON RED" signs at freeway on-ramps.

As for the "double left yields" comment, Washington's MUTCD supplement bans dual permissive left turns, however, WSDOT technically installs them all the time anyways, since left on red is always legal unless otherwise posted. The first link above is technically a dual permissive left, albeit with a stop required.

So basically, Wash State DOT is unaware of the rules of driving in  Wash State.

And the only way to have a protected only left in Wash is with a sign that says left on arrow only.

Technically, the MUTCD is a guide, not law.  Exceptions can be made.

In NJ, NJDOT will occasionally widen a shoulder near an intersection for the purpose of allowing motorists to pass a left turning vehicle, which by law is illegal.

[kphoger]

In NJ, NJDOT will occasionally widen a shoulder near an intersection for the purpose of allowing motorists to pass a left turning vehicle, which by law is illegal.

I thought it was only illegal if you drove off the pavement.  That would be why they widen the shoulder.

39:4-85. Improper Passing

39:4-85. Passing to left when overtaking; passing when in lines; signaling to pass; passing upon right

The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a safe distance to the left thereof and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. If vehicles on the roadway are moving in two or more substantially continuous lines, the provisions of this paragraph and section 39:4-87 of this Title shall not be considered as prohibiting the vehicles in one line overtaking and passing the vehicles in another line either upon the right or left, nor shall those provisions be construed to prohibit drivers overtaking and passing upon the right another vehicle which is making or about to make a left turn.

The driver of an overtaking motor vehicle not within a business or residence district shall give audible warning with his horn or other warning device before passing or attempting to pass a vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right as provided in this section only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.

(Side note:  It's interesting that the same statute apparently requires you to honk your horn whenever you're about to pass someone in a rural area.)

[jakeroot]

It does also say "main-travelled portion of the roadway", which usually means everything but a marked shoulder. I'll pass on the right regardless if it involves crossing a shoulder, but as long as there's no line, you don't have to worry about a ticket.

[kphoger]

It does also say "main-travelled portion of the roadway", which usually means everything but a marked shoulder. I'll pass on the right regardless if it involves crossing a shoulder, but as long as there's no line, you don't have to worry about a ticket.

Ah, yes, I forgot that the definition of "roadway" specifically excludes the shoulder in most states.  Just to double-check, I did verify that NJ is one such state.  You are correct.

[kphoger]

As defined in Article 39: ""Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder ."

Of course, it's legalize so it's a bit confusing, but regardless of such confusion, or even what other states have used as definitions, the shoulder is not part of the main travelled portion of the roadway, and thus is illegal to use for passing.

I still can't believe I missed that, though, because the legal definition of "roadway" is something I was already quite familiar with.  That's because I used to hitchhike, and most states follow the UVC and only (1) only prohibit hitchhiking from "within a roadway" and (2) define a roadway as being "exclusive of berm or shoulder", hence it being legal in most states to hitchhike from within the shoulder.

[jeffandnicole]

BTW, reverting back to the Right on Red arrow, NJ's State Statute online database is giving pretty good results right now.

http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=Publish:10.1048/Enu

Type in 'Red Arrow' into the search box, and you get a single result, in reference to traffic light energy efficiency.

Type in 'Arrow' into the search box, and you get multiple results, but only one is traffic related, and that is actually in reference to a special traffic movement at a traffic light by using a green arrow.

I can't find anything in relation to making a right turn on a red arrow.  Even though I've read numerous places where you can't do it, I can't find an official source (and those other places never site such a source) that says it is illegal to turn right on a red arrow.  Thus, it must be legal.   From a practical standpoint, I can't recall seeing an intersection in NJ with a red arrow without a "NTOR" or a "Right Turn Permitted After Stop" sign.

And since I finally found it, here's the applicable portion of the law that permits right turns on red in the state (unfortunately, it doesn't permit left turns).  Note...due to the wording of the law, it's actually required to make a right turn on red after you stop and it's safe to do so! (There was one ticket given out years ago in regards to this that made the newspaper.  Someone took it to court claiming that they shouldn't have to turn right if they don't want to do so.  They actually lost in court!)

39:4-115.  The driver of a vehicle...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.