Right on Red Arrow

[roadman]

Massachusetts law allows right turn on red (or left turn on red from a one way street to another one way street), unless there's a NTOR sign present, whether the signal is solid or an arrow.  From MGL, Chapter 89, Section 8:

At any intersection on ways, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, in which vehicular traffic is facing a steady red indication (emphasis added) in a traffic control signal, the driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk or the near side of the intersections or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to such red or stop signal, may make either (1) a right turn or (2) if on a one-way street may make a left turn to another one-way street, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at said intersection, except that a city or town, subject to section two of chapter eighty-five, by rules, orders, ordinances, or by-laws, and the department of highways on state highways or on ways at their intersections with a state highway, may prohibit any such turns against a red or stop signal at any such intersection, and such prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof.

[myosh_tino]

... I make no distinction between a red ball and a red arrow when driving.

Out of curiosity, is your thinking the same for a left red arrow?

Where would it make a difference?

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you think it's OK to make a right turn against a right red arrow, do you also think it's OK to make a left turn against a left red arrow?

[cl94]

I have not seen a place where New York allows a right/left on red arrow. If a protected right turn signal allows rights on red, a red ball is used instead of an arrow. While a NTOR situation does not always have an arrow, an arrow never comes without NTOR. In New York, this also applies to lefts on red between two one-way streets and lefts on red are indeed allowed unless specifically prohibited in certain situations.

Of course, NYC has a blanket ban, so this discussion completely disregards the City.

[kphoger]

... I make no distinction between a red ball and a red arrow when driving.

Out of curiosity, is your thinking the same for a left red arrow?

Where would it make a difference?

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you think it's OK to make a right turn against a right red arrow, do you also think it's OK to make a left turn against a left red arrow?

I've never encountered a red left-turn arrow indicating movement from a one-way to another one-way street.  And I live in a city with several such signalized one-way intersections.  If I were to encounter one (and I've thought about this before), I would interpret it the same as a red right-turn arrow in a mirrored situation.  That's because both states I've lived in treat left turn on red ball the same as right turn on red ball when both streets are one-way.  Whether or not it's actually spelled out as permitted in legal code, I would make that logical jump.  But not with a cop around.

[vdeane]

MUTCD conventions disallow right turn on red arrow (or any turn on any red arrow) unless another traffic control device allows it. This makes more sense to me. For RTOR, why use a red arrow if you can use the circular red with green/yellow arrows for the protected turn? Then the right red arrow would retain the prohibitive rules as left red arrows.

There are a couple reasons why I like all-arrow signals. First off, the arrow immediately tells you the signal controls only that movement and no others. In some states I've seen left turn signals with red circulars and it looks very confusing next to green circulars when the (sometimes non-existent) "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" sign is hard to see; case in point, New Orleans along Canal Street where there is a lot going on - the less confusion there is, the better! Secondly, when you are in a turn lane about to make a turn and your side of the intersection has all red signals, when your signal has a red arrow, you know which one to focus on to know when to turn. The through movement might get a green, but your arrow may stay red to allow peds to cross. This also avoids the confusing circular green controlling the through movement next to a circular red controlling the right- or left-turn movement.

I love the left-on-red from two-way to one-way law in Oregon and Washington and use it anytime I can, and they'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands if the law is changed. That said, I wish knowledge, or at least willingness to perform, the movement was much more widespread. I've only seen others make the movement about five or so times, and I know people have seen me do it, and I hope they do a double-take and then look at their driver's manual to discover they too can make the move!

I think turns on red arrow laws are among the most inconsistent across the entire country, with probably about half the states permitting it and the other half prohibiting it. I believe a great compromise (and one I think I've suggested on this board elsewhere) would be to introduce a flashing red arrow signal to let drivers know they can turn on red. A solid red arrow would mean no turn on red. This should hopefully be very self-explanatory to all drivers; they already know a flashing circular signal means stop, and then proceed when clear. A flashing red arrow means the exact same thing - yield to drivers and pedestrians who have the right-of-way, and then make your turn when clear. This also allows drivers in states that allow lefts-on-red from two-way streets to one-way streets to more clearly indicate to drivers that the turn is in fact legal, which may result in more drivers making the turn!

I don't see a red ball in a right turn lane being anywhere close to as confusing as a red ball in a left turn lane, if only because I've never seen a right turn lane be red while straight was green, but it happens to left turn lanes often.

[cl94]

if only because I've never seen a right turn lane be red while straight was green

I have seen it exactly once at Northway Exit 6 when someone pushed the button to cross the entrance ramp. It was not within the past couple years. Of course, that is a special case.

For those unfamiliar with the interchange in question: this signal and one heading to the SB side only guard crosswalks, not turning red for any other reason.

[vdeane]

I think I've seen that happen once (a few more times when the WB one was malfunctioning), but I've always thought of them as ramps more than right turn lanes.

[1995hoo]

Come to DC. Off the top of my head I can readily think of two places where the right turn has a red arrow and the "straight" movement has a green ball: NB 18 Street NW at L Street and EB Washington Circle at 23 Street. (The circle is why I put "straight" in quotation marks.) In both cases there are problems. At L Street, the green arrow is a lagging signal, so the pedestrians refuse to stop walking despite the "Don't Walk" sign. At Washington Circle, the red arrow comes on partway through and a lot of drivers try not to stop. Damn dangerous if you want to cross the street and the bus driver decides he's exempt from obeying the lights.

[RobbieL2415]

I have not seen a place where New York allows a right/left on red arrow. If a protected right turn signal allows rights on red, a red ball is used instead of an arrow. While a NTOR situation does not always have an arrow, an arrow never comes without NTOR. In New York, this also applies to lefts on red between two one-way streets and lefts on red are indeed allowed unless specifically prohibited in certain situations.

Of course, NYC has a blanket ban, so this discussion completely disregards the City.

There are right-on-red intersections in NYC.  Like @ Northern Blvd and the Cross Island Pkwy in Queens.

[mrsman]

I have not seen a place where New York allows a right/left on red arrow. If a protected right turn signal allows rights on red, a red ball is used instead of an arrow. While a NTOR situation does not always have an arrow, an arrow never comes without NTOR. In New York, this also applies to lefts on red between two one-way streets and lefts on red are indeed allowed unless specifically prohibited in certain situations.

Of course, NYC has a blanket ban, so this discussion completely disregards the City.

So in that case, you don't even know if the state will allow RTO red arrow, since every instance that you have seen is also accompanied by a NTOR sign.

[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.

But isn't that uniformity for the sake of uniformity? The only real issue posed by inconsistent rules between states is, when those who are from states who don't permit said movements, visit states that do, they can hold up traffic (though, other drivers will certainly vocalize their discontent). In the reverse scenario, unless the driver from out of state is at the front of a line of cars, they can't make said movements anyway. And, once they realize that traffic isn't moving despite the otherwise clear roadway, they'll probably catch onto the situation.

I see it as being more about simplicity.  One set of rules for one country.  You don't need a passport or any other permission to travel between the states.  And there is a great value in having uniformity.  We have a MUTCD for a reason.  It should cover RTOR, RTO red arrow, LTOR for situations involving one-way streets.  If an exception is warranted, it should be signed at the intersection.  There are 8 states that ban left on red from one-way to one-way.  I shouldn't have to risk a ticket to make a maneuver that is considered safe in 42 states because I didn't comb through every provision of the state's vehicle code.

In fact there is a federal law on the subject, that obviously allows certain exceptions, see 42 U.S.C. section 6322(c)

Each proposed State energy conservation plan to be eligible for Federal assistance under this part shall include–

(5) a traffic law or regulation which, to the maximum extent practicable consistent with safety, permits the operator of a motor vehicle to turn such vehicle right at a red stop light after stopping and to turn such vehicle left from a one-way street onto a one-way street at a red light after stopping.

[mrsman]

I have not seen a place where New York allows a right/left on red arrow. If a protected right turn signal allows rights on red, a red ball is used instead of an arrow. While a NTOR situation does not always have an arrow, an arrow never comes without NTOR. In New York, this also applies to lefts on red between two one-way streets and lefts on red are indeed allowed unless specifically prohibited in certain situations.

Of course, NYC has a blanket ban, so this discussion completely disregards the City.

There are right-on-red intersections in NYC.  Like @ Northern Blvd and the Cross Island Pkwy in Queens.

Yes, but those are signed as exceptions.  The general rule in the entire country is RTOR, unless there is a sign saying otherwise.  NYC has a blanket exception.  These are signed at every major entrance to the city [including the roads leaving JFK and LGA airports], but not signed on an intersection by intersection basis.  When the city decides that an intersection can be an exception to the NTOR rule, there is a sign saying "right turn on red permitted after stop".

THe sign is pretty clear (NYC Law: NTOR) and are signed on big signs, but I would still prefer that the city follow the national rule with signed exceptions at select intersections.

[cl94]

I have not seen a place where New York allows a right/left on red arrow. If a protected right turn signal allows rights on red, a red ball is used instead of an arrow. While a NTOR situation does not always have an arrow, an arrow never comes without NTOR. In New York, this also applies to lefts on red between two one-way streets and lefts on red are indeed allowed unless specifically prohibited in certain situations.

Of course, NYC has a blanket ban, so this discussion completely disregards the City.

So in that case, you don't even know if the state will allow RTO red arrow, since every instance that you have seen is also accompanied by a NTOR sign.

Per New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1111(d):

Traffic, except pedestrians, facing a steady red arrow signal may not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by such arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, then shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or in the event there is no crosswalk at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of the approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.

Emphasis is mine. A red arrow in New York implies NTOR and the State Supplement directs that a red arrow should not be used without NTOR:

Section 2B.54 No Turn on Red Signs (R10-11 Series, R10-17a, and R10-30)
[...]
DELETE Paragraph 07; Section 1111(d) of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law
does not permit traffic facing a red arrow to enter an intersection. The R10-17a sign
shall not be used in New York.

The exception is a flashing red arrow, which is allowed (and is used at a couple locations along NY 104).

[Jardine]

While I generally approve of RTOR, I would like consideration of prohibiting it at any intersection where a pedestrian fatality (or quad/paraplegia) has occurred.

I will cite the practice of installing automatic crossing gates at RR crossings where fatalities have occurred as precedence/justification.

[roadman]

I see it as being more about simplicity

Which is why the same RTOR standards should apply regardless of whether the signal is displaying a red ball or a red arrow.  The RTOR on a red ball unless there's a sign prohibiting it, but RTOR on a red arrow only if there's a sign allowing it - as the current UVC and MUTCD standards read - is a contradiction that, as HBelkins demonstrated in a previous comment, is probably not understood by most drivers.  And, given that drivers are required by law to stop BEFORE executing their right on red, first yielding to other traffic if necessary, anyway, it is NOT necessary to make that distinction.

RTOR unless there's a sign prohibiting it, regardless of whether the indication is a ball or an arrow, is the best way to deal with the issue.  It's consistent.  And consistency is simplicity, which is always a good thing with traffic laws.

[cl94]

I see it as being more about simplicity

Which is why the same RTOR standards should apply regardless of whether the signal is displaying a red ball or a red arrow.  The RTOR on a red ball unless there's a sign prohibiting it, but RTOR on a red arrow only if there's a sign allowing it - as the current UVC and MUTCD standards read - is a contradiction that, as HBelkins demonstrated in a previous comment, is probably not understood by most drivers.  And, given that drivers are required by law to stop BEFORE executing their right on red, first yielding to other traffic if necessary, anyway, it is NOT necessary to make that distinction.

RTOR unless there's a sign prohibiting it, regardless of whether the indication is a ball or an arrow, is the best way to deal with the issue.  It's consistent.  And consistency is simplicity, which is always a good thing with traffic laws.

I don't see a red arrow being any different than a green arrow. Just as a green arrow means you can only move in the direction of the arrow, a red arrow means you cannot move in the direction of an arrow. There's a reason why arrow and ball indications exist.

[vdeane]

I don't see how anyone could get confused at a red arrow and think they could do a right on red there, but then, I live in NY.  Seems any confusion will come from the fact that the other states are doing it wrong.

I don't see what the point of a red arrow is unless it's going to be used to emphasize "you can't turn on red here", honestly.

[jeffandnicole]

Just like how NY is one of two states that doesn't allow vehicles going the opposite direction on a divided highway to pass stopped school buses!

[jakeroot]

There's a reason why arrow and ball indications exist.

Canada doesn't use red arrows. If an intersection is better of not allowing turns, they just install a "no turn on red" symbol next to the signals.

[cl94]

There's a reason why arrow and ball indications exist.

Canada doesn't use red arrows. If an intersection is better of not allowing turns, they just install a "no turn on red" symbol next to the signals.

Canada also doesn't use yellow arrows. Additionally, they put a "left turn signal" sign next to the signal in question, which violates the entire purpose of having symbols for everything and going bilingual.

[Brandon]

Just like how NY is one of two states that doesn't allow vehicles going the opposite direction on a divided highway to pass stopped school buses!

Seems like New York needs to play catch up.

[cl94]

Just like how NY is one of two states that doesn't allow vehicles going the opposite direction on a divided highway to pass stopped school buses!

Seems like New York needs to play catch up.

To be fair, the majority of New York "divided highway" mileage where a school bus would actually be stopping is in the form of urban boulevards. Roads referred to as "expressways" elsewhere are virtually unheard of in New York, with NY 17 and US 219 being the only remaining examples (and short sections of both, at that). The Taconic Parkway also fits that in spots, but it has no residences.

[jakeroot]

There's a reason why arrow and ball indications exist.

Canada doesn't use red arrows. If an intersection is better of not allowing turns, they just install a "no turn on red" symbol next to the signals.

Canada also doesn't use yellow arrows. Additionally, they put a "left turn signal" sign next to the signal in question, which violates the entire purpose of having symbols for everything and going bilingual.

They have their own caveats. At least arrows vs balls isn't one of them.

[doorknob60]

In Idaho you can't turn on a red arrow. But in almost any case where there's a right turn only lane, they will have a red ball (even if on green, it's a green arrow, I believe). Also, many of the intersections that do have red arrows, also have signs saying "no turn on red". The only time I un-knowingly broke that law, is turning left on to a one way street (from a 2 way) on a red arrow. That move would be legal here if it was on a red ball, and it would be fully legal in Oregon. But not so here. They're actually putting an FYA at that intersection soon, so will be less of a problem there.

[1995hoo]

I knew we had had this discussion before, so I went back and found the thread I had started some years ago. There used to be a light about two miles from my house that had dual red arrows for the right-turn lanes coupled with a sign saying right on red was allowed only from the curb lane. (The curb lane now has a red ball indicator.) I said back then I thought it was illogical to allow turns on red at a red arrow. I still think it. There are more red turn arrows around here than there used to be, too, some of which allow right on red (the exit ramps from the I-495 HO/T lanes being a prime example–Transurban specifically said they used red arrows in part because Virginia law doesn't prohibit right on red at a red arrow).

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4583.0