Traffic signal

[Brandon]

Why would changing the arrow to a ball make any difference in RTOR?  In this state (Illinois), they mean the same thing, and a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required.

In Florida a red arrow and red ball also mean the same thing.  So, a decision has to be made...either remove the signals or remove the yield sign and line.

If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

Technically, yes in Illinois.  The signal must have a sign stating along the lines of "LEFT TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".  Otherwise, there is nothing stopping you from turning left on the red arrow or red ball (which usually have the "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" signs next to them).

[jeffandnicole]

Why would changing the arrow to a ball make any difference in RTOR?  In this state (Illinois), they mean the same thing, and a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required.

In Florida a red arrow and red ball also mean the same thing.  So, a decision has to be made...either remove the signals or remove the yield sign and line.

If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

Technically, yes in Illinois.  The signal must have a sign stating along the lines of "LEFT TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".  Otherwise, there is nothing stopping you from turning left on the red arrow or red ball (which usually have the "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" signs next to them).

But if it's a 2 way road to a 2 way road, it doesn't matter because left turns on red would be illegal anyway.  And I'm not sure how often a red arrow would pop up on a one way to one way road.

[Brandon]

Why would changing the arrow to a ball make any difference in RTOR?  In this state (Illinois), they mean the same thing, and a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required.

In Florida a red arrow and red ball also mean the same thing.  So, a decision has to be made...either remove the signals or remove the yield sign and line.

If right turns on red arrows are permitted, are left turns on red arrows also permitted?  I'm trying to show how confusing it might be to drivers if red arrows have different meanings based purely on the direction the arrow is pointing.

Technically, yes in Illinois.  The signal must have a sign stating along the lines of "LEFT TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".  Otherwise, there is nothing stopping you from turning left on the red arrow or red ball (which usually have the "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" signs next to them).

But if it's a 2 way road to a 2 way road, it doesn't matter because left turns on red would be illegal anyway.  And I'm not sure how often a red arrow would pop up on a one way to one way road.

Not quite.  It still would require either of the two above-mentioned signs.  Otherwise, it can be treated as a permissive left when the through lanes are green.  That's why every protective-only left signal in the state has that signage.

[jakeroot]

Two way-to-two way protected right turn, near Lakewood, Washington. I suppose it works just fine, but A) I don't understand the point, and B) It's only time I've ever encountered such a light in the Seattle area. I would think, if pedestrians are an issue, a right turn FYA might work. I guess they've had a few run-ins with pedestrians and don't trust the cars to yield to them anymore.

As we've already covered in the last 10-20 posts, Washington (along with many other states) does allow right on a red arrow, so you can still go (after a stop) even if it's red.

Google Maps



ALSO,

A two lane-left turn FYA in the Seattle area. Like the last signal, pretty much unheard of around these parts.

6th Ave & James

[kj3400]

But if it's a 2 way road to a 2 way road, it doesn't matter because left turns on red would be illegal anyway.  And I'm not sure how often a red arrow would pop up on a one way to one way road.

It does happen:

Pratt St and Light St
(Google for some reason doesn't have a good streetview, so I found this blurry picture)



A much better one at Lombard and Light Sts:

http://goo.gl/maps/IaaSL

[PColumbus73]

I like the double red arrow, is that a new standard for Maryland?

[jeffandnicole]

But if it's a 2 way road to a 2 way road, it doesn't matter because left turns on red would be illegal anyway.  And I'm not sure how often a red arrow would pop up on a one way to one way road.

It does happen:

Pratt St and Light St
(Google for some reason doesn't have a good streetview, so I found this blurry picture)



A much better one at Lombard and Light Sts:

http://goo.gl/maps/IaaSL

Isn't that an improper use of traffic lights though?  The 2nd lane could be used for left or straight traffic, but yet has conflicting signals (red left turn, green thru).

[TEG24601]

[size=78%]As we've already covered in the last 10-20 posts, Washington (along with many other states) does allow right on a red arrow, so you can still go (after a stop) even if it's red.[/size]

Well, I know that is true for Bicyclists and Motorcyclists when they don't trigger the sensors (aka Dead Red), and true for turning onto a one-way street (traveling left) from a two-way street (including freeway onramps), but is that true from traditional two-way to two-way streets/roads?  And if so, could we find the RCW, I'd like to have it in my information?

[kj3400]

I like the double red arrow, is that a new standard for Maryland?

We've had it for a while actually. I don't know when it was introduced though, to be honest.

Isn't that an improper use of traffic lights though?  The 2nd lane could be used for left or straight traffic, but yet has conflicting signals (red left turn, green thru).

The left turn signal is merely to stop traffic from running over pedestrians during their walk phase. I would have to agree with you though, but I suppose this was their only solution.

[mrsman]

I like the double red arrow, is that a new standard for Maryland?

We've had it for a while actually. I don't know when it was introduced though, to be honest.

I believe that the source for this might be some state laws that require two signal faces at every intersection, in case a light bulb burns out.  In California, where there is a protected left turn signal, you'd see a minimum of 2 regular signal faces and 2 left turn signal faces (one on the mast arm and one on the left corner) in one direction.

In other states, they may require 2 faces for the regular signal but only 1 face for the left turn arrow.  So if the left arrow light bulb burns out, you just miss your opportunity to turn.  I believe MD may require 2 faces for the  red turn arrow only.  This can be accomplished by making 2 left turn RYG faces, or as Baltimore does RA,RA,YA,GA.

Isn't that an improper use of traffic lights though?  The 2nd lane could be used for left or straight traffic, but yet has conflicting signals (red left turn, green thru).

The left turn signal is merely to stop traffic from running over pedestrians during their walk phase. I would have to agree with you though, but I suppose this was their only solution.
[/quote]

It's essentially a LPI, but still allowing non-turning traffic the full green time.

[mrsman]

I like the double red arrow, is that a new standard for Maryland?

We've had it for a while actually. I don't know when it was introduced though, to be honest.

I believe that the source for this might be some state laws that require two signal faces at every intersection, in case a light bulb burns out.  In California, where there is a protected left turn signal, you'd see a minimum of 2 regular signal faces and 2 left turn signal faces (one on the mast arm and one on the left corner) in one direction.

In other states, they may require 2 faces for the regular signal but only 1 face for the left turn arrow.  So if the left arrow light bulb burns out, you just miss your opportunity to turn.  I believe MD may require 2 faces for the  red turn arrow only.  This can be accomplished by making 2 left turn RYG faces, or as Baltimore does RA,RA,YA,GA.

Isn't that an improper use of traffic lights though?  The 2nd lane could be used for left or straight traffic, but yet has conflicting signals (red left turn, green thru).

The left turn signal is merely to stop traffic from running over pedestrians during their walk phase. I would have to agree with you though, but I suppose this was their only solution.

It's essentially a LPI, but still allowing non-turning traffic the full green time.
[/quote]


Sorry to quote myself, but I've found some more information on another traffic light that has a similar set up, but the traffic light looks different, the Los Angeles red ball- red arrow light:

See the following GSV:  http://goo.gl/maps/L4ld9

OK, 9th (aka James Wood Blvd) is one-way eastbound and Figueroa is one way northbound.  On the right side of the view of the intersection approaching along 9th street, you see two tradional RYG signals.  On the left side, you have red ball-red left arrow-yellow ball-green ball.

1) While Figueroa has the green, 9th sees red ball and red arrow.
2) When Figueroa has the red, 9th sees a green ball, red arrow, and a WALK signal.
3) A few seconds later, 9th sees a green ball, and a WALK signal.

THere's also a sign at the corner, no left turn on red arrow.

Here is another example of a lead pedestrian interval (LPI), where the thru green time is maximized.  To at least partially protect pedestrian from turning cars, turning cars are prohibited from turning for the first few seconds of green, then a few seconds later, the left turners are allowed to turn, while yielding to pedestrians.  There is no protected left turn, hence no green arrow.

[mrsman]

On a different matter, one block away from my previous post, you see this:

http://goo.gl/maps/4vuEq

Figueroa is one-way northbound and 8th Street is one-way westbound.  In the picture, you're facing north and you can clearly see that 8th street is one-way to the left.  Yet, on the right side of the signal, below the 8th St sign, is a five aspect signal face. 

Now most of the time when you see a five aspect signal face, the bottom two signals are for green arrow and yellow arrow.  Yet, those cannot be for turning left, as they are on the right side of the street.  And they cannot be for turning right, as 8th Street goes the other way.

The only possiblity that I can think of is that those bottom two indications are somehow related to the bus lane that is in effect during rush hours and provides some type of queue jump for the buses.  But if there's anybody who's familiar with this signal and has some insight, I'd be happy to find out more.

[roadfro]

See the following GSV:  http://goo.gl/maps/L4ld9

OK, 9th (aka James Wood Blvd) is one-way eastbound and Figueroa is one way northbound.  On the right side of the view of the intersection approaching along 9th street, you see two tradional RYG signals.  On the left side, you have red ball-red left arrow-yellow ball-green ball.

1) While Figueroa has the green, 9th sees red ball and red arrow.
2) When Figueroa has the red, 9th sees a green ball, red arrow, and a WALK signal.
3) A few seconds later, 9th sees a green ball, and a WALK signal.

THere's also a sign at the corner, no left turn on red arrow.

Here is another example of a lead pedestrian interval (LPI), where the thru green time is maximized.  To at least partially protect pedestrian from turning cars, turning cars are prohibited from turning for the first few seconds of green, then a few seconds later, the left turners are allowed to turn, while yielding to pedestrians.  There is no protected left turn, hence no green arrow.

Surprisingly, the combination of red arrow and circular green in one face is not one specifically prohibited in the MUTCD... However, I don't think the MUTCD folks would have dreamt of this kind of application. If there weren't a sign, I'd be slightly confused.

The proper design, if constructed today, would be to use a typical 3-section head and have a separate light up/blank out no left turn sign during the LPI.

[wisvishr0]

I wasn't sure where to put this signal, so I'm just dumping it here. On my trip to The Woodlands, Texas (near Houston), I found this signal:



Instead of using a four-head signal like we use in MD, (here: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.057231,-77.161214,3a,18y,273.87h,88.44t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srZNrC0f5XioFYkpACysVSw!2e0!6m1!1e1), they decided to omit the green arrow and just include the sign, "Protected left on green orb."

Is that even acceptable in MUTCD? The entire town of The Woodlands is privately owned, I believe, so they use their own signs (some of their practices really irk me, like the lack of "4-way" or "All-way" signs under stop signs).

[PurdueBill]

Yikes.  I wouldn't count on non-roadgeeks to know a "protected left" from a "permitted left" and the configuration shown might even give people a misconception that a green ball means a protected left all the time--a possibly deadly misunderstanding.  What the hell are they doing there?

[Revive 755]

Technically, yes in Illinois.  The signal must have a sign stating along the lines of "LEFT TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY".  Otherwise, there is nothing stopping you from turning left on the red arrow or red ball (which usually have the "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" signs next to them).

But if it's a 2 way road to a 2 way road, it doesn't matter because left turns on red would be illegal anyway.  And I'm not sure how often a red arrow would pop up on a one way to one way road.

Not quite.  It still would require either of the two above-mentioned signs.  Otherwise, it can be treated as a permissive left when the through lanes are green.  That's why every protective-only left signal in the state has that signage.

I'm not quite seeing that in the Illinois Statutes (Link)

2. Except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 3.5 of this subsection (c), vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if there is no such stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no such crosswalk, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication permitting the movement indicated by such red arrow is shown.

3. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn and local authorities by ordinance or State authorities by rule or regulation prohibit any such turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of this subsection.

See the following GSV:  http://goo.gl/maps/L4ld9

OK, 9th (aka James Wood Blvd) is one-way eastbound and Figueroa is one way northbound.  On the right side of the view of the intersection approaching along 9th street, you see two tradional RYG signals.  On the left side, you have red ball-red left arrow-yellow ball-green ball.

1) While Figueroa has the green, 9th sees red ball and red arrow.
2) When Figueroa has the red, 9th sees a green ball, red arrow, and a WALK signal.
3) A few seconds later, 9th sees a green ball, and a WALK signal.

THere's also a sign at the corner, no left turn on red arrow.

Here is another example of a lead pedestrian interval (LPI), where the thru green time is maximized.  To at least partially protect pedestrian from turning cars, turning cars are prohibited from turning for the first few seconds of green, then a few seconds later, the left turners are allowed to turn, while yielding to pedestrians.  There is no protected left turn, hence no green arrow.

Surprisingly, the combination of red arrow and circular green in one face is not one specifically prohibited in the MUTCD... However, I don't think the MUTCD folks would have dreamt of this kind of application. If there weren't a sign, I'd be slightly confused.

The proper design, if constructed today, would be to use a typical 3-section head and have a separate light up/blank out no left turn sign during the LPI.

I think the design shown in streetview runs afoul of the intent of the 2009 MUTCD's prohibition against having protected only left turns with shared lanes that run at different times than the adjoining through movement (Section 4D.17 Paragraph 06).  The shared lane has a decent risk of a driver going straight rear ending another driving waiting for the red arrow to disappear.

Ideally today, there would only be dedicated left turn lanes and a flashing yellow arrow would be used for the permissive phase.

[mrsman]

See the following GSV:  http://goo.gl/maps/L4ld9

OK, 9th (aka James Wood Blvd) is one-way eastbound and Figueroa is one way northbound.  On the right side of the view of the intersection approaching along 9th street, you see two tradional RYG signals.  On the left side, you have red ball-red left arrow-yellow ball-green ball.

1) While Figueroa has the green, 9th sees red ball and red arrow.
2) When Figueroa has the red, 9th sees a green ball, red arrow, and a WALK signal.
3) A few seconds later, 9th sees a green ball, and a WALK signal.

THere's also a sign at the corner, no left turn on red arrow.

Here is another example of a lead pedestrian interval (LPI), where the thru green time is maximized.  To at least partially protect pedestrian from turning cars, turning cars are prohibited from turning for the first few seconds of green, then a few seconds later, the left turners are allowed to turn, while yielding to pedestrians.  There is no protected left turn, hence no green arrow.

Surprisingly, the combination of red arrow and circular green in one face is not one specifically prohibited in the MUTCD... However, I don't think the MUTCD folks would have dreamt of this kind of application. If there weren't a sign, I'd be slightly confused.

The proper design, if constructed today, would be to use a typical 3-section head and have a separate light up/blank out no left turn sign during the LPI.

I think the design shown in streetview runs afoul of the intent of the 2009 MUTCD's prohibition against having protected only left turns with shared lanes that run at different times than the adjoining through movement (Section 4D.17 Paragraph 06).  The shared lane has a decent risk of a driver going straight rear ending another driving waiting for the red arrow to disappear.

Ideally today, there would only be dedicated left turn lanes and a flashing yellow arrow would be used for the permissive phase.
[/quote]

It might technically violate the MUTCD, but I don't think the problem of rear end crashes would occur in this intersection.  Keep in mind this left turn is near the curb lane of a one-way street in a Downtown.  Almost all drivers should be aware that a turning driver would probably have to yield to pedestrians even if there weren't a red arrow here.

[on_wisconsin]

Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):


L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.

[Brandon]

Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):


L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.

Looks like Illinois.  McHenry County, specifically, with the cutaway signal visors.

I'm not so sure Cheeseheads would want to hear that.

[jakeroot]

Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.

Looks like Illinois.  McHenry County, specifically, with the cutaway signal visors.

I'm not so sure Cheeseheads would want to hear that.

Illinois or Wisconsin, that storm looks biblical (at least compared to the rather underwhelming storms we have in the NW).

[Brandon]

Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.

Looks like Illinois.  McHenry County, specifically, with the cutaway signal visors.

I'm not so sure Cheeseheads would want to hear that.

Illinois or Wisconsin, that storm looks biblical (at least compared to the rather underwhelming storms we have in the NW).

It's gonna be a good rain storm.  Maybe some lightning as well.  You worry about it if it's greenish in color and the air is so humid you can cut it with a knife.

[6a]

Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.

Looks like Illinois.  McHenry County, specifically, with the cutaway signal visors.

I'm not so sure Cheeseheads would want to hear that.

Illinois or Wisconsin, that storm looks biblical (at least compared to the rather underwhelming storms we have in the NW).

It's gonna be a good rain storm.  Maybe some lightning as well.  You worry about it if it's greenish in color and the air is so humid you can cut it with a knife.

And the air gets really still..

Ugh, memories.

[cl94]

Typical modern Wisconsin signalized intersection (non-divided road):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
L-T Facebook page

I like the setup almost just as much as the old trombone arms.

Looks like Illinois.  McHenry County, specifically, with the cutaway signal visors.

I'm not so sure Cheeseheads would want to hear that.

Illinois or Wisconsin, that storm looks biblical (at least compared to the rather underwhelming storms we have in the NW).

It's gonna be a good rain storm.  Maybe some lightning as well.  You worry about it if it's greenish in color and the air is so humid you can cut it with a knife.

And the air gets really still..

Ugh, memories.

And then this starts up: http://youtu.be/oYeql9xE19k#aid=P-KmGRP3O7U

[US71]

And then this starts up: http://youtu.be/oYeql9xE19k#aid=P-KmGRP3O7U

Death from above

[freebrickproductions]

And then this starts up: http://youtu.be/oYeql9xE19k#aid=P-KmGRP3O7U

They replaced the controller on it when that city upgraded their siren system recently.
The siren stays at full speed on the first cycle, but then every cycle after that, the siren doesn't reach full speed.
Here's how it sounds now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Iiv0Tdrw2Q