Left Turn on Red at DDIs

[jeffandnicole]

It's not that NC and those other states actually decided to prohibit LTOR, but rather, they never added the LTOR exception to their law, and every time it's brought up results in the usual arguments that government has more important things to deal with and shouldn't waste time debating whether to add that law.

What exception? In virtually every case, left and right on red were made legal at the same time. I'm sure in many states, as is the case here in WA (RCW 46.61.055, section 3), the same statute making right on red legal also makes left on red legal. NC specifically chose to leave out left turns, and that's odd.

I believe 5 states prohibit left turns on red. The answers why these states didn't permit left turns on red are probably deep in graves, as nearly any elected representative from the time these laws were passed have passed away. NJ is in the same boat - they specifically state "...turning right at an intersection...".

[1995hoo]

A source I found dated June 2022 says left on red is prohibited in Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Guam, Maine, Missouri (except Kansas City), New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York City, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Dakota (though local ordinances may allow it). I recall a Dr. Gridlock column in the Washington Post talking about the issue that said that Maryland had prohibited it at one time but changed it "because they could find no good reason not to allow it."

I remember the North Carolina law bugged the heck out of me in my law school days because of the many intersections in downtown Durham where this maneuver should be allowed but isn't. Everyone else thought I was nuts for thinking it ought to be allowed at all. Enough people are unfamiliar with the law that I recall there used to be an intersection in Fairfax City, Virginia, near the courthouse where a sign advised that this maneuver was legal after stopping, but the road onto which you would turn has been reconfigured into a two-way street and the sign is now long gone (the reconfiguration pre-dates Google Street View, so no images there, either).

[GaryV]

DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

[hotdogPi]

DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

[GaryV]

DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

But the crossover at a Michigan Left isn't two way. The divided highway is considered to be a pair of one way streets, so you can turn left on red from the crossover.

[jeffandnicole]

DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

But the crossover at a Michigan Left isn't two way. The divided highway is considered to be a pair of one way streets, so you can turn left on red from the crossover.

According to the definition, no.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uptf4g201pqgrs3dax1yzxpe))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-20#:~:text=Sec.,for%20purposes%20of%20vehicular%20travel.

"Highway or street" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

So unless there's private property in the median, there's nothing that indicates a Dividend Highway is really two separate one way streets.  But the laws and statutes appear quiet on the subject.  Michigan even has a publication that discusses Michigan Lefts in pretty fair detail, including that they may be traffic lights, but then goes silent on whether a car must wait at a red light, or if turning left on red is permitted.  So it appears this may be technically illegal, but there's a full understanding that as long as a vehicle stops at the red light, they'll be permitted to turn left on red.

[rlb2024]

DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

But the crossover at a Michigan Left isn't two way. The divided highway is considered to be a pair of one way streets, so you can turn left on red from the crossover.

According to the definition, no.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uptf4g201pqgrs3dax1yzxpe))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-20#:~:text=Sec.,for%20purposes%20of%20vehicular%20travel.

"Highway or street" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

So unless there's private property in the median, there's nothing that indicates a Dividend Highway is really two separate one way streets.  But the laws and statutes appear quiet on the subject.  Michigan even has a publication that discusses Michigan Lefts in pretty fair detail, including that they may be traffic lights, but then goes silent on whether a car must wait at a red light, or if turning left on red is permitted.  So it appears this may be technically illegal, but there's a full understanding that as long as a vehicle stops at the red light, they'll be permitted to turn left on red.

Wouldn't Michigan Lefts technically be U-turns?  Down here in southeast Louisiana there is a highway between Mandeville and Covington (US 190) that was modified a few years ago to where all turns onto the highway are Michigan Lefts.  Some of  them have dual-lane U-turns, and all of those have signs that U-turn on red is allowed only from the left lane.  The rest are single-lane U-turns, all of which have signs that U-turn on red is allowed after stop.

[jakeroot]

DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

But the crossover at a Michigan Left isn't two way. The divided highway is considered to be a pair of one way streets, so you can turn left on red from the crossover.

According to the definition, no.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uptf4g201pqgrs3dax1yzxpe))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-20#:~:text=Sec.,for%20purposes%20of%20vehicular%20travel.

"Highway or street" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

So unless there's private property in the median, there's nothing that indicates a Dividend Highway is really two separate one way streets.  But the laws and statutes appear quiet on the subject.  Michigan even has a publication that discusses Michigan Lefts in pretty fair detail, including that they may be traffic lights, but then goes silent on whether a car must wait at a red light, or if turning left on red is permitted.  So it appears this may be technically illegal, but there's a full understanding that as long as a vehicle stops at the red light, they'll be permitted to turn left on red.

Once again, I do not agree with your interpretation. On a basic level, the quoted statute makes no mention of two way or one way travel. It simply defines what a highway or street is.

From what I understand, if a wide-enough median is present, that creates a divided highway. Thus, Michigan Left corridors should legally be divided highways, made up of two separate roadways, one traveling in one direction, and the other in the opposing direction. Here in WA, the median would have to be thirty feet or greater in width. I don't know what the rule is in Michigan, but I have to assume it's a similar number.

Wouldn't Michigan Lefts technically be U-turns?  Down here in southeast Louisiana there is a highway between Mandeville and Covington (US 190) that was modified a few years ago to where all turns onto the highway are Michigan Lefts.  Some of  them have dual-lane U-turns, and all of those have signs that U-turn on red is allowed only from the left lane.  The rest are single-lane U-turns, all of which have signs that U-turn on red is allowed after stop.

Signs can always override statutes. But generally speaking, Michigan Left corridors are two one-way roadways parallel to each other, and the "U turn"  is actually two left turns: one to leave the roadway, and the other to join the opposing direction. The second left being a one-way to one-way left turn.

[jeffandnicole]

DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

But the crossover at a Michigan Left isn't two way. The divided highway is considered to be a pair of one way streets, so you can turn left on red from the crossover.

According to the definition, no.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uptf4g201pqgrs3dax1yzxpe))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-20#:~:text=Sec.,for%20purposes%20of%20vehicular%20travel.

"Highway or street" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

So unless there's private property in the median, there's nothing that indicates a Dividend Highway is really two separate one way streets.  But the laws and statutes appear quiet on the subject.  Michigan even has a publication that discusses Michigan Lefts in pretty fair detail, including that they may be traffic lights, but then goes silent on whether a car must wait at a red light, or if turning left on red is permitted.  So it appears this may be technically illegal, but there's a full understanding that as long as a vehicle stops at the red light, they'll be permitted to turn left on red.

Once again, I do not agree with your interpretation. On a basic level, the quoted statute makes no mention of two way or one way travel. It simply defines what a highway or street is.

From what I understand, if a wide-enough median is present, that creates a divided highway. Thus, Michigan Left corridors should legally be divided highways, made up of two separate roadways, one traveling in one direction, and the other in the opposing direction. Here in WA, the median would have to be thirty feet or greater in width. I don't know what the rule is in Michigan, but I have to assume it's a similar number.

Wouldn't Michigan Lefts technically be U-turns?  Down here in southeast Louisiana there is a highway between Mandeville and Covington (US 190) that was modified a few years ago to where all turns onto the highway are Michigan Lefts.  Some of  them have dual-lane U-turns, and all of those have signs that U-turn on red is allowed only from the left lane.  The rest are single-lane U-turns, all of which have signs that U-turn on red is allowed after stop.

Signs can always override statutes. But generally speaking, Michigan Left corridors are two one-way roadways parallel to each other, and the "U turn"  is actually two left turns: one to leave the roadway, and the other to join the opposing direction. The second left being a one-way to one-way left turn.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jh5rxnkzg3aeexltjjewxnjy))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-257-644#:~:text=(1)%20When%20a%20highway%20has,over%2C%20across%2C%20or%20within%20the

As long as there's some sort of divider, it's a divided highway. Absent any definition of a one way or two way roadway, the basic definition of a highway applies.

[jakeroot]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jh5rxnkzg3aeexltjjewxnjy))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-257-644#:~:text=(1)%20When%20a%20highway%20has,over%2C%20across%2C%20or%20within%20the

As long as there's some sort of divider, it's a divided highway. Absent any definition of a one way or two way roadway, the basic definition of a highway applies.

I see. Is there no supplemental law about wide medians creating two separate roadways with two separate intersections, like in WA?

In the case of Michigan Left corridors in Michigan, it seems most/all intersections with turns are signed with one-way signs, making left-on-red legal.

[mrsman]

Virginia allows lefts on red from one-way streets to other one-way streets, although I'd wager 99 percent of drivers have no clue it's allowed (one person once told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I said she could go left on red, and she refused to accept it even after I sent her a link to the statute). The only DDI I regularly pass through in Virginia is signed for no turn on red on both the left turns and the right turns (the latter annoyed me very much on Saturday when I really needed to take a leak and got stuck at the red light), but at this DDI I can see why the landscaping on the islands might be a reason to disallow turns on red. A look at the Zion Crossroads DDI reveals no lefts on red are allowed despite no landscaping on the islands (no rights on red, either).

I could see why the left on red might generally be disallowed at DDIs because the driver is on the far side of the car relative to oncoming traffic and also has to turn his head far more than he would have to at an ordinary intersection where the streets are more or less perpendicular to each other. I wonder if VDOT's prohibition of right on red at DDIs might have something to do with the idea that drivers unfamiliar with the configuration might be looking in the wrong place for oncoming traffic. I have no idea whether that's the reason, but it doesn't seem like a crazy idea.

Yes.  While DDIs are still relatively new and relatively rare, extra caution is probably warrranted. 

There is a great graphic about left turn on red on wikipedia which desingates the different state rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#/media/File:Left_on_red_US.png

[paulthemapguy]

Lots of people are unfamiliar with DDI's.  I don't think we want those unfamiliar people thinking they can make the left turn on red, in the event that they don't know where the left-bound thru traffic is coming from.  Not everyone is a roadway geometry expert.

[jeffandnicole]

There is a great graphic about left turn on red on wikipedia which desingates the different state rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#/media/File:Left_on_red_US.png

They have New Jersey wrong in the graphic. Left turns on red are not permitted. In the written part where the graphic comes from, they do state that it's not permitted in NJ.

[ran4sh]

Lots of people are unfamiliar with DDI's.  I don't think we want those unfamiliar people thinking they can make the left turn on red, in the event that they don't know where the left-bound thru traffic is coming from.  Not everyone is a roadway geometry expert.

DDIs are supposed to be designed with geometry that avoids confusing drivers about where to go or where traffic is coming from. At least at the DDIs I have been to, when turning left, it's clear where the driver has to look to check if it's safe to turn.

[jakeroot]

Do other states post one-way signs along DDIs?

The only DDI in Washington State, in Lacey, uses one-way signs, both for the freeway ramps as well as the "wrong way" portion of the DDI.

https://goo.gl/maps/LSrKsykZ7zWCCFCn8 (you'll may have to zoom in, GSV did not get every ramp)

In theory, this should help to encourage drivers to turn left on red if it were permitted. Though it's not at this particular location.

In Downtown areas of Washington State, mostly Seattle, I do see drivers turn left on red with decent regularity. I don't see the whole "left on red from two way to one way" hardly ever, though.

[Amtrakprod]

With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

[mrsman]

With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

That's good.  The question is how often should those signs be placed.

Only at state lines?

Entering a business district where there are a lot of one-way streets (where the law is relevant)?

At specific one-way to one-way intersections where a left turn is possible? [my preference]

I'm all for allowing the states the flexibility to make their own laws with regard to turning on red and the meaning of the red arrow, but where the state law is different from the majority US view, it should be very clearly and adequately stated that the state's rules are an exception.  There are only 8 states (and 2 cities) that prohibit this turning movement, so those states should sign their more restrictive law, where relevant.

Relatively speaking, there aren't that many one-way to one-way signalized intersections.  I'm sure for most of the states on the list there are less than 100.  Just add a no turn on red sign at each place.

[1995hoo]

^^^^^

I'm pretty sure the DOTs would argue that placing a sign at every such intersection is unnecessary if state law prohibits it because it is the motorist's responsibility and burden to know what the law is, regardless of what other states may do. There's some logic to that position–posting the sign arguably implies that the intersection is an exception to the normal rule, such that left on red is permitted if there isn't a sign. That would be wrong, but if, hypothetically, a state with no lefts on red did post "No Turn on Red" signs in the scenario you envision, and then they either forgot to post the signs at one intersection or the signs were otherwise missing (stolen, knocked down in a storm, etc.), it would suggest lefts on red were OK there.

I've seen–very rarely–signs saying left on red IS allowed at a given location even in places where it's generally legal in the "one-way to one-way" situation (thus, not including New York City). Fairfax City, Virginia, used to have one like that at the corner of West Street (facing the courthouse) and Route 236. I assume the city posted it, not VDOT; the sign said "Left Turn on Red Permitted After Stop." The sign is no longer there because the streets were reconfigured and neither street is one-way anymore. That strikes me as the more logical approach if you're going to have a sign. For the most part, left-on-red scenarios are relatively uncommon and are most likely to occur in cities or towns (due to there being more one-way streets than in rural areas) or at certain highway interchanges (I-395 at Seminary Road in Virginia is an excellent example–and I've never seen anyone, other than me, making a left on red there). Most people have no idea the maneuver is legal at all, so if you want to promote it, throw up a sign in the statistically rare situation where it is allowed.

[jakeroot]

^^^
Seattle used to have a "Stop On Red, Then Left Turn Permitted" sign (zoomed in) in downtown, from 1st Ave to University Street. Even though this would be legal regardless of the sign.

It's now marked "no turn on red", which is consistent with traditional NTOR practices (signing when not allowed).

[Amtrakprod]

^^^^^

I'm pretty sure the DOTs would argue that placing a sign at every such intersection is unnecessary if state law prohibits it because it is the motorist's responsibility and burden to know what the law is, regardless of what other states may do. There's some logic to that position–posting the sign arguably implies that the intersection is an exception to the normal rule, such that left on red is permitted if there isn't a sign. That would be wrong, but if, hypothetically, a state with no lefts on red did post "No Turn on Red" signs in the scenario you envision, and then they either forgot to post the signs at one intersection or the signs were otherwise missing (stolen, knocked down in a storm, etc.), it would suggest lefts on red were OK there.

I've seen–very rarely–signs saying left on red IS allowed at a given location even in places where it's generally legal in the "one-way to one-way" situation (thus, not including New York City). Fairfax City, Virginia, used to have one like that at the corner of West Street (facing the courthouse) and Route 236. I assume the city posted it, not VDOT; the sign said "Left Turn on Red Permitted After Stop." The sign is no longer there because the streets were reconfigured and neither street is one-way anymore. That strikes me as the more logical approach if you're going to have a sign. For the most part, left-on-red scenarios are relatively uncommon and are most likely to occur in cities or towns (due to there being more one-way streets than in rural areas) or at certain highway interchanges (I-395 at Seminary Road in Virginia is an excellent example–and I've never seen anyone, other than me, making a left on red there). Most people have no idea the maneuver is legal at all, so if you want to promote it, throw up a sign in the statistically rare situation where it is allowed.

That's fair. But at signals I design, I wouldn't want anyone breaking a law that they may think is legal, especially when it could result in a crash with a vulnerable road user. The backup sign is always a good idea, IMO


iPhone

[Amtrakprod]

With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

That's good.  The question is how often should those signs be placed.

Only at state lines?

Entering a business district where there are a lot of one-way streets (where the law is relevant)?

At specific one-way to one-way intersections where a left turn is possible? [my preference]

I'm all for allowing the states the flexibility to make their own laws with regard to turning on red and the meaning of the red arrow, but where the state law is different from the majority US view, it should be very clearly and adequately stated that the state's rules are an exception.  There are only 8 states (and 2 cities) that prohibit this turning movement, so those states should sign their more restrictive law, where relevant.

Relatively speaking, there aren't that many one-way to one-way signalized intersections.  I'm sure for most of the states on the list there are less than 100.  Just add a no turn on red sign at each place.

I'd request it at any signal I'm a part of. Prioritizing conflicts with vulnerable road users, where the restriction is likely most important. The state law addition makes it clear that that's the law everywhere.


iPhone

[jeffandnicole]

With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

States don't sign their laws based on other state's laws. In states that don't allow left turns on red, the law isn't no left turn on red. The law is you must stop and remain stopped at a red light. The exception is you may turn right on red.

[Amtrakprod]

With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

States don't sign their laws based on other state's laws. In states that don't allow left turns on red, the law isn't no left turn on red. The law is you must stop and remain stopped at a red light. The exception is you may turn right on red.

Yes,,, that's why I would add the plaque STATE LAW if that was the law in the state. If the law in the state was that LTOR was allowed, I wouldn't add that.


iPhone

[mrsman]

With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

States don't sign their laws based on other state's laws. In states that don't allow left turns on red, the law isn't no left turn on red. The law is you must stop and remain stopped at a red light. The exception is you may turn right on red.

Yes,,, that's why I would add the plaque STATE LAW if that was the law in the state. If the law in the state was that LTOR was allowed, I wouldn't add that.


iPhone

This is a good approach.  By using the term state law it does highlight the fact that the rule throughout the state is no LT on red, even one way to one way.  But posting the sign acknowledges that it is a very clear minority approach when looking at the nation as a whole. 

In this country there is freedom of travel and a lot of travel between states.  I think it is fair that proper notice be given of rules that are unique to that state, even if they are the law in that state.

Signs like this are posted somewhat regularly in Maryland.  State Law, No texting, no hand held cell phones

http://joyreactor.com/post/477388

Similar type signs would work well for the no left one way to one way prohbition.  I think it is presumptive for any state that disallows a movement that is allowed in over 40 states to rely on a thinking that this is our law and all drivers need to know it.  Play fair.  I'm sure the highway depts in NC and MO are aware that most other states and all of their neighboring states allow the movement that they prohibit.  Put up a responsible warning of the prohibition in appropriate locations.

[Dirt Roads]

In this country there is freedom of travel and a lot of travel between states.  I think it is fair that proper notice be given of rules that are unique to that state, even if they are the law in that state.

Perfectly good concept, except...

Precedence.  In the United States, it was most common that states had a "No Turn on Red" law.  Western states started to adopt "Right Turn on Red" early on, then many Eastern states played that card during the 1970s Fuel Crisis.  The "Left Turn on Red" for one-way onto one-way is a more recent development.  Changes in one jurisdiction that requires costs to another jurisdiction involves a legal technical term called "injury".  So if there was a requirement that North Carolina post a "Statewide - No Left Turn on Red" sign at the borders, the costs would need to borne by Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina for each of their respective border crossings.  Which might be a good idea, except that South Carolina would have never "repealed" their "No Turn" laws if they had been required to bear the cost of signage along the North Carolina border.