Left Turn on Red at DDIs

[Amtrakprod]

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  Which might be a good idea, except that South Carolina would have never "repealed" their "No Turn" laws if they had been required to bear the cost of signage along the North Carolina border.

I mean, IMO turns on red should only be allowed with a sign. MA has to maintain over 10000 NTOR signs, as 95% of signals have those signs.


iPhone

[US 89]

I mean, IMO turns on red should only be allowed with a sign. MA has to maintain over 10000 NTOR signs, as 95% of signals have those signs.

That isn't going to fly in the vast majority of the US, where right turns on red are just about universally permitted and expected.

[Amtrakprod]

I mean, IMO turns on red should only be allowed with a sign. MA has to maintain over 10000 NTOR signs, as 95% of signals have those signs.

That isn't going to fly in the vast majority of the US, where right turns on red are just about universally permitted and expected.

Yeah, but it's not fair to our state or other states. It should have been a state's choice. Plus, IMO it's silly that the system we have now fails dangerously. I would much rather know that if a sign falls, turns would be illegal rather then they would be legal. Just my opinions while practicing in a very no turn on red happy state.


iPhone

[hotdogPi]

Living in Massachusetts, there are not no turn on red signs at 95% of intersections. There are a decent number, but it's nowhere near almost all.

[Amtrakprod]

Living in Massachusetts, there are not no turn on red signs at 95% of intersections. There are a decent number, but it's nowhere near almost all.

That's how many MassDOT said when they installed them in 1980. Yes many have been removed, but if you consider the amount of signals in Boston/Camberville, it adds up. I'd say at least 65% or more have NTOR signs. In my town, it's around 87%, and in Cambridge it's definitely 95% or more.


iPhone

[wanderer2575]

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.

Or, you know, there is always the quaint and increasingly obsolete concept of "driver responsibility."  When I am going to be driving in a state with which I am not familiar, whether I am allowed to turn on red is one of the first things I find out.

[jakeroot]

The "Left Turn on Red" for one-way onto one-way is a more recent development.

Are we sure of this? One-/two-way to one-way left on red has been the rule here in Washington since right on red was codified in the 1960s (see here, pg 2288).

[GaryV]

The "Left Turn on Red" for one-way onto one-way is a more recent development.

Are we sure of this? One-/two-way to one-way left on red has been the rule here in Washington since right on red was codified in the 1960s (see here, pg 2288).

I recall that Michigan's LTOR also came in at the same time as RTOR, or at least very close to the same time.

[jeffandnicole]

I mean, IMO turns on red should only be allowed with a sign. MA has to maintain over 10000 NTOR signs, as 95% of signals have those signs.

That isn't going to fly in the vast majority of the US, where right turns on red are just about universally permitted and expected.

Yeah, but it's not fair to our state or other states. It should have been a state's choice. Plus, IMO it's silly that the system we have now fails dangerously. I would much rather know that if a sign falls, turns would be illegal rather then they would be legal. Just my opinions while practicing in a very no turn on red happy state.


iPhone

It is, and always has been, the state's choice. Every state decided to legalize turning on red. No state had to do so.

[Amtrakprod]

I mean, IMO turns on red should only be allowed with a sign. MA has to maintain over 10000 NTOR signs, as 95% of signals have those signs.

That isn't going to fly in the vast majority of the US, where right turns on red are just about universally permitted and expected.

Yeah, but it's not fair to our state or other states. It should have been a state's choice. Plus, IMO it's silly that the system we have now fails dangerously. I would much rather know that if a sign falls, turns would be illegal rather then they would be legal. Just my opinions while practicing in a very no turn on red happy state.


iPhone

It is, and always has been, the state's choice. Every state decided to legalize turning on red. No state had to do so.

That's basically not true. The federal government threatened to withhold state funds from MA because they didn't want to allow right turns on red as a default.

"Massachusetts is the last state to implement the law. The federal government pushed the law through to make a uniform motor vehicle code, and the government threatened to withhold the state's national energy funds if the state did not pass the bill."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/12/4/right-on-red-comes-to-boston-pwhen-it/

"While the intended effect of the law will be minimal – "Right Turn on Red After Stop"  signs at about 10 percent of the state's 3,100 light‐controlled intersections have been taken down and replaced with $400,000 worth of "No Turn on Red"  signs at the other 90 percent some fear it will have an unintended and major impact on driving behavior."

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/30/archives/for-boston-drivers-its-turn-right-on-red-and-full-speed-ahead.html


iPhone

[Scott5114]

I mean, maybe Massachusetts should actually see whether there's any justification for disallowing right turns on red at each intersection instead of just coasting on the fumes of outdated traffic engineering assumptions.

There is exactly one intersection I can think of in Norman that banned right turns on red, and it was because of a hedge that blocked the view of traffic to the left. The intersection was later reworked because the road needed to be widened, which cleared up the sight lines. The No Turn on Red sign went away after that.

[mrsman]

As we are on the subject of legalities, I found this interesting tidbit:

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm#tcsfq2

Q: The 2000 MUTCD changed the meaning of a right turn red arrow signal by prohibiting right turns on a red arrow after stopping unless there is a sign specifically allowing it. Then, in the 2003 MUTCD, the R10-17a (Right on Red Arrow After Stop) sign was added to go along with this. In my State, turning right on a red arrow after stopping is legal. Why was the MUTCD changed?

A: The R10-17a sign and the revised definition of the meaning of a red arrow signal stem from a change in the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) that revised the meaning of the red arrow to include the prohibition of turns on red arrow after stopping unless a sign specifically permits it. The UVC change came about because of the lack of uniformity among State laws on this subject. The majority of States' laws prohibit the turn on red arrow after stopping without a permissive sign, while the minority of States allow turns on red arrows after stop unless a sign prohibits it. The UVC, which is written by a group comprised mostly of State motor vehicle administrators, adopted the majority practice. The change also took into account that a key use of red right arrows is with signal phasing that "protects" the pedestrian crossing from right turn traffic during a "leading pedestrian interval" by keeping the right turns stopped on a red arrow, while the parallel through movement receives a green. Although this isn't the only use for red right turn arrows, it is one in which the red arrow is critical. Allowing RTOR on red arrow under this condition is counter-productive to the purpose of using the red arrow. It was felt that, at the relatively few red right arrow locations where agencies might actually want to allow RTOR, this could be accommodated by posting the sign to specifically allow it there. For reasons of national uniformity, the MUTCD's text on the meanings of signal indications match the UVC.

Now we have an interesting development.  With regard to red arrows we have MUTCD and UVC have adopted as their rule for discussion and illustration purposes the view of the majority of states.  So there is at least some level of federal encouragement for following the majority practice and signing an exception, as opposed to leaving the meaning undefined because of the difference of state laws.  So in the MUTCD and UVC a steady red right arrow prohibits right turn movements.

Does it make more sense to define the purpose of the traffic control device by a majority view, or to leave it undefined because of different approaches?  THe whole point of having UNIFORM traffic control devices is that a device should have the same meaning uniformly around the country. 

Is it wise to have a stop sign have a uniform meaning across 50 states?

Is it wise to have a one way sign have a uniform meaning across 50 states?

Is it wise to have a red orb indication to have a uniform meaing across 50 states?

If you answered yes to the above three questions, then how could it possibly be wise to have a right red arrow have different meaning in different states?  It clearly isn't.  But becuase of the legal structure of our country, driving laws are state laws not federal laws.  Each state can make their own interpretations of the traffic control devices, even if it doesn't make sense to differ from the majority view.  The only tool that the feds can use to strongly encourage compliance involves conditioning highway funds.  And the feds have done so in areas that they believe requires compliance (which I believe include a 16 year old minimum driving age, 21 year old minimum drinking age, and to allow turn on red in the face of the energy crisis). 

But perhaps the feds feel that they can't threaten highway funding for every little thing.  So they tolerate the different interpreations of left on red for one way streets and the different interpreations or the red arrow.  But that doesn't mean that it is a good idea to leave the inconsistency.  Indeed, the MUTCD/UVC interpretation of the right red arrow is a first indication that they do not like the minority interpretation and perhaps in the future they may address it with threatening highway funding, even though it hasn't happened yet.

[hotdogPi]

Right on red arrow should be allowed. An arrow simply defines the direction the signal applies in. Even flashing yellows are consistent – whether it's a ball or an arrow, it's as if there was no indication at all, i.e. priority if going straight, allowed but without priority if turning.

[Amtrakprod]

I mean, maybe Massachusetts should actually see whether there's any justification for disallowing right turns on red at each intersection instead of just coasting on the fumes of outdated traffic engineering assumptions.

There is exactly one intersection I can think of in Norman that banned right turns on red, and it was because of a hedge that blocked the view of traffic to the left. The intersection was later reworked because the road needed to be widened, which cleared up the sight lines. The No Turn on Red sign went away after that.

Personally speaking, I like our no turn on red restrictions. Each time they're lifted we see rises in Ped/bike crashes, and with the density/walkability of our state they just aren't usable. I'm going to keep proposing R10-11b signage at new signals, and most others are doing the same.

The Transportation Research Board had a very interesting study on right turns on red, and are now recommending against that practice. I'd read it if you're able to access it!

Every state has their own context, but at least here, I could only imagine more no turn on red signs, not less.


iPhone

[Amtrakprod]

As we are on the subject of legalities, I found this interesting tidbit:

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm#tcsfq2

Q: The 2000 MUTCD changed the meaning of a right turn red arrow signal by prohibiting right turns on a red arrow after stopping unless there is a sign specifically allowing it. Then, in the 2003 MUTCD, the R10-17a (Right on Red Arrow After Stop) sign was added to go along with this. In my State, turning right on a red arrow after stopping is legal. Why was the MUTCD changed?

A: The R10-17a sign and the revised definition of the meaning of a red arrow signal stem from a change in the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) that revised the meaning of the red arrow to include the prohibition of turns on red arrow after stopping unless a sign specifically permits it. The UVC change came about because of the lack of uniformity among State laws on this subject. The majority of States' laws prohibit the turn on red arrow after stopping without a permissive sign, while the minority of States allow turns on red arrows after stop unless a sign prohibits it. The UVC, which is written by a group comprised mostly of State motor vehicle administrators, adopted the majority practice. The change also took into account that a key use of red right arrows is with signal phasing that "protects" the pedestrian crossing from right turn traffic during a "leading pedestrian interval" by keeping the right turns stopped on a red arrow, while the parallel through movement receives a green. Although this isn't the only use for red right turn arrows, it is one in which the red arrow is critical. Allowing RTOR on red arrow under this condition is counter-productive to the purpose of using the red arrow. It was felt that, at the relatively few red right arrow locations where agencies might actually want to allow RTOR, this could be accommodated by posting the sign to specifically allow it there. For reasons of national uniformity, the MUTCD's text on the meanings of signal indications match the UVC.

Now we have an interesting development.  With regard to red arrows we have MUTCD and UVC have adopted as their rule for discussion and illustration purposes the view of the majority of states.  So there is at least some level of federal encouragement for following the majority practice and signing an exception, as opposed to leaving the meaning undefined because of the difference of state laws.  So in the MUTCD and UVC a steady red right arrow prohibits right turn movements.

Does it make more sense to define the purpose of the traffic control device by a majority view, or to leave it undefined because of different approaches?  THe whole point of having UNIFORM traffic control devices is that a device should have the same meaning uniformly around the country. 

Is it wise to have a stop sign have a uniform meaning across 50 states?

Is it wise to have a one way sign have a uniform meaning across 50 states?

Is it wise to have a red orb indication to have a uniform meaing across 50 states?

If you answered yes to the above three questions, then how could it possibly be wise to have a right red arrow have different meaning in different states?  It clearly isn't.  But becuase of the legal structure of our country, driving laws are state laws not federal laws.  Each state can make their own interpretations of the traffic control devices, even if it doesn't make sense to differ from the majority view.  The only tool that the feds can use to strongly encourage compliance involves conditioning highway funds.  And the feds have done so in areas that they believe requires compliance (which I believe include a 16 year old minimum driving age, 21 year old minimum drinking age, and to allow turn on red in the face of the energy crisis). 

But perhaps the feds feel that they can't threaten highway funding for every little thing.  So they tolerate the different interpreations of left on red for one way streets and the different interpreations or the red arrow.  But that doesn't mean that it is a good idea to leave the inconsistency.  Indeed, the MUTCD/UVC interpretation of the right red arrow is a first indication that they do not like the minority interpretation and perhaps in the future they may address it with threatening highway funding, even though it hasn't happened yet.

This is actually a very interesting topic to me as well. The city of Boston has defended their practice of treating a red arrow as a no turn on red, but that's not the law in the state. Also, in general it's interesting to see how many drivers treat a red arrow as NTOR. I think I'd always use a R10-17 with a red arrow if I was to allow turns on red, just because it's confusing. That seems to be the policy at MassDOT too.


iPhone

[Rothman]

Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

[Amtrakprod]

Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

[Rothman]

Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

Fairly sure it was in the RMV's driver's handbook, too.

[Amtrakprod]

Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

Fairly sure it was in the RMV's driver's handbook, too.

That at least has changed now. Notes that laws may be different in other states


iPhone

[jeffandnicole]

Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

One thing I noticed about driving school instructors is that they're not always correct either.  Several times I've seen a driving school car being driven on a 3 lane highway in the center lane.  Cars are passing on the left and right.  While the driver is teaching the student to drive the speed limit, he's ignoring the law that says keep right except to pass.

With the red arrow, at least here in NJ, there's no specific law about a red arrow. But, nearly every light with a red arrow also has a NTOR sign with it too...clarifying you can't turn on red.  There's one intersection in Camden which is the only intersection I'm aware of with a red arrow and the lack of a NTOR sign, which seems to indicate turning on red is permitted here: https://goo.gl/maps/GBYMjV2w2LFQWi4G6 .

[Amtrakprod]

Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

One thing I noticed about driving school instructors is that they're not always correct either.  Several times I've seen a driving school car being driven on a 3 lane highway in the center lane.  Cars are passing on the left and right.  While the driver is teaching the student to drive the speed limit, he's ignoring the law that says keep right except to pass.

With the red arrow, at least here in NJ, there's no specific law about a red arrow. But, nearly every light with a red arrow also has a NTOR sign with it too...clarifying you can't turn on red.  There's one intersection in Camden which is the only intersection I'm aware of with a red arrow and the lack of a NTOR sign, which seems to indicate turning on red is permitted here: https://goo.gl/maps/GBYMjV2w2LFQWi4G6 .

That's another question. Should you say No Turn On Red or No Turn On Red Arrow. I def wouldn't use a standard R10-11 series with the red ball, but it's an interesting question


iPhone

[US 89]

My thought is this: if you want to allow turns on red, don't use a red right arrow at all - use one of those signal heads with a red ball and yellow/green arrows.

That's how it's done in Utah. Most commonly you'll see this at the bottom of right-turn ramps at SPUIs (example). There aren't a lot of red right arrows in the state anyway, and most of them seem to exist to clarify an existing NTOR restriction that would be there anyway (example). Utah law does not allow right on a red arrow, but I can't think of a single place I've seen a red right arrow in the state without accompanying NTOR signage.

Florida does allow right on a red arrow unless signed otherwise and it drives me nuts. There are a bunch of intersections without arrows with signs banning turns on red, but there are also a ton of red right arrows that you can turn on after you stop (with no signage clarifying that this is allowed). I far prefer the Utah method.

[1995hoo]

Allowing right on a red arrow never made sense to me even when Virginia did allow it. The red arrow seems to me to indicate "you're not allowed to move in this direction," whichever direction the arrow is pointing. It would be particularly useful if you had an intersection in which a right-turn-only lane gets a green at a different time from the other lanes moving in the same direction. 18th & L in DC is an example of that (in this June 2014 Street View, you can see the station wagon is illegally turning right on a red arrow–traffic going straight has a green, traffic turning right has a red arrow, and a sign says right turns must wait for the green arrow).

[jeffandnicole]

Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

One thing I noticed about driving school instructors is that they're not always correct either.  Several times I've seen a driving school car being driven on a 3 lane highway in the center lane.  Cars are passing on the left and right.  While the driver is teaching the student to drive the speed limit, he's ignoring the law that says keep right except to pass.

With the red arrow, at least here in NJ, there's no specific law about a red arrow. But, nearly every light with a red arrow also has a NTOR sign with it too...clarifying you can't turn on red.  There's one intersection in Camden which is the only intersection I'm aware of with a red arrow and the lack of a NTOR sign, which seems to indicate turning on red is permitted here: https://goo.gl/maps/GBYMjV2w2LFQWi4G6 .

That's another question. Should you say No Turn On Red or No Turn On Red Arrow. I def wouldn't use a standard R10-11 series with the red ball, but it's an interesting question


iPhone

If it's just the word sign, red is red, so I don't think any further clarification is needed. But if there's a symbol, it would make sense not to use a red ball on the sign when the red arrow is used.

[jakeroot]

The red arrow seems to me to indicate "you're not allowed to move in this direction,"

That is effectively what it means everywhere. But quite a few states follow the legal meaning of a red arrow with some form of "however" statement.

Eg, in Washington State:

However, the vehicle operators facing a steady red arrow indication may, after stopping proceed to make a right turn from a one-way or two-way street into a two-way street or into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn; or a left turn from a one-way street or two-way street into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn; unless a sign posted by competent authority prohibits such movement.