Right on Red Arrow

[kalvado]

I see nothing wrong with turning against a circular red (unless a sign says otherwise or I'm in NYC) but a red arrow just seems wrong to me.

It seems wrong to you because turning against a red arrow has been ingrained into you as illegal. This isn't the case for others, such as myself.

I may also be in "because ingrained" camp, however I am trying to be unbiased.
And from purely traffic management perspective, there are several messages which have to be delivered:
you should/may(with caution)/should not turn when straight ahead is allowed
you should/may(with caution)/should not turn when straight ahead is NOT allowed
you should/may(with caution)/should not turn when straight ahead does not EXIST (think diamond interchange)

When going through those cases one by one, it looks to me as if "red arrow = full prohibition" is a good tool. You may see that as redundant to red ball +NTOR sign, though.  In order to realize full potential, though, same intersection must have an option of going from red arrow to red ball (e.g. red arrow during commute, ball otherwise) - and I still have to see that actually done.
"red arrow = red ball" seems even more redundant, IMHO, and leaves little room for improvement.

Slightly off, but FYA for right turn may be a good idea in this context for "may turn with caution" situations.

[realjd]

I don't know whether it's a matter of law or not, but I've seen a number of busses, student transportation vans, telephone company service trucks, etc. with a sticker on the back that says something like: This Vehicle Does NOT Turn Right on Red. So it may be at least be a company/agency/school district policy.

What's the idea behind the setup anyway?

My guess is that, if Willow wasn't there, NJ 73's median barrier would continue unbroken through the intersection and Waverly would be posted with a STOP and ALL TRAFFIC MUST TURN RIGHT. What's there now is basically that...plus a protected left phase that may take a long time to trigger.

That must be a weird northeastern thing. I've never heard of a rule like that or seen a sign or sticker like that on the back of a vehicle ever, in anywhere I've lived or traveled to.

[roadman]

I don't know whether it's a matter of law or not, but I've seen a number of busses, student transportation vans, telephone company service trucks, etc. with a sticker on the back that says something like: This Vehicle Does NOT Turn Right on Red. So it may be at least be a company/agency/school district policy

That must be a weird northeastern thing. I've never heard of a rule like that or seen a sign or sticker like that on the back of a vehicle ever, in anywhere I've lived or traveled to.

Well, I've never seen it in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island, three northeastern states I frequently travel in.  Sounds to me like more paranoid lawyers working overtime to kill common sense.

[cl94]

Of course, New York is one of the only states where you have to stop for a school bus on the other side of a divided highway, so I think that's the norm everywhere as well and I think those "school bus loading areas" are strange.

[kalvado]

I don't know whether it's a matter of law or not, but I've seen a number of busses, student transportation vans, telephone company service trucks, etc. with a sticker on the back that says something like: This Vehicle Does NOT Turn Right on Red. So it may be at least be a company/agency/school district policy

That must be a weird northeastern thing. I've never heard of a rule like that or seen a sign or sticker like that on the back of a vehicle ever, in anywhere I've lived or traveled to.

Well, I've never seen it in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island, three northeastern states I frequently travel in.  Sounds to me like more paranoid lawyers working overtime to kill common sense.

New York Consolidated Laws, Vehicle and Traffic Law - VAT § 1111(d)(5)

5. Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph two of this subdivision, no school bus, while transporting pupils for any purpose, shall be permitted to proceed when facing a steady red signal.

Looks like this is the only legal requirement, though; everything else is company/person decision.

[mrsman]

The situations described in this thread lead me to believe there should be one uniform set of rules for driving in this country.  In most states, you cannot turn right on red arrow, you cannot make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way, and you can make a left on red from a one-way to a one-way.  This should be the default rule nationwide.  If specific states, localities, or intersections justify an exception, it should be signed for the exception.

You can thank the FHWA for the MUTCD and the way they worded it, plus the freedom to allow all states to interperate all common laws (road or otherwise) differently in certain situations.

Thank you for that.  I was almost going to write something similar while reading the more recent comments knowing that I've written something similar in the past.  I can't believe that it was 1.5 years ago on this very thread.

I still believe what I wrote in the past and still believe that the feds should force compliance with national standards to improve safety.  Compliance can be forced by tying it into the highway funding (as was done when the feds "forced" the states to have a minimum drinking age of 21.)

[mrsman]

Because New Jersey. It's a three phase intersection: NJ 73, left turns, straight/left from Willow. Volumes from Willow are probably high due to the shopping center. My guess is that traffic off of Waverly is minimal.

While unique, this isn't a terrible problem as drivers should just treat right turns as they would at a stop sign.  If you approach a major road at a stop sign, you will simply have to wait for an opening to turn whenever there is a break in traffic.  You will never get a green light to give you protection from cross traffic.

What is far worse is the situation at some approaches to Dupont Circle in DC where you get no green arrow and you are also forced to not turn on red.  You are only allowed to turn on a flashing yellow arrow, but there still can be traffic on the circle that you have to yield to.  Usually when traffic on the circle is open, your light is red because pedestrinas are crossing on your right.  It's a no-win situation.

[kalvado]

The situations described in this thread lead me to believe there should be one uniform set of rules for driving in this country.  In most states, you cannot turn right on red arrow, you cannot make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way, and you can make a left on red from a one-way to a one-way.  This should be the default rule nationwide.  If specific states, localities, or intersections justify an exception, it should be signed for the exception.

You can thank the FHWA for the MUTCD and the way they worded it, plus the freedom to allow all states to interperate all common laws (road or otherwise) differently in certain situations.

Thank you for that.  I was almost going to write something similar while reading the more recent comments knowing that I've written something similar in the past.  I can't believe that it was 1.5 years ago on this very thread.

I still believe what I wrote in the past and still believe that the feds should force compliance with national standards to improve safety.  Compliance can be forced by tying it into the highway funding (as was done when the feds "forced" the states to have a minimum drinking age of 21.)

Oh those days... Just look at feds battle with "Cuomo signs" and "taste NY" stores. Threats of funds withdrawn... I believe NYS answer was along the lines of suggesting FHWA does something with itself....

[jakeroot]

I still believe what I wrote in the past and still believe that the feds should force compliance with national standards to improve safety.  Compliance can be forced by tying it into the highway funding (as was done when the feds "forced" the states to have a minimum drinking age of 21.)

I'm not sure how likely that is. Unlike a 21 drinking age, I don't think there's a serious (if any) safety issue with red arrows. Basically, every right turn just becomes a stop sign. No big deal.

I like the idea of a uniform law, but I'm not sure the rules will change soon.

[jeffandnicole]

I still believe what I wrote in the past and still believe that the feds should force compliance with national standards to improve safety.  Compliance can be forced by tying it into the highway funding (as was done when the feds "forced" the states to have a minimum drinking age of 21.)

I'm not sure how likely that is. Unlike a 21 drinking age, I don't think there's a serious (if any) safety issue with red arrows. Basically, every right turn just becomes a stop sign. No big deal.

I like the idea of a uniform law, but I'm not sure the rules will change soon.

Also, any stats showing that turning or not turning on a right red arrow has been a safety concern, especially compared to turning or not turning on a right red ball? 

[bzakharin]

Irrespective of safety concerns, confusion from out-of-state drivers is a legitimate issue in itself. Yes, I know the world won't end if someone does not turn on a red arrow when allowed to do so, but it can cause needless congestion.

[kalvado]

Irrespective of safety concerns, confusion from out-of-state drivers is a legitimate issue in itself. Yes, I know the world won't end if someone does not turn on a red arrow when allowed to do so, but it can cause needless congestion.

My impression that aligning laws to the letter is difficult and not really needed. Hard to imagine that NYC traffic has exact same rules as rural ND traffic.  Existing differences between states - and even between countries - are not that great, at least everyone uses red and green in the same way.

[jakeroot]

Irrespective of safety concerns, confusion from out-of-state drivers is a legitimate issue in itself. Yes, I know the world won't end if someone does not turn on a red arrow when allowed to do so, but it can cause needless congestion.

I think the onus is on states that have different laws for red arrows here. Where I'm from, turn on red is always allowed unless expressly prohibited by signage. The only issue that drivers from my state present when abroad is briefly confusing other drivers or pedestrians. There's no inherent hazard with turning on red, not least according to the study that initially made it legal (which came before red arrows AFAIK).

[kalvado]

Irrespective of safety concerns, confusion from out-of-state drivers is a legitimate issue in itself. Yes, I know the world won't end if someone does not turn on a red arrow when allowed to do so, but it can cause needless congestion.

I think the onus is on states that have different laws for red arrows here. Where I'm from, turn on red is always allowed unless expressly prohibited by signage. The only issue that drivers from my state present when abroad is briefly confusing other drivers or pedestrians. There's no inherent hazard with turning on red, not least according to the study that initially made it legal (which came before red arrows AFAIK).

Just to play devil's advocate: red arrow can be used instead of "no turn on red" sign in the locations where turn on red is hazardous.  And drivers not receiving that "NTOR" message are a hazard.
With that, driving in unfamiliar area usually calls for some extra caution, hopefully compensating for that...

[jakeroot]

Irrespective of safety concerns, confusion from out-of-state drivers is a legitimate issue in itself. Yes, I know the world won't end if someone does not turn on a red arrow when allowed to do so, but it can cause needless congestion.

I think the onus is on states that have different laws for red arrows here. Where I'm from, turn on red is always allowed unless expressly prohibited by signage. The only issue that drivers from my state present when abroad is briefly confusing other drivers or pedestrians. There's no inherent hazard with turning on red, not least according to the study that initially made it legal (which came before red arrows AFAIK).

Just to play devil's advocate: red arrow can be used instead of "no turn on red" sign in the locations where turn on red is hazardous.  And drivers not receiving that "NTOR" message are a hazard.
With that, driving in unfamiliar area usually calls for some extra caution, hopefully compensating for that...

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.

[kalvado]

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)
So if, for one reason or the other, arrow is used - and no sign.. That being said, being properly careful with turn on red eliminates most issues. 
As for unfamiliar area... For me there is an extra caution required when I don't know road layout, and I don't want to get lost. And, however stupid it sounds, ticket in a remote location is an additional headache compared to local court.. All that reduces my internal tolerance to mistakes.

[jakeroot]

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).

[hotdogPi]

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.

[jakeroot]

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)).

[johndoe]

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 

[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.

[MNHighwayMan]

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

Problem is that I really don't. At all.

[jakeroot]

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.

And I'm not sure all of them will. Maryland has been adamant that FRAs are superior. That said, if all states did eventually adopt FYAs, having them posted at all right turns would basically turn every right turn into a yield. Great for traffic flow but potentially dangerous if traffic doesn't properly yield. I'd recommend red arrows for when the pedestrian sign is activated.

I've seen FYAs used at right turns but the locations are all slip lanes (right turns separated by a porkchop island).

[RobbieL2415]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

I'm not sure that's true. Washington's law/code, as far as I can tell, does not define the meaning of yellow arrows that flash, however, they are ubiquitous throughout the state.