Solving a ROR traffic conflict

[interstatefan990]

There is a traffic conflict when a driver is turning right on red into the same roadway that an oncoming driver is turning left into on a green arrow. I'm pretty sure the right of way belongs to the driver with the arrow, but there probably should be a sign above to denote this. I'm thinking it could look something like this. Thoughts?

[1995hoo]

There is a traffic conflict when a driver is turning right on red into the same roadway that an oncoming driver is turning left into on a green arrow. I'm pretty sure the right of way belongs to the driver with the arrow, but there probably should be a sign above to denote this. I'm thinking it could look something like this. Thoughts?

The driver with the green arrow gets priority because he has a green light. Someone turning on red still has a red light and thus is supposed to yield to anyone else who has a green, though most drivers incorrectly think they have a "right" to turn on red (fewer and fewer drivers around here bother to stop before doing so, either).

I've seen a version of the sign you reference–not quite with the same wording–at occasional intersections around here when there's been a particularly acute problem, but off the top of my head I'm not remembering where. If I can think of one, I'll post a Street View. I've also noticed that signs of this sort seem to be disproportionately knocked down, which suggests to me that it's deliberate vandalism.

[kendancy66]

There is a traffic conflict when a driver is turning right on red into the same roadway that an oncoming driver is turning left into on a green arrow. I'm pretty sure the right of way belongs to the driver with the arrow, but there probably should be a sign above to denote this. I'm thinking it could look something like this. Thoughts?

I like these illuminated no right on red turn signs.  They turn on, when the opposing left turn signal is on.  Then turn off when the perpendicular left turn on arrow phase is on (and no u-turn allowed) or when the light is green

https://goo.gl/maps/huWzmhF3AqKFjGqo8

[interstatefan990]

There is a traffic conflict when a driver is turning right on red into the same roadway that an oncoming driver is turning left into on a green arrow. I'm pretty sure the right of way belongs to the driver with the arrow, but there probably should be a sign above to denote this. I'm thinking it could look something like this. Thoughts?

The driver with the green arrow gets priority because he has a green light. Someone turning on red still has a red light and thus is supposed to yield to anyone else who has a green, though most drivers incorrectly think they have a "right" to turn on red (fewer and fewer drivers around here bother to stop before doing so, either).

I've seen a version of the sign you reference–not quite with the same wording–at occasional intersections around here when there's been a particularly acute problem, but off the top of my head I'm not remembering where. If I can think of one, I'll post a Street View. I've also noticed that signs of this sort seem to be disproportionately knocked down, which suggests to me that it's deliberate vandalism.

I agree. Just the other day I saw an NYS trooper blow through a right on red exactly as if it were a green arrow, no slowing down. Lights and sirens off as well. People don't seem to want to stop for RORs, which is especially problematic in situations like these where opposing traffic may have a protected left turn. When your car is rolling closer and closer to the intersection you usually don't have enough time to fully check for traffic from multiple directions or to figure out who has what signal in the first place.

[kphoger]

IMHO, a red light does the job just fine.  If people don't yield when facing a red light, then they're not going to yield when facing that sign either.

[webny99]

At a standard intersection, I've long since become accustomed to watching for oncoming left-turning traffic before turning right on red. This has never been a major issue: double check for (1) the all-clear to your left and (2) the all-clear across the intersection, and then proceed.

Where I do have issues, though, is at standard freeway interchanges where I'm turning right onto the freeway. Because there's a red light and no arrow on my side of the intersection, I'm expecting traffic turning left onto the freeway to yield to me... and on quite a few occasions I've been taken by surprise when they don't, not realizing that they've got an arrow until I've already completed the turn/been honked at/etc. It seems to be especially egregious when the green arrow is lagging, such that I come to a stop, think it's OK to go, and then the left-turning cars start coming.

Here is one such location. (Note the Escape in the imagery going straight on red!  )

[renegade]

IMHO, a red light does the job just fine.  If people don't yield when facing a red light, then they're not going to yield when facing that sign either.

... and that driver will be cited in the event of an accident.

[sparker]

There is a traffic conflict when a driver is turning right on red into the same roadway that an oncoming driver is turning left into on a green arrow. I'm pretty sure the right of way belongs to the driver with the arrow, but there probably should be a sign above to denote this. I'm thinking it could look something like this. Thoughts?

I like these illuminated no right on red turn signs.  They turn on, when the opposing left turn signal is on.  Then turn off when the perpendicular left turn on arrow phase is on (and no u-turn allowed) or when the light is green

https://goo.gl/maps/huWzmhF3AqKFjGqo8

I think a right turn red arrow coordinated with the opposing left-turn green arrow would at least provide an enhanced legal basis for citation of violators.  However -- such should only be utilized when there are two lanes or less on the "target" street -- since the green-lit left turner will have the choice of either target lane.  Past three lanes is a bit gratuitous unless there's an attraction on or near the right corner along the target street that would prompt left-turn folks to turn into that right-hand third lane.  If it's a business district with numerous commercial driveways, a right-turn red arrow would likely be appropriate under any circumstances. 

[CtrlAltDel]

I feel the sign is too wordy. So, I offer this marginally better alternative:

[jeffandnicole]

I feel the sign is too wordy. So, I offer this marginally better alternative:

Too easily interpreted as No Right Turn at all.

(Edited because I failed directions in Kindergarden)

[CtrlAltDel]

Too easily interpreted as No Left Turn at all.

I would very much hope not. 

[jeffandnicole]

Too easily interpreted as No Left Turn at all.

I would very much hope not. 

Dammit!!!


Ok, No Right Turn!

[1995hoo]

^^^^

That sign reminds me of a sign that used to be posted on northbound Guinea Road here in Fairfax County just south of Route 236. For years, it had been effectively a T-intersection because the road on the far side was restricted to emergency vehicles using the fire station just west of the traffic light. Then the Northern Virginia Jewish Community Center, located just east of the intersection, expanded its facilities, and it proved busy enough that two left turn lanes were built for exiting traffic. So now you had two right-turn lanes from Guinea to eastbound 236 (right on red from curb lane only, of course) and two left-turn lanes from the JCC to eastbound 236. After several near-collisions due to right-on-red drivers not turning into the proper lane, VDOT decided to put up an orange warning sign that read....

"Opposing Dual Left Turns Ahead." NOT helpful to the driver of average ignorance out there.

I think a more effective way to do what CtrlAltDel is suggesting can be found at the corner of Ben C. Pratt Six Mike Cypress Parkway and Daniels Parkway in Fort Myers. If you click into the Street View, you can see a small box hanging from the span wire on the far side of the intersection. When traffic coming the other way has a green arrow, that sign lights up to say "No Turn on Red." At other times, it goes dark and right on red is allowed (apparently from either lane, based on driver behavior; I have no idea what Florida law is on that issue).

https://goo.gl/maps/WfjbHu6pSLpfU8bf7

[johndoe]

Personally I think that's excessive as drivers should routinely be yielding to that movement.  But I have seen that sign used for "yield to u turns", which I assume gets used where u turns are common.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

As others mentioned, I don't think a sign will help with this. Yielding to opposing left turn traffic should be a habit when turning right on red. It's a basic road rule. If drivers are too ignorant to do this I don't think a sign will help.

[kphoger]

So now you had two right-turn lanes from Guinea to eastbound 236 (right on red from curb lane only, of course) and two left-turn lanes from the JCC to eastbound 236. After several near-collisions due to right-on-red drivers not turning into the proper lane, VDOT decided to put up an orange warning sign that read....

"Opposing Dual Left Turns Ahead." NOT helpful to the driver of average ignorance out there.

To me, it's not a matter of ignorance.  That sign should mean something entirely different than apparently intended.

Unless I'm mistaken, these are opposing dual left turns:



...which, in fact, the intersection you posted does have.

[1995hoo]

So now you had two right-turn lanes from Guinea to eastbound 236 (right on red from curb lane only, of course) and two left-turn lanes from the JCC to eastbound 236. After several near-collisions due to right-on-red drivers not turning into the proper lane, VDOT decided to put up an orange warning sign that read....

"Opposing Dual Left Turns Ahead." NOT helpful to the driver of average ignorance out there.

To me, it's not a matter of ignorance.  That sign should mean something entirely different than apparently intended.

Unless I'm mistaken, these are opposing dual left turns:



...which, in fact, the intersection you posted does have.

Except the intersection to which I was referring doesn't have dual left turns of the sort your diagram shows. It has dual left turns leaving the JCC, dual left turns from westbound 236 to southbound Guinea, and single left turns for the other two left-turn movements; it also has dual right turns from northbound Guinea to eastbound 236.

See below. Sorry about the crummy lines, I'm not good at drawing with a mouse. The traffic turning right following the red lines never has a green at the same time as traffic turning left following the yellow lines. It's the red-line movement that used to have the "Opposing Dual Left Turns Ahead"  sign, and I assume it was intended to warn the right-on-red crowd that they should expect traffic to be coming from across the intersection, not just from the left.

[kphoger]

Except the intersection to which I was referring doesn't have dual left turns of the sort your diagram shows.

Well, that's great if you know the layout ahead of time.  A sign warning me of what's ahead, though, assumes I don't already know the layout.  If I saw that sign, I would not interpret as meaning that one left-turning movement and one right-turning movement were in conflict.

It has dual left turns leaving the JCC, dual left turns from westbound 236 to southbound Guinea, and single left turns for the other two left-turn movements; it also has dual right turns from northbound Guinea to eastbound 236.

See below. Sorry about the crummy lines, I'm not good at drawing with a mouse. The traffic turning right following the red lines never has a green at the same time as traffic turning left following the yellow lines. It's the red-line movement that used to have the "Opposing Dual Left Turns Ahead"  sign, and I assume it was intended to warn the right-on-red crowd that they should expect traffic to be coming from across the intersection, not just from the left.

Sorry, I meant the intersection you linked to, which has dual left-turn lanes in all four directions:  https://goo.gl/maps/WfjbHu6pSLpfU8bf7

[1995hoo]

Except the intersection to which I was referring doesn't have dual left turns of the sort your diagram shows.

Well, that's great if you know the layout ahead of time.  A sign warning me of what's ahead, though, assumes I don't already know the layout.  If I saw that sign, I would not interpret as meaning that one left-turning movement and one right-turning movement were in conflict.

It has dual left turns leaving the JCC, dual left turns from westbound 236 to southbound Guinea, and single left turns for the other two left-turn movements; it also has dual right turns from northbound Guinea to eastbound 236.

See below. Sorry about the crummy lines, I'm not good at drawing with a mouse. The traffic turning right following the red lines never has a green at the same time as traffic turning left following the yellow lines. It's the red-line movement that used to have the "Opposing Dual Left Turns Ahead"  sign, and I assume it was intended to warn the right-on-red crowd that they should expect traffic to be coming from across the intersection, not just from the left.

Sorry, I meant the intersection you linked to, which has dual left-turn lanes in all four directions:  https://goo.gl/maps/WfjbHu6pSLpfU8bf7

Ah, I see. Your post quoted the part of my discussion about the intersection in Virginia (near where I grew up, so I'm extremely familiar with it) rather than the reference to the one in Florida, so that's why I thought you were talking about the one in Virginia. My point about the intersection in Florida was simply that I thought the light-up part-time "No Turn on Red" sign that prohibits the movement only when there is turning traffic coming into conflict with the right on red is more effective, and clearer, than the other mock-up sign CtrlAltDel posted further up the thread (the "[No Right Turn icon] with Oncoming Left Turn" sign).

Either way, of course, drivers turning on red are supposed to know they have to stop and yield, though as a general matter I think people seem to have decided that they are "entitled" to turn right on red such that they think that's an ordinary movement, rather than an exception to a red light.

I think, though, that you're ultimately agreeing with my point that "Opposing Dual Left Turns Ahead" in the context seen at the Virginia intersection was not a helpful sign. I'm guessing VDOT might have agreed because the sign was removed. I would argue that the wording was not one the average driver would understand in any event!

[mrsman]

Except the intersection to which I was referring doesn't have dual left turns of the sort your diagram shows.

Well, that's great if you know the layout ahead of time.  A sign warning me of what's ahead, though, assumes I don't already know the layout.  If I saw that sign, I would not interpret as meaning that one left-turning movement and one right-turning movement were in conflict.

It has dual left turns leaving the JCC, dual left turns from westbound 236 to southbound Guinea, and single left turns for the other two left-turn movements; it also has dual right turns from northbound Guinea to eastbound 236.

See below. Sorry about the crummy lines, I'm not good at drawing with a mouse. The traffic turning right following the red lines never has a green at the same time as traffic turning left following the yellow lines. It's the red-line movement that used to have the "Opposing Dual Left Turns Ahead"  sign, and I assume it was intended to warn the right-on-red crowd that they should expect traffic to be coming from across the intersection, not just from the left.

Sorry, I meant the intersection you linked to, which has dual left-turn lanes in all four directions:  https://goo.gl/maps/WfjbHu6pSLpfU8bf7

Ah, I see. Your post quoted the part of my discussion about the intersection in Virginia (near where I grew up, so I'm extremely familiar with it) rather than the reference to the one in Florida, so that's why I thought you were talking about the one in Virginia. My point about the intersection in Florida was simply that I thought the light-up part-time "No Turn on Red" sign that prohibits the movement only when there is turning traffic coming into conflict with the right on red is more effective, and clearer, than the other mock-up sign CtrlAltDel posted further up the thread (the "[No Right Turn icon] with Oncoming Left Turn" sign).

Either way, of course, drivers turning on red are supposed to know they have to stop and yield, though as a general matter I think people seem to have decided that they are "entitled" to turn right on red such that they think that's an ordinary movement, rather than an exception to a red light.

I think, though, that you're ultimately agreeing with my point that "Opposing Dual Left Turns Ahead" in the context seen at the Virginia intersection was not a helpful sign. I'm guessing VDOT might have agreed because the sign was removed. I would argue that the wording was not one the average driver would understand in any event!

Sorry for chiming in late - I'm so behing on General threads.  Anyway, I don't think that the signage at the beginning of the thread is at all useful.  Left turn arrows are common enough that in general circumstances a driver should consider the possibility of a protected left turn opposing their right on red movement.  This is especially true at the intersection of two major streets.

For the situation in Fairfax County with the JCC, I would say it is a little different.  As far as public streets are concerned, this is a T-intersection.  Drivers on Guinea may not be aware of how busy the JCC is or isn't.  Also, a private institution is likely to have certain hours when they are busier than others and again, it may not be obvious to drivers on Guinea that there will be two lanes of opposing traffic making a left turn.

Given the layout, I assume that the Guinea/JCC traffic is split-phased.  If that is the case, it seems like the best solution would be an electronic "no turn on red" sign that comes on when JCC traffic has the green.  This still gives Guinea an opportunity for right on red during the times when 236 has the green and would highlight the unique (and perhaps unexpected) danger when traffic from the JCC has the green and everyone is turning left.

[RobbieL2415]

I feel the sign is too wordy. So, I offer this marginally better alternative:

Too easily interpreted as No Right Turn at all.

(Edited because I failed directions in Kindergarden)

Too wordy, yes. But your's makes little gramattical sense.

A sign telling RTOR traffic to yield to left turns should be a pictogram with the following:

-An intersection with a car in the right lane (or an arrow in front of the car indicating it's going right) with a pictogram of a red light in the bottom left corner.
-A car turning left in front of the car waiting to turn right with a yield pictogram in the top right corner with an arrow pointing at the left-turning car.

[Big John]

I once saw a "blank out" no turn on red sign that would light up when the oncoming left-turn arrow is on.

[1995hoo]

Regarding mrsman's comments in reply #19, take note of the service road that goes to the left at the top of that image. It connects to a nearby neighborhood (where I grew up, actually). There are two ways out of the neighborhood for eastbound traffic (heading to the right in the image above)–you either go west and make a U-turn with no traffic light, or you go up the service road and make a left at the light seen in the image above. So that movement is not solely for the Jewish Community Center–it's for a nearby neighborhood as well. (Once upon a time the U-turn was the only way to head east.) I actually used that service road this past Sunday.

So it's not correct that it's functionally a T-intersection for public street purposes because the service road is also a public street that serves a valid public function.

[SEWIGuy]

Is this actually a problem?  If not, I don't think another sign to clutter up the intersection is necessary.

[Amtrakprod]

There is a traffic conflict when a driver is turning right on red into the same roadway that an oncoming driver is turning left into on a green arrow. I'm pretty sure the right of way belongs to the driver with the arrow, but there probably should be a sign above to denote this. I'm thinking it could look something like this. Thoughts?

Simple, just add a No Turn On Red sign. At least a blank out one. If it's enough of a concern at that signal, then it sounds like rights on red are not appropriate.

Sorry for reactivating this thread!