Prohibiting RTOR

[Bryant5493]

Should the U.S. go back to the law of no turn on red at all intersections, unless there's signage or a filter arrow to allow it?

The reason that I'm posing this question is that I've seen pedestrians nearly run over due to people failing to stop on a right hand turn; I've been nearly hit and have been hit in my car by drivers who've failed to stop and look; and people just plain don't use common sense when merging into traffic from a dead-stop.


Be well,

Bryant

[Duke87]

First of all, this is a matter of state/local law, so it will vary.

Anyways... if there seems to be a safety problem, you can always just prohibit right on red at that particular intersection with a sign. Flipping it the other way around only makes sense if you have more places where it's prohibited rather than permitted (like New York City). Sign the exception, not the rule.

[mightyace]

Is the problem that they're simply not looking or are they not stopping either.

AFAIK ROTR is always after stop.  (A larger percentage of TN drivers ignore that fact!  )

[Scott5114]

Going back to having to wait to turn right on red would be a massive waste of time and cause a substantial increase in energy costs and pollution (the reason ROTR was implemented to begin with).

If pedestrians would like to not get run over, there's a new innovation that can prevent that.

[Bryant5493]

@Duke87: I contacted one of the local county DOTs about prohibiting turns on red at a particular intersection (Godby Road/Southampton Road/Norman Boulevard). They installed signage, but it's still ignored. Some people do a rolling stop, look left, and keep going.

INTERSECTION IN QUESTION

@mightyace: Both.

@Scott5114: Pedestrians still get shafted, even with the pedestrian crossing signal.


Be well,

Bryant

[Hellfighter]

Dude, I see people all the time just cross the street whether it's their turn, the signage is all there, but apparently it's oblivious to them.

[Bryant5493]

Dude, I see people all the time just cross the street whether it's their turn, the signage is all there, but apparently it's oblivious to them.

That's true, there's no denying that. I see folks crossing the street in the middle of block, blocking cars from entering/exiting the double left turn lane. But when folks are in the crosswalk, a lot of drivers don't have the courtesy to stop and wait. That's why I, sometimes, feel it'd be a good idea to prohibit right turns on red. I'm guilty of doing rolling stops still, but I make an effort not to.


Be well,

Bryant

[froggie]

If pedestrians would like to not get run over, there's a new innovation that can prevent that.

Yeah...it's called drivers waiting their turn when pedestrians are present.  But drivers are too impatient and too distracted these days.

Nevermind that you have far too many traffic signals that lack even pedestrian signals...

[rawmustard]

I've seen some recent Kalamazoo County installs which will keep a "NO TURN ON RED" lit through the conflicting pedestrian and clearance phase in addition to the more usual practice of lighting it through an opposing protected left-turn. Although sometimes I wish those pedestrian phases would be fully actuated as to prevent unnecessary waiting should pedestrians be absent.

[roadfro]

RTOR should only be prohibited in certain instances that would warrant barring the maneuver. Some situations would be double right turn lanes, locations with a heavy conflicting U-turn movement, places with sight distance issues, or places where there's significant conflict with pedestrian movements.  It's not a prohibition that should be taken lightly, and should only be implemented where absolutely needed.

A blanket shift to this rule would increase vehicle delay and take a long time to readjust the driving habits of motorists. Not worth the effort, in my opinion.

[leifvanderwall]

I really don't have a problem. I don't think the ROTR should be prohibited. Driving is all about paying attention. I probably don't drive in as many metro areas as you guys, but as long you're aware of what is around you, accidents should be minimum at best.

[rawmustard]

RTOR should only be prohibited in certain instances that would warrant barring the maneuver. Some situations would be double right turn lanes, locations with a heavy conflicting U-turn movement, places with sight distance issues, or places where there's significant conflict with pedestrian movements.  It's not a prohibition that should be taken lightly, and should only be implemented where absolutely needed.

A blanket shift to this rule would increase vehicle delay and take a long time to readjust the driving habits of motorists. Not worth the effort, in my opinion.

And I even question the wisdom of using it in double right turn lane situations. At the eastbound MD 32 ramp to southbound US 1, there is a "NO TURN ON RED" for just the inside lane, while the outside lane is permitted to make rights on red. In my observation, there was a long queue in the outside lane while I decided to take the inside despite NTOR since I figured the end of the outside lane wouldn't get to me until the light turned green anyway. Without knowing just how much traffic needs to make the next right at a subsequent intersection, it seemed to me they were queuing on the outside only to take advantage of RTOR and making an utter waste of lane capacity. Either it should be good for everyone to make RTOR or it should be good for none.

A couple intersections near where I live have had all the NTOR signs taken down. MDOT must've realized, even with an opposing protected left on a couple of the legs, that traffic could make their rights on red safely. It used to be rather common to see NTOR whenever an opposing protected left was involved, but as some of those signals have been replaced, the signs were not.

[KEK Inc.]

Couldn't the same situation happen for people turning on a green who don't pay attention to pedestrians?  I see people turn right on greens at 30 MPH or faster, and it's apparent they don't look.  The same can be said for left turns (yield on solid green).  

And what's with all of the acronyms?  I think you meant Right Turn on Red (RTOR); otherwise, I'm not sure what ROTR means.  

[flowmotion]

I've seen plenty of questionable "NO TURNS ON RED" signs which were put in place for no apparent reason. I would guess that for ever time this is put in place for a legitimate safety issue, there's another where they are trying to prevent traffic from moving onto side streets, or just giving the local cops an easy excuse to make a stop.

[bulldog1979]

Here in Wyoming, MI, the intersections are signed with "NO RIGHT ON RED WHEN PEDESTRIANS PRESENT" on signs that hang from the mast arms that support the signal heads.

[Bryant5493]

Couldn't the same situation happen for people turning on a green who don't pay attention to pedestrians?  I see people turn right on greens at 30 MPH or faster, and it's apparent they don't look.  The same can be said for left turns (yield on solid green). 

And what's with all of the acronyms?  I think you meant Right Turn on Red (RTOR); otherwise, I'm not sure what ROTR means. 

True, drivers not paying attention on greeen can be just as dangerous as those that don't stop on red. But prohibiting RTOR, I think, could help.

Yes, I did mean RTOR. Just made a mistake and put the "T" and the "O" in the wrong place. Thanks.


Be well,

Bryant

[Duke87]

I contacted one of the local county DOTs about prohibiting turns on red at a particular intersection (Godby Road/Southampton Road/Norman Boulevard). They installed signage, but it's still ignored. Some people do a rolling stop, look left, and keep going.

Sounds like the problem is people ignoring the law. In which case, what difference will using a different law make?

[realjd]

We have a bit of the opposite problem here in Florida. I guess other states (probably NY) use a red right arrow to mean No Turn On Red. In Florida, a right red arrow (when used) is used simply to emphasize the fact that it's a right turn lane. A lot of the snowbirds don't understand that.

They've started marking right arrows with "Right Turn on Red Arrow After Stop" signs to make things clearer (at least near where I live), which has helped.

A few of the newer intersections here use light-up no-right-turn signs next to the right turn signal to indicate NTOR. This lets them ban it only for certain light phases.

[SSOWorld]

I don't know what's worse - NTOR signs - or Stop signs on right turn lanes where you must stop even when your direction has a green

[roadfro]

We have a bit of the opposite problem here in Florida. I guess other states (probably NY) use a red right arrow to mean No Turn On Red. In Florida, a right red arrow (when used) is used simply to emphasize the fact that it's a right turn lane. A lot of the snowbirds don't understand that.

They've started marking right arrows with "Right Turn on Red Arrow After Stop" signs to make things clearer (at least near where I live), which has helped.

A few of the newer intersections here use light-up no-right-turn signs next to the right turn signal to indicate NTOR. This lets them ban it only for certain light phases.

I don't agree with using a red arrow over a right turn lane unless RTOR is specifically prohibited. This is consistent with the definition of a red arrow in the MUTCD. However, wording in the MUTCD allows a right turn on red arrow if another traffic control device is present that specifically permits the RTOR arrow, i.e. the "RIGHT ON RED ARROW AFTER STOP" (R10-17a) sign.

I don't know what's worse - NTOR signs - or Stop signs on right turn lanes where you must stop even when your direction has a green

Are you talking about a stop sign with a right turn porkchop island? This should be a yield sign in 99.99% of such cases.

[Bryant5493]

^^ Case in point where a yield would be prudent, as you stated.

INTERSECTION

Sounds like the problem is people ignoring the law. In which case, what difference will using a different law make?

Fair point. But it'd be a good public safety alternative, even if it took an extra two to three minutes out of ones day per red light. I think before something widescale like what I suggested to be implemented, lights would have to re-synched.


Be well,

Bryant

[corco]

I don't know- I think that if this is an issue that needs addressing it's probably best to try to educate people- rather then wasting $x gazillion on "buckle up, even though failure to do it isn't really a danger to public safety" ads, let's do a bunch of "hey, watch for pedestrians when you turn" ads- I think education is the way to fix the problem, not repealing the laws- there's absolutely nothing unsafe about rights on red when done correctly. "Watch for pedestrians when you turn" is one of the least emphasized rules in all of driving- let's try emphasizing it!

And honestly, this would be such a burden on traffic flow that it's worth the lives of a couple people to keep in effect. Before you call me a horrible person- answer me this: We could save thousands of lives every year by banning cars outright and forcing people to walk. Would you be in support of such a measure?

[Bryant5493]

I don't know- I think that if this is an issue that needs addressing it's probably best to try to educate people- rather then wasting $x gazillion on "buckle up, even though failure to do it isn't really a danger to public safety" ads, let's do a bunch of "hey, watch for pedestrians when you turn" ads- I think education is the way to fix the problem, not repealing the laws- there's absolutely nothing unsafe about rights on red when done correctly. "Watch for pedestrians when you turn" is one of the least emphasized rules in all of driving- let's try emphasizing it!

Better driver's education, pedestrian, and bikers' ettiqutte would be great to help decrease accidents and deaths by all. Also, if society wasn't so obsessed with themselves, that would be great; but that's neither here nor there. And I agree, right turns on red when done well aren't are problem. The problem is a lot folks do it poorly.

And honestly, this would be such a burden on traffic flow that it's worth the lives of a couple people to keep in effect. Before you call me a horrible person- answer me this: We could save thousands of lives every year by banning cars outright and forcing people to walk. Would you be in support of such a measure?

I think safety trumps traffic flow.

Banning cars outright wouldn't be a good measure, even though people need exercise, because folks travel long distances and public transportation sucks.


Be well,

Bryant

[Revive 755]

I don't know what's worse - NTOR signs - or Stop signs on right turn lanes where you must stop even when your direction has a green

The latter, especially in cases where the right turn is shielded by a protected left turn on the side street or the same street one is making a right turn off of only has protected lefts.

As for RTOR, it should be legal unless there is some outstanding reason, such as inadequate visibility.  Same with one-way to one-way left on red.  If drivers are simply rolling the stop already, there's no guarantee they won't start ignoring the RTOR prohibition either, considering around St. Louis some drivers seem to be completely ignoring the red light for through movements anymore.  I'm not talking about just after the light changes - there have been some trying to get t-boned by going through the light at least 15 seconds after it has changed.

[corco]

I think safety trumps traffic flow.

So do you support 25 MPH interstate speed limits? That would save thousands upon thousands of lives, improving safety but hindering traffic flow.

Should we narrow every road down to one lane in each direction? Lots of accidents occur due to lane changes.

If we banned cars, the country would be a far, far safer place in terms of automotive collisions.
--

The safety argument is a valid one, but the problem is that everybody who gets behind the wheel of a car or crosses a road is putting themselves and others around them at risk. Safety comes second to traffic flow in this country- if it didn't nobody would ever drive because it would be far too inefficient. Measures to improve safety are OK insofar as they do not disturb the traffic flow- that's why the vast majority of people (myself included) become outright pissed when speed limits are lowered.

Part of having a road system means that lots of people are going to have to die. There's no way to stop that- it just can't happen. The only way to truly put safety first is to ban motorized travel- and like you said, that would be way too inefficient, but it also means that when it really comes down to it, you and everybody else on the planet (myself proudly included) does not put safety first. We'd rather be able to travel long distances and not used public transit, which comes at the expense of many thousands of lives. If we made the speed limit 25 on rural interstates, which would save thousands of lives, then you'd be against it, right? Of course you would! It would be way too inefficient to drive cross-country.

I just don't understand how one can be in favor of high-speed long distance travel by car, which kills thousands of lives, but have a qualm with making said travel even more efficient by knocking off a negligible number of extra lives. Where do you draw the line? and more importantly, why do you draw it here? Why at right turns on red?