So just out of curiosity, how many states allow "Right on Red Arrow" movement?
I was just out in Washington state for about two weeks and on several occasions got honked waiting at a light with a right red arrow. Coming from a state that does not allow that movement, I was confused on why people were honking and started thinking about "what the heck are they teaching them in drivers ed?". Come to find out i read online that WA allows for right turn on red arrow.
So here's my question, how are people from out of state supposed to know if the current state they are driving in allows for or doesn't allow this movement? There are no signs posting this movement and it seems counter intuitive to the meaning of a red arrow.
I know Virginia allows it. Left on a red arrow, too, though I haven't encountered that situation. Our statute allowing turns on red doesn't distinguish between a red arrow or a red ball. The instructional booklet the DMV gives people who are learning to drive incorrectly states it's illegal to turn on a red arrow, though.
I think the answer is that if you don't know, you don't go, because after all nothing requires you to turn on red when it's permitted regardless of what sort of light you're facing (arrow or ball). I can think of intersections where turns on red are allowed but where I hardly ever turn on red because I feel something obstructs my view.
This is often talked about and debated on various traffic forums.
If every state listed all their traffic laws on signs, the signs would be 500 feet tall with itty-bitty fonts, or you would have 1 sign every foot for miles on end.
It may seem unusual for you, but obviously not for those that are in the state. Likewise, does your former state have signs stating motorists can't turn on a red arrow?
In NJ, I've only seen right red arrows at an intersection where the only possible movement is to turn right. it's widely assumed motorists can't turn right on a red arrow, but there are no laws with NJ's state statutes specifying such prohibition (in fact, there's no laws pertaining to a red arrow whatsoever; just a red lens). To make it clear, every red right arrow light I've seen is accompanied with a 'No Turn On Red' sign. There was one instance I'm familiar with where right turns were permitted; in that case a sign stating "Right Turns On Red Permitted After Stop" was posted. The intersection was revised and the right turn movement is now controlled via a 'Yield' sign.
Quote from: doogie1303 on May 30, 2016, 09:30:01 AM
So just out of curiosity, how many states allow "Right on Red Arrow" movement?
I was just out in Washington state for about two weeks and on several occasions got honked waiting at a light with a right red arrow. Coming from a state that does not allow that movement, I was confused on why people were honking and started thinking about "what the heck are they teaching them in drivers ed?". Come to find out i read online that WA allows for right turn on red arrow.
So here's my question, how are people from out of state supposed to know if the current state they are driving in allows for or doesn't allow this movement? There are no signs posting this movement and it seems counter intuitive to the meaning of a red arrow.
Washington treats a ball and arrow as the same signal, with the arrow used to reduce the need for extra signs. Washington (along with Oregon and Michigan) allow left-turns from a two way street onto a one way (going left), unless there is a sign to prohibit it. One way streets include freeway/highway onramps. Unfortunately, few people know about this, otherwise, some places might have better traffic movements.
In Oregon there are some cases where it's forbidden by a specific sign: "Right on Green Arrow Only". See here, where it appears twice in the same intersection:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.5182547,-122.6926469,3a,48.5y,224.06h,92.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBrFowWN3R8KQ8kIOV-ND7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.5182547,-122.6926469,3a,48.5y,224.06h,92.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBrFowWN3R8KQ8kIOV-ND7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
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.
Delaware has flashing red arrows for both right and left turns which permit turning after coming to a full stop.
Quote from: mrsman on May 30, 2016, 03:07:28 PM
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.
CT allows it, but if its a dual right turn, turning on red is only allowed from the rightmost lane.
Quote from: mrsman on May 30, 2016, 03:07:28 PM
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.
Technically, the rule is red means stop. Anything else is an exception. Thus, even though 45 states permit lefts on red from a one way to a one way, that is the exception and those 45 states should be the ones requiring such signage. And yes, even though all 50 states permit right turns on red, that is an exception to the otherwise required red means stop.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 30, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
CT allows it, but if its a dual right turn, turning on red is only allowed from the rightmost lane.
That seems so random to me. Wouldn't that result in lop-sided use of both turn lanes, because drivers instinctively go for the right-most turn lane (otherwise, they know they can't go until green)?
Quote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2016, 04:10:46 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 30, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
CT allows it, but if its a dual right turn, turning on red is only allowed from the rightmost lane.
That seems so random to me. Wouldn't that result in lop-sided use of both turn lanes, because drivers instinctively go for the right-most turn lane (otherwise, they know they can't go until green)?
That's how most states work it. Doesn't really seem to be much of an issue.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 30, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
CT allows it, but if its a dual right turn, turning on red is only allowed from the rightmost lane.
Illinois treats a red right arrow and a red ball the same. RTOR is allowed for both unless prohibited by a no turn on red sign. Also, dual right turn lanes can be a mixture. Some are no turn on red, some are right turn on red from right lane only, and some are right turn on red from both lanes.
And example of each:
No Turn On Red - Both Lanes (https://goo.gl/maps/c9jLWXqJTar)
Right Turn On Red From Right Lane Only (https://goo.gl/maps/CzeXHzQaASR2)
Right Turn On Red Allowed From Both Lanes (No Sign) (https://goo.gl/maps/qSScxfECa5v)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 30, 2016, 04:12:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2016, 04:10:46 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 30, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
CT allows it, but if its a dual right turn, turning on red is only allowed from the rightmost lane.
That seems so random to me. Wouldn't that result in lop-sided use of both turn lanes, because drivers instinctively go for the right-most turn lane (otherwise, they know they can't go until green)?
That's how most states work it. Doesn't really seem to be much of an issue.
Still not entirely sure why it's a rule at all. Is it for visibility?
Quote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2016, 04:10:46 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 30, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
CT allows it, but if its a dual right turn, turning on red is only allowed from the rightmost lane.
That seems so random to me. Wouldn't that result in lop-sided use of both turn lanes, because drivers instinctively go for the right-most turn lane (otherwise, they know they can't go until green)?
That's pretty much exactly what happens here. The second lane from the right sees probably 85% less use at most intersections for precisely that reason (and VDOT is religious about signing the restriction).
Quote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2016, 04:37:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 30, 2016, 04:12:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2016, 04:10:46 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 30, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
CT allows it, but if its a dual right turn, turning on red is only allowed from the rightmost lane.
That seems so random to me. Wouldn't that result in lop-sided use of both turn lanes, because drivers instinctively go for the right-most turn lane (otherwise, they know they can't go until green)?
That's how most states work it. Doesn't really seem to be much of an issue.
Still not entirely sure why it's a rule at all. Is it for visibility?
Possibly. It might also be that way to prevent crossover accidents. Not everybody turns right into the rightmost lane.
Quote from: Brandon on May 30, 2016, 04:20:20 PM
Illinois treats a red right arrow and a red ball the same. RTOR is allowed for both unless prohibited by a no turn on red sign. Also, dual right turn lanes can be a mixture. Some are no turn on red, some are right turn on red from right lane only, and some are right turn on red from both lanes.
I think for Illinois there is also some dependence on the IDOT District. For the Chicago District the default seems to be right turn on red from the right lane only but for the Springfield District the default seems to be making both no lanes no turn on red as soon as a dual right is installed.
Also, per the Illinois Supplement to the MUTCD (https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-System/Manuals-Guides-&-Handbooks/Highways/Operations/2009%20ILMUTCD%20-%202014%20update.pdf), if rights on a red arrow are to be prohibited, the sign used is supposed to read 'no turn on red arrow'.
_______________________________________________________________________
As for the original topic, Missouri supposedly allows rights on red arrows unless signed otherwise.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 30, 2016, 08:20:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2016, 04:37:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 30, 2016, 04:12:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2016, 04:10:46 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 30, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
CT allows it, but if its a dual right turn, turning on red is only allowed from the rightmost lane.
That seems so random to me. Wouldn't that result in lop-sided use of both turn lanes, because drivers instinctively go for the right-most turn lane (otherwise, they know they can't go until green)?
That's how most states work it. Doesn't really seem to be much of an issue.
Still not entirely sure why it's a rule at all. Is it for visibility?
Possibly. It might also be that way to prevent crossover accidents. Not everybody turns right into the rightmost lane.
As valid as that concern may be, wouldn't it also be true for right turns on green arrows as well? If people are going to turn into the wrong lane, they're going to do it regardless of the light color, and I know I routinely see people cutting across even when there's someone turning from an adjacent lane on a green light.
Nevada Revised Statutes does not outlaw right turns on a red arrow–the RTOR law makes only makes mention of a steady red signal indication and doesn't specifically address red arrows. However, in practice, red arrows are typically only used at locations with dual dedicated right turn lanes and are accompanied with "No turn on red" signs that effectively outlaw a RTOR maneuver. I can only think of one signalized right turn location in the state which doesn't outlaw the RTOR, and it's on a single right turn lane here in Reno (WB Peckham Ln at Kietzke Ln) that uses a circular red but green and yellow arrows.
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.
Quote from: roadfro on May 31, 2016, 01:12:11 AM
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!
Quote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2016, 04:37:46 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 30, 2016, 04:12:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2016, 04:10:46 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 30, 2016, 04:02:33 PM
CT allows it, but if its a dual right turn, turning on red is only allowed from the rightmost lane.
That seems so random to me. Wouldn't that result in lop-sided use of both turn lanes, because drivers instinctively go for the right-most turn lane (otherwise, they know they can't go until green)?
That's how most states work it. Doesn't really seem to be much of an issue.
Still not entirely sure why it's a rule at all. Is it for visibility?
I could also see a reasoning that the right-hand lane is also the slow lane, so when motorists turn right on red from the right lane only they are entering the slow lane (assuming they enter the correct lane). This allows motorists in the cross street thru right lane a chance to merge over if needbe.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 31, 2016, 06:22:58 AM
I could also see a reasoning that the right-hand lane is also the slow lane, so when motorists turn right on red from the right lane only they are entering the slow lane (assuming they enter the correct lane). This allows motorists in the cross street thru right lane a chance to merge over if needbe.
Good theory, but I think it's a little pensive (no offence or anything).
There is only one right turn (https://goo.gl/9XoTeg) I can think of around me (with two or more lanes) that has a restriction on which lanes can turn right (the rest either permit all lanes to turn, or none -- this includes all of the intersections that I'm familiar with in BC). In this case, lane 1 cannot turn right, but lanes 2 and 3 can:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fn5evnWJ.png&hash=25d23b103af9e5f75082d356acfe0a8ce5308894)
I have no idea whether or not Kentucky allows a right turn on a red arrow. If it doesn't then I am a frequent violator, as I make no distinction between a red ball and a red arrow when driving.
I also will always make a right turn on red from a turn lane that is NOT the rightmost unless a sign specifically prohibits it. I do this frequently on the ramp from southbound I-75 to US 60 in Lexington, as my usual next movement is a left turn into the Walmart at that location.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 31, 2016, 01:48:53 PM
... 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?
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 31, 2016, 02:15:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 31, 2016, 01:48:53 PM
... 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?
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:
QuoteAt 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.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 31, 2016, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 31, 2016, 02:15:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 31, 2016, 01:48:53 PM
... 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 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.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 31, 2016, 03:59:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 31, 2016, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 31, 2016, 02:15:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 31, 2016, 01:48:53 PM
... 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.
Quote from: Ace10 on May 31, 2016, 03:45:38 AM
Quote from: roadfro on May 31, 2016, 01:12:11 AM
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.
Quote from: vdeane on May 31, 2016, 08:55:23 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7527254,-73.7678046,3a,51y,314.01h,80.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_ngEZ9ShYMszqNVOLhIcng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and one heading to the SB side only guard crosswalks, not turning red for any other reason.
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.
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.
Quote from: cl94 on May 31, 2016, 05:31:41 PM
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.
Quote from: cl94 on May 31, 2016, 05:31:41 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on May 30, 2016, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 30, 2016, 03:07:28 PM
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.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 31, 2016, 10:20:58 PM
Quote from: cl94 on May 31, 2016, 05:31:41 PM
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.
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2016, 05:58:38 AM
Quote from: cl94 on May 31, 2016, 05:31:41 PM
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):
QuoteTraffic, 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:
Quote
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).
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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: roadman on June 01, 2016, 12:20:29 PM
QuoteI 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.
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.
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!
Quote from: cl94 on June 01, 2016, 12:28:45 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 01, 2016, 01:50:59 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 01, 2016, 12:28:45 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 01, 2016, 01:10:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on June 01, 2016, 01:57:15 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 01, 2016, 01:10:44 PM
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.
Quote from: cl94 on June 01, 2016, 01:53:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 01, 2016, 01:50:59 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 01, 2016, 12:28:45 PM
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.
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.
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
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 31, 2016, 02:15:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 31, 2016, 01:48:53 PM
... 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?
If turning from a one-way street to another one-way street where such turns are legal, then yes. I know that left turns on red from one one-way street onto another is legal in Kentucky, I am unsure about other states.
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
I care that the rule should be the same across the USA, with clearly signed exceptions if warranted. If the national rule is NTOR arrow, then provide a flahsing red arrow or a sign (RT permitted after stop) where the turn should be permitted. If the national rule is RTOR permitted at red arrow, then sign a NTOR sign where it is not permitted.
Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule. Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign. And it's easier for drivers to remember.
Quote from: roadman on June 03, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
I care that the rule should be the same across the USA, with clearly signed exceptions if warranted. If the national rule is NTOR arrow, then provide a flahsing red arrow or a sign (RT permitted after stop) where the turn should be permitted. If the national rule is RTOR permitted at red arrow, then sign a NTOR sign where it is not permitted.
Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule. Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign. And it's easier for drivers to remember.
If that's the rule used, you might as well remove right red arrows (and left on a one way) from the MUTCD. There will be no reason to ever post them any more. I would find it to be more confusing if turning right on red was allowed at some red arrows and not others.
IMO the states that allow right turns on red arrows are doing it wrong.
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2016, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 03, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
I care that the rule should be the same across the USA, with clearly signed exceptions if warranted. If the national rule is NTOR arrow, then provide a flahsing red arrow or a sign (RT permitted after stop) where the turn should be permitted. If the national rule is RTOR permitted at red arrow, then sign a NTOR sign where it is not permitted.
Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule. Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign. And it's easier for drivers to remember.
If that's the rule used, you might as well remove right red arrows (and left on a one way) from the MUTCD. There will be no reason to ever post them any more. I would find it to be more confusing if turning right on red was allowed at some red arrows and not others.
IMO the states that allow right turns on red arrows are doing it wrong.
Beaverton, OR has found a way around that. They simply put independently operated ball signals for right turn lanes, alongside ball lights for through traffic and an arrow light for left turn. Examples:
https://goo.gl/maps/Vnqx4Puuq422 (https://goo.gl/maps/Vnqx4Puuq422)
https://goo.gl/maps/A1jpeNQtzCH2 (https://goo.gl/maps/A1jpeNQtzCH2)
Of course, it might be a bit confusing with the lack of green arrow, but at the very least it resolves the right on red arrow problem.
What's wrong with using a red ball with green and yellow arrows? That's what NY does for right turn lanes. We also have a few right turn doghouses as well.
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2016, 01:15:37 PM
What's wrong with using a red ball with green and yellow arrows? That's what NY does for right turn lanes. We also have a few right turn doghouses as well.
That's what the province of BC does, on the rare occasion it puts up right turn signals. Well, they use a yellow ball, but same idea.
Oregon used to do the same, but the two ball lenses were 6" while the arrow lens was 12", but that died out 15-20 years ago, and I think I only ever saw that for left turn signals.
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2016, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 03, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
I care that the rule should be the same across the USA, with clearly signed exceptions if warranted. If the national rule is NTOR arrow, then provide a flahsing red arrow or a sign (RT permitted after stop) where the turn should be permitted. If the national rule is RTOR permitted at red arrow, then sign a NTOR sign where it is not permitted.
Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule. Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign. And it's easier for drivers to remember.
If that's the rule used, you might as well remove right red arrows (and left on a one way) from the MUTCD. There will be no reason to ever post them any more. I would find it to be more confusing if turning right on red was allowed at some red arrows and not others.
What if you're using a right-facing FYA, for when the crosswalk signal is on? Generally, FYA's do not use red orbs (not any of the ones I've ever seen). Banning right-turns-on-red-arrows would put a blanket ban on right turns w/ FYAs. This isn't a common setup, granted, but I'm seeing it more and more in my area.
IMO, most intersections should permit right turns on red. Just because an arrow is used shouldn't ban the right turn...the signal and the movement don't have any thing to do with one another.
I know I'll be in the minority, but I think right on red should be illegal. IMO you should only be allowed to go if there is a green light or if there is a flashing yellow arrow.
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2016, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 03, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 01, 2016, 04:03:46 PM
I care that the rule should be the same across the USA, with clearly signed exceptions if warranted. If the national rule is NTOR arrow, then provide a flahsing red arrow or a sign (RT permitted after stop) where the turn should be permitted. If the national rule is RTOR permitted at red arrow, then sign a NTOR sign where it is not permitted.
Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule. Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign. And it's easier for drivers to remember.
If that's the rule used, you might as well remove right red arrows (and left on a one way) from the MUTCD. There will be no reason to ever post them any more. I would find it to be more confusing if turning right on red was allowed at some red arrows and not others.
IMO the states that allow right turns on red arrows are doing it wrong.
Agreed.
Quote from: opspe on June 03, 2016, 01:11:13 PM
Beaverton, OR has found a way around that. They simply put independently operated ball signals for right turn lanes, alongside ball lights for through traffic and an arrow light for left turn. Examples:
https://goo.gl/maps/Vnqx4Puuq422 (https://goo.gl/maps/Vnqx4Puuq422)
https://goo.gl/maps/A1jpeNQtzCH2 (https://goo.gl/maps/A1jpeNQtzCH2)
Of course, it might be a bit confusing with the lack of green arrow, but at the very least it resolves the right on red arrow problem.
Beaverton is doing it wrong, at least according to the 2009 MUTCD. (Section 4D.22 para 02. Standard: "If a separate right-turn signal face is being operated in a permissive only right-turn mode, a CIRCULAR GREEN signal indication shall not be used in that face.")
These examples show a dedicated right turn lane with separate signal face. Using a green ball for the right turn signal head indicates a purely permissive right turn movement. So the proper application is a FYA signal.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2016, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2016, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: roadman on June 03, 2016, 10:11:31 AM
Having RTOR at red arrow unless there's a sign IMO is the most logical national rule. Because it's consistent with the RTOR rule for a red ball - permitted unless there's a sign. And it's easier for drivers to remember.
If that's the rule used, you might as well remove right red arrows (and left on a one way) from the MUTCD. There will be no reason to ever post them any more. I would find it to be more confusing if turning right on red was allowed at some red arrows and not others.
What if you're using a right-facing FYA, for when the crosswalk signal is on? Generally, FYA's do not use red orbs (not any of the ones I've ever seen). Banning right-turns-on-red-arrows would put a blanket ban on right turns w/ FYAs. This isn't a common setup, granted, but I'm seeing it more and more in my area.
IMO, most intersections should permit right turns on red. Just because an arrow is used shouldn't ban the right turn...the signal and the movement don't have any thing to do with one another.
I agree that most intersections should permit RTOR, but disagree about the arrows. But more importantly, I believe right red arrows should not be used when there is not a need to prohibit RTOR.
Note that the MUTCD does allow the use of either a red arrow or circular red in a right turn FYA display. If the red arrow is used, a sign can be used to permit RTOR after stop. If the circular red is used, and it is sometimes displayed when adjacent through vehicles have a green, the red indication must be louvered/visibility limited/shielded from through lanes (unless a "Right turn signal" sign is used).
Quote from: roadfro on June 03, 2016, 09:36:11 PM
I agree that most intersections should permit RTOR, but disagree about the arrows. But more importantly, I believe right red arrows should not be used when there is not a need to prohibit RTOR.
I agree on your second point, but...
Quote from: roadfro on June 03, 2016, 09:36:11 PM
Note that the MUTCD does allow the use of either a red arrow or circular red in a right turn FYA display. If the red arrow is used, a sign can be used to permit RTOR after stop. If the circular red is used, and it is sometimes displayed when adjacent through vehicles have a green, the red indication must be louvered/visibility limited/shielded from through lanes (unless a "Right turn signal" sign is used).
...if we have to result to using louvres or "right turn signal" signs, aren't we sort of taking a step backwards?
At least around here, there seems to be a growing number of red right arrows (less channelized right turns has resulted in many right-turn-only lanes). If the ability to turn right against red arrows is outlawed, we're gonna end up littering our intersections with "right turn okay after stop" signs.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2016, 10:16:36 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 03, 2016, 09:36:11 PM
Note that the MUTCD does allow the use of either a red arrow or circular red in a right turn FYA display. If the red arrow is used, a sign can be used to permit RTOR after stop. If the circular red is used, and it is sometimes displayed when adjacent through vehicles have a green, the red indication must be louvered/visibility limited/shielded from through lanes (unless a "Right turn signal" sign is used).
...if we have to result to using louvres or "right turn signal" signs, aren't we sort of taking a step backwards?
At least around here, there seems to be a growing number of red right arrows (less channelized right turns has resulted in many right-turn-only lanes). If the ability to turn right against red arrows is outlawed, we're gonna end up littering our intersections with "right turn okay after stop" signs.
Then use a red ball. There is no situation without NTOR where a right turn lane cannot go at the same time as the straight lane.
Quote from: cl94 on June 03, 2016, 10:36:37 PM
Then use a red ball. There is no situation without NTOR where a right turn lane cannot go at the same time as the straight lane.
Probably only theoretical: You could get a case where the through lanes go green but the right turn lane keeps the circular red for a couple more seconds due to an adjacent crosswalk. It would be a more efficient leading ped interval.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2016, 10:16:36 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 03, 2016, 09:36:11 PM
I agree that most intersections should permit RTOR, but disagree about the arrows. But more importantly, I believe right red arrows should not be used when there is not a need to prohibit RTOR.
I agree on your second point, but...
Quote from: roadfro on June 03, 2016, 09:36:11 PM
Note that the MUTCD does allow the use of either a red arrow or circular red in a right turn FYA display. If the red arrow is used, a sign can be used to permit RTOR after stop. If the circular red is used, and it is sometimes displayed when adjacent through vehicles have a green, the red indication must be louvered/visibility limited/shielded from through lanes (unless a "Right turn signal" sign is used).
...if we have to result to using louvres or "right turn signal" signs, aren't we sort of taking a step backwards?
At least around here, there seems to be a growing number of red right arrows (less channelized right turns has resulted in many right-turn-only lanes). If the ability to turn right against red arrows is outlawed, we're gonna end up littering our intersections with "right turn okay after stop" signs.
Yet another option I didn't mention in my previous post is that the MUTCD also allows for a different protected/permitted right turn display, which is an all arrow signal that has both steady and flashing red arrows. It has a couple variants. But it allows for permissive RTOR on flashing red arrow after stop, and no signs/louvers required. (One variant allows the steady red arrow to be a circular red instead, but that makes it subject to the sign/louver.)
However, this display employs a green arrow section meant for protected movements...which I guess would never have to display if you just wanted a permitted lane. Theoretically, that could probably be replaced by a flashing yellow arrow, but the MUTCD doesn't have any provision for that...
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 03, 2016, 11:02:12 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 03, 2016, 10:36:37 PM
Then use a red ball. There is no situation without NTOR where a right turn lane cannot go at the same time as the straight lane.
Probably only theoretical: You could get a case where the through lanes go green but the right turn lane keeps the circular red for a couple more seconds due to an adjacent crosswalk. It would be a more efficient leading ped interval.
My thought as well. Case in point: right-facing flashing yellow arrows, which normally use a red arrow as the top-most signal face. You could use an orb for the top signal, but, as you've brought up, you can't operate the signal separately from the through lanes (any time the through lanes had a green, the FYA would have to display either a flashing yellow or green arrow, otherwise you'd have green and red orbs mismatching). Seeing as the leading ped interval has gained popularity, I'd rather see FYA's stick to using a four-arrow setup.
Of course, none of this matters if you permit right turns on red arrows, which I still feel is okay. I cannot think of any situation where "no right turn on red" signs wouldn't do the job more effectively. Not permitting right turns on red arrows has, evidently, come down more to a matter of principle, which is a silly argument IMHO.
Quote from: roadfro on June 04, 2016, 12:13:01 AM
Yet another option I didn't mention in my previous post is that the MUTCD also allows for a different protected/permitted right turn display, which is an all arrow signal that has both steady and flashing red arrows. It has a couple variants. But it allows for permissive RTOR on flashing red arrow after stop, and no signs/louvers required. (One variant allows the steady red arrow to be a circular red instead, but that makes it subject to the sign/louver.)
However, this display employs a green arrow section meant for protected movements...which I guess would never have to display if you just wanted a permitted lane. Theoretically, that could probably be replaced by a flashing yellow arrow, but the MUTCD doesn't have any provision for that...
At what point would the flashing red arrow become a steady red arrow, and vice-versa? Leading ped interval?
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2016, 12:20:37 AM
Of course, none of this matters if you permit right turns on red arrows, which I still feel is okay.
So if you were to encounter an intersection with signals set up like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fturns_on_redArrow.png&hash=d79db61fd449eff6e13bf6cd8261523b781f8d0c)
You would treat Signal A (left red arrow) as a normal signal and would wait for the green arrow *but* treat Signal B (right red arrow) as essentially a stop sign where you would make your turn after coming to a stop first? That would mean a red arrow would have two different meanings depending on which way it's pointing which, to me, is very confusing. A red arrow should have the same meaning regardless of which direction it's pointing.
Here's a red right arrow in Lafayette at the corner of the new US 231 / Sagamore Pkwy intersection. It has a sign that permits you to make a right on red. I think that should be the standard if you are allowed to make a right turn on a red arrow.
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13342943_275751749434862_8427033455074510983_n.jpg?oh=f7f5b6712742e6572f6faaf718308085&oe=57C4F923)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 30, 2016, 11:36:09 AM
If every state listed all their traffic laws on signs, the signs would be 500 feet tall with itty-bitty fonts, or you would have 1 sign every foot for miles on end.
Of all the times for there not to be an easily-findable photo online of the New Jersey Turnpike fine-print regulations one is presumably assumed to have consented to by passing the illegible sign.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 04, 2016, 04:26:18 AM
So if you were to encounter an intersection with signals set up like...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2Fturns_on_redArrow.png&hash=d79db61fd449eff6e13bf6cd8261523b781f8d0c)
I would first be grumbling about the agency in charge of that signal failing to meet the MUTCD requirement for having two primary heads for the through movement. :)
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 04, 2016, 04:26:18 AMYou would treat Signal A (left red arrow) as a normal signal and would wait for the green arrow *but* treat Signal B (right red arrow) as essentially a stop sign where you would make your turn after coming to a stop first? That would mean a red arrow would have two different meanings depending on which way it's pointing which, to me, is very confusing. A red arrow should have the same meaning regardless of which direction it's pointing.
An easy fix would be to just have the red arrow for the right turn movement be flashing the whole time it is displayed.
We can already get into multiple meanings for similar indications anyway with flashing yellow arrows. If used for a left turn a flashing yellow arrow means yield, but if used for a right turn with no pedestrian conflict (since using a steady green arrow would be wrong if the opposing left turn is permitted) it is not really a yield indication.
Hell, we can have the same argument for full round red lights. At a normal + intersection, traffic going straight and turning left isn't permitted to move. Traffic turning right is permitted to turn.
The main reason why arrows are used is because the traffic light is over the lane where the only permitted movement is shown via the arrows.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 04, 2016, 04:26:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2016, 12:20:37 AM
Of course, none of this matters if you permit right turns on red arrows, which I still feel is okay.
So if you were to encounter an intersection with signals set up like...
http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/turns_on_redArrow.png
You would treat Signal A (left red arrow) as a normal signal and would wait for the green arrow *but* treat Signal B (right red arrow) as essentially a stop sign where you would make your turn after coming to a stop first? That would mean a red arrow would have two different meanings depending on which way it's pointing which, to me, is very confusing. A red arrow should have the same meaning regardless of which direction it's pointing.
I've just decided to make a video demonstrating exactly how I treat red arrows here in Washington State. As you can see in the video, the only time I wait for the green is when I'm turning left onto a two-way street:
https://youtu.be/2Qa7vD0_TkY
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 03, 2016, 11:02:12 PM
You could get a case where the through lanes go green but the right turn lane keeps the circular red for a couple more seconds due to an adjacent crosswalk. It would be a more efficient leading ped interval.
This issue has not been sufficiently dealt with in the thread thus far, in my opinion. A specific example was even identified up-thread, but I see no resolution from the "ban it" crowd. The possibility exists for the straight-through movement to receive a green light but the right-turn movement to receive a red light.
Imagine, if you will, that you're on a one-way street approaching a two-way cross street. Your light is red, while cross traffic completes its green cycle. Pedestrians going straight across have pressed the crosswalk button. When it's time for your direction of travel to get the green, the pedestrians also get a WALK indication. If there is a lot of pedestrian traffic at this location, it might be prudent to display a red indication for right-turning traffic only, in order to prevent pedestrian injuries from drivers failing to yield. This is why there is need for a red right-turn arrow. Without permitting RTORArrow, however, drivers facing such a signal would not be allowed to turn right on red even after all pedestrians clear, which is not optimal either (unless you're US 41).
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 03, 2016, 11:02:12 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 03, 2016, 10:36:37 PM
Then use a red ball. There is no situation without NTOR where a right turn lane cannot go at the same time as the straight lane.
Probably only theoretical: You could get a case where the through lanes go green but the right turn lane keeps the circular red for a couple more seconds due to an adjacent crosswalk. It would be a more efficient leading ped interval.
That's what happens at the intersection shown in the Street View link below. There aren't any Street View images showing it, but the straight-ahead traffic coming from the camera's viewpoint gets a green circular light while the right-turning traffic retains the red arrow. The sign across the way says "Turn Right on Green -> Only." The green arrow comes on partway through the cycle. As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, the problem is that the pedestrians refuse to obey the "Don't Walk" sign that comes on, making it very difficult to make the right turn legally.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9034814,-77.0416909,3a,75y,15.28h,74.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWbpHB_00-m_P4ArcPhWyWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
The opposite scenario happens at the other intersection I mentioned earlier in the thread (seen below), where the red arrow comes on partway through and two signs say "Right Turn on Green Arrow Only." The problem there is drivers refusing to obey the red arrow, coupled with people turning out of whichever lane they like (in the image linked below, if you click ahead you'll see the bus illegally turning right out of the lane that's supposed to remain on the circle). I almost got hit twice yesterday, once in the morning walking to work and once in the afternoon walking back, at a different light on that circle, both times by people running red lights when I had a "Walk" sign. I hate driving through there so much that I use alternate routes if I have to drive in that area.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9020737,-77.0505014,3a,75y,95.42h,70.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6IV2MXsU6bsryIIFHgPN0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2016, 03:26:46 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 03, 2016, 11:02:12 PM
You could get a case where the through lanes go green but the right turn lane keeps the circular red for a couple more seconds due to an adjacent crosswalk. It would be a more efficient leading ped interval.
This issue has not been sufficiently dealt with in the thread thus far, in my opinion. A specific example was even identified up-thread, but I see no resolution from the "ban it" crowd. The possibility exists for the straight-through movement to receive a green light but the right-turn movement to receive a red light.
Imagine, if you will, that you're on a one-way street approaching a two-way cross street. Your light is red, while cross traffic completes its green cycle. Pedestrians going straight across have pressed the crosswalk button. When it's time for your direction of travel to get the green, the pedestrians also get a WALK indication. If there is a lot of pedestrian traffic at this location, it might be prudent to display a red indication for right-turning traffic only, in order to prevent pedestrian injuries from drivers failing to yield. This is why there is need for a red right-turn arrow. Without permitting RTORArrow, however, drivers facing such a signal would not be allowed to turn right on red even after all pedestrians clear, which is not optimal either (unless you're US 41).
That probably wouldn't happen in California. In most cases, the green light and the WALK indication would come on at the same time and it would be the driver's responsibility to notice the pedestrians and wait until they clear. I know that's not ideal as the possibility of an auto-ped collision does increase with this setup.
In some cases, a R-Y-G-YRtArrow-GRtArrow 5-section signal is installed low on both the far and near side of the intersection. When the through movement gets a green ball, the special signal displays both a green ball and a green right arrow while holding pedestrians with a DON'T WALK indication. Pedestrians get the WALK indication after the protected right turn time has elapsed (the special signal would only display a green ball). There is such a signal on westbound Hamilton Avenue at it's intersection with Winchester Blvd in Campbell, CA (https://goo.gl/maps/JjV6c9rp9iS2).
Was just reading the Pennsylvania Driver's Manual to see if they added flashing yellow arrows (they did). They also changed the wording about red arrows (which used to just say it was uncommon in PA and that you could not turn where the arrow pointed). The text seems to imply that a turn on a red arrow is permitted in PA if the same turn would be permitted on a red ball (absent a "No Turn on Red" sign).
QuoteThe same turns-on-red that are allowed for a steady red signal are allowed for a steady red arrow.
Apologies for bumping this thread, but I stumbled upon a well-written paragraph that explains the use of left/right-on-red with an arrow, and it reminded me of this discussion. It comes from Rick Perez, P.E., the city traffic engineer for Federal Way, WA.
Quote
The purpose of the arrow is to communicate that the signal head applies to the movement, not to negate the ability to make an otherwise legal turn on red. Putting ball indications would merely require us to put explanatory signing next to the signal explaining that the head was for a left or right turn only, not the through movement. This is far less intuitive than an arrow, and requires more time for the driver to process the information.
Any thoughts?
I appreciate the reasoning. However...
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD, Section 4D.04
C. Steady red signal indications shall have the following meanings:
2. Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed.
When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.
Quote from: roadfro on November 25, 2016, 02:51:00 AM
I appreciate the reasoning. However...
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD, Section 4D.04
[Redacted]
I thought traffic laws were determined by the individual states, not the MUTCD?
Quote from: roadfro on November 25, 2016, 02:51:00 AM
I appreciate the reasoning. However...
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD, Section 4D.04
C. Steady red signal indications shall have the following meanings:
2. Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed.
When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.
One should read the bolded part. Just like a red ball for RTOR, no different. Those "devices" also include laws making the red ball and red arrow the same.
Quote from: Brandon on November 25, 2016, 11:19:47 AM
Quote from: roadfro on November 25, 2016, 02:51:00 AM
I appreciate the reasoning. However...
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD, Section 4D.04
C. Steady red signal indications shall have the following meanings:
2. Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed.
When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.
One should read the bolded part. Just like a red ball for RTOR, no different. Those "devices" also include laws making the red ball and red arrow the same.
The device is either:
A) A law permitting a right turn on red arrow after a full stop
B) Signage indicating right turn on red arrow after a full stop
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2016, 11:35:08 AM
Quote from: Brandon on November 25, 2016, 11:19:47 AM
Quote from: roadfro on November 25, 2016, 02:51:00 AM
I appreciate the reasoning. However...
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD, Section 4D.04
C. Steady red signal indications shall have the following meanings:
2. Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed.
When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.
One should read the bolded part. Just like a red ball for RTOR, no different. Those "devices" also include laws making the red ball and red arrow the same.
The device is either:
A) A law permitting a right turn on red arrow after a full stop
B) Signage indicating right turn on red arrow after a full stop
The MUTCD defines 'traffic control device' as "a sign, signal, marking or other other device used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street, highway, private road open to public travel, pedestrian facility, or shared-use path by authority of a public agency or official having jurisdiction..." A law is not a traffic control device.
In the eyes of the MUTCD, placing a sign such as "Right on red arrow after stop" (R10-17a) would make the RTOR permissible.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2016, 08:35:30 AM
I thought traffic laws were determined by the individual states, not the MUTCD?
I was reacting to the quote from Rick Perez, which stated in part "The purpose of the arrow is to communicate that the signal head applies to the movement, not to negate the ability to make an otherwise legal turn on red." Me quoting the MUTCD's definition of a steady red arrow was meant to refute that statement about the meaning of the red arrow, given the definition of the red arrow from the national manual that defines uniform meaning and purpose of traffic control devices.
It has been discussed on this forum, and likely in this particular thread, that the meaning of traffic control devices as described in the national MUTCD and meanings prescribed in the states' traffic laws do not always match up.
Personally, I do not like right turn on red arrow–mainly, because I like having the uniform definitions as presented by MUTCD. I will note that in Nevada, a RTORA is not explicitly illegal in state law (the NRS gives a legal definition of steady red without distinguishing between circular red or red arrow indications). With that said, you'll be hard pressed to find many instances in Nevada where a signal displaying a right red arrow is not accompanied by a "No turn on red" sign (I can only think of one such instance), so RTORA is almost
de facto illegal. However, I recognize that many states do allow RTORA, and that my view on the matter is likely in the minority on this board.
Personally, I don't see what the point of having a red arrow pointed right if you're not prohibiting right on red. Heck, right turn signals are quire rare in NY outside of exit ramps (especially since we were doghouse territory until recently). It would seem to me that this would be more of an issue in states that permit left on red from a two-way street.
Quote from: vdeane on November 26, 2016, 08:37:36 PM
Personally, I don't see what the point of having a red arrow pointed right if you're not prohibiting right on red. Heck, right turn signals are quire rare in NY outside of exit ramps (especially since we were doghouse territory until recently).
Matter of preference by the local agency. States that don't permit right on red arrows are more likely to use 5-section signals when an exclusive turn lane exists (lest there are multiple right turn lanes). States that
do permit right on red arrows might be more apt to use three- or four-head turn signals in place of a 5-section signal, to avoid littering intersections with R3-5 signs (a point alluded to by Rick Perez in my post up-thread).
In the interest of accuracy since the thread was revived, I should note the Virginia statute noted below was amended and right on red arrow is no longer legal here.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 30, 2016, 10:28:01 AM
I know Virginia allows it. Left on a red arrow, too, though I haven't encountered that situation. Our statute allowing turns on red doesn't distinguish between a red arrow or a red ball. The instructional booklet the DMV gives people who are learning to drive incorrectly states it's illegal to turn on a red arrow, though.
I think the answer is that if you don't know, you don't go, because after all nothing requires you to turn on red when it's permitted regardless of what sort of light you're facing (arrow or ball). I can think of intersections where turns on red are allowed but where I hardly ever turn on red because I feel something obstructs my view.
No turn on red arrow? Then you're gonna end up with weird things like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5987052,-116.1872001,3a,24.2y,39.71h,94.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szJpdD4Vsr7w2GOE2yIhGJQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DzJpdD4Vsr7w2GOE2yIhGJQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D107.096405%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5987052,-116.1872001,3a,24.2y,39.71h,94.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szJpdD4Vsr7w2GOE2yIhGJQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DzJpdD4Vsr7w2GOE2yIhGJQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D107.096405%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1)
This is in Boise, Idaho. The right turn on red is prohibited from the center lane, but permitted from the right lane. Idaho does not permit turns on red arrows, so the signal in the middle has a red arrow, while the signal to the right of that one has a ball.
I've grown up and lived in states that permit turns on red arrows, so I'm used to an all-arrow signal meaning "this signal is strictly for a lane that turns, and may show a different color/indication than other signals". This is partly why I have a distaste for doghouse and 5-section mixed (arrow and ball) signals and prefer 4-section arrow-only signals. That way, I know what signal to look at depending on what I'm doing - if I'm going straight, I look for the ball signal; if I'm going left or right, I'll look for a signal with arrows pointing in that direction. If other signals change, it doesn't matter - I will know which one corresponds to my movement.
(Of course in lanes that have shared movements, like a two-lane road where left-turning traffic shares a lane with through traffic, the above obviously doesn't apply).
I've probably said this before in this (or another) thread but I'll say it again here: I believe the MUTCD also specifies what a flashing red arrow means - stop, and proceed when clear. So how about we use a solid red arrow to mean no turn on red, and a flashing red arrow to mean turn permitted after stopping and yielding to traffic and pedestrians? We could have the same set of rules for the whole country instead of a patchwork of states that allow the turn on red arrow and those that don't. When people cross state lines (like from Oregon/Washington to Idaho) they don't have to keep in mind that they can turn on red arrows in OR/WA but not in ID. If the arrows flash, they know that they can make the turn; if they're solid, they know that they have to wait. And in states that usually permit turns on red arrows, if there's ever a case where turns on red need to be prohibited (such as cross traffic being able to make protected U-turns, or a railroad-preempted signal) they can just make the arrow solid instead of flashing without needing a separately-lit "no turn on red" sign.
There's one application I'd like to see a red right arrow, with a No Turn On Red Arrow law.
Sometimes you see a sign assembly like:
NO
TURN
ON RED
●
7AM—9:30AM
3:30PM—6:00PM
MON—FRI
Sometimes, the plaque listing the times is small, far away, and hard to read, and some drivers might not have an accurate clock handy.
I think it would be more convenient to have a red arrow next to the red ball, with a timer that activates the arrow at the appropriate times. It could be supplemented with
NO TURN
ON RED
ARROW
→
Such a display would be clear and unambiguous.
Quote from: Ace10 on November 26, 2016, 10:22:58 PM
No turn on red arrow? Then you're gonna end up with weird things like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5987052,-116.1872001,3a,24.2y,39.71h,94.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szJpdD4Vsr7w2GOE2yIhGJQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DzJpdD4Vsr7w2GOE2yIhGJQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D107.096405%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5987052,-116.1872001,3a,24.2y,39.71h,94.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szJpdD4Vsr7w2GOE2yIhGJQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DzJpdD4Vsr7w2GOE2yIhGJQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D107.096405%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1)
This is in Boise, Idaho. The right turn on red is prohibited from the center lane, but permitted from the right lane. Idaho does not permit turns on red arrows, so the signal in the middle has a red arrow, while the signal to the right of that one has a ball.
I've grown up and lived in states that permit turns on red arrows, so I'm used to an all-arrow signal meaning "this signal is strictly for a lane that turns, and may show a different color/indication than other signals". This is partly why I have a distaste for doghouse and 5-section mixed (arrow and ball) signals and prefer 4-section arrow-only signals. That way, I know what signal to look at depending on what I'm doing - if I'm going straight, I look for the ball signal; if I'm going left or right, I'll look for a signal with arrows pointing in that direction. If other signals change, it doesn't matter - I will know which one corresponds to my movement.
(Of course in lanes that have shared movements, like a two-lane road where left-turning traffic shares a lane with through traffic, the above obviously doesn't apply).
I've probably said this before in this (or another) thread but I'll say it again here: I believe the MUTCD also specifies what a flashing red arrow means - stop, and proceed when clear. So how about we use a solid red arrow to mean no turn on red, and a flashing red arrow to mean turn permitted after stopping and yielding to traffic and pedestrians? We could have the same set of rules for the whole country instead of a patchwork of states that allow the turn on red arrow and those that don't. When people cross state lines (like from Oregon/Washington to Idaho) they don't have to keep in mind that they can turn on red arrows in OR/WA but not in ID. If the arrows flash, they know that they can make the turn; if they're solid, they know that they have to wait. And in states that usually permit turns on red arrows, if there's ever a case where turns on red need to be prohibited (such as cross traffic being able to make protected U-turns, or a railroad-preempted signal) they can just make the arrow solid instead of flashing without needing a separately-lit "no turn on red" sign.
Or they could do something normal such as allowing right on red from both lanes or prohibiting it from both lanes.
Heh. I view right on red from the right lane only as being the "normal" way because VDOT is absolutely obsessed with prohibiting it from any lane other than the curb lane (although, oddly, I've never seen the same signage applying to lefts on red, and off the top of my head I can think of two intersections where left on red is legal and there are two turn lanes). The prohibition is so routine that around here there's almost always a longer line in the rightmost turn lane if there are multiple turn lanes.
The only time I will NOT turn right on red from the innermost of two right turn lanes is if a sign prohibits it. I do this most frequently at the off-ramp from I-75 south to US 60 at Lexington. The right lane becomes a "must turn right" at the next light, and I'm usually turning left at that signal to go to Walmart.
Similarly, I always turn right on a red arrow unless a sign prohibits it.
Jefferson Ave
https://goo.gl/maps/v2CiJQnMvoq
Technically turning any direction on a red arrow is prohibited... however, so many people don't realize this and so many states have poorly enforce this rule that it's often ignored
Quote from: plain on November 28, 2016, 12:05:00 PM
Jefferson Ave
https://goo.gl/maps/v2CiJQnMvoq
Technically turning any direction on a red arrow is prohibited... however, so many people don't realize this and so many states have poorly enforce this rule that it's often ignored
That's not accurate. In many states, a red arrow is defined the same as a red ball.
Quote from: plain on November 28, 2016, 12:05:00 PM
Jefferson Ave
https://goo.gl/maps/v2CiJQnMvoq
Technically turning any direction on a red arrow is prohibited... however, so many people don't realize this and so many states have poorly enforce this rule that it's often ignored
If you go back in time to older streetview images you can see when the right turn signals were originally added, both signals had red arrows.
Quote from: JMAN12343610 on November 28, 2016, 09:44:31 PM
Quote from: plain on November 28, 2016, 12:05:00 PM
Jefferson Ave
https://goo.gl/maps/v2CiJQnMvoq
Technically turning any direction on a red arrow is prohibited... however, so many people don't realize this and so many states have poorly enforce this rule that it's often ignored
If you go back in time to older streetview images you can see when the right turn signals were originally added, both signals had red arrows.
yes I was living in NN at the time and I remember that. The city also had double right turn red arrows at Old Oyster Point Road and Cannon Blvd at one point but they changed that one too
that sign no turn on red except from right lane 7pm-7am seems confusing and too long.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 28, 2016, 11:55:50 AM
The only time I will NOT turn right on red from the innermost of two right turn lanes is if a sign prohibits it. I do this most frequently at the off-ramp from I-75 south to US 60 at Lexington. The right lane becomes a "must turn right" at the next light, and I'm usually turning left at that signal to go to Walmart.
Similarly, I always turn right on a red arrow unless a sign prohibits it.
Though there are no arrows here, it's a similar situation: https://goo.gl/maps/Cf5vSDKyCxk (https://goo.gl/maps/Cf5vSDKyCxk). The two-laned end of the right turn ramp from I-65 SB to US-30 WB is controlled by signals with red, yellow, and green balls. I would consider it more of a merge than a right turn. Nevertheless, drivers treat it uniformly as a right turn on red situation from both lanes. The first time I encountered this after the intersection was reconfigured, I was hesitant to go on red, but I soon learned that everyone did. Pavement markings confirm that the authorities consider this a right turn. Like with your situation, HB, smart drivers stick to the left lane, since the right lane soon leads to a right turn only.
Quote from: Brandon on November 28, 2016, 12:31:04 PM
Quote from: plain on November 28, 2016, 12:05:00 PM
Jefferson Ave
https://goo.gl/maps/v2CiJQnMvoq
Technically turning any direction on a red arrow is prohibited... however, so many people don't realize this and so many states have poorly enforce this rule that it's often ignored
That's not accurate. In many states, a red arrow is defined the same as a red ball.
Seconding what Brandon said.
Also, I find it atrocious to have a red ball to the right of a red arrow. Either both should be red arrows, or both should be red balls (I'd probably go with red balls). It also blows my mind that there's a sign with an arrow pointing downward at a lane that doesn't exist beyond the intersection. At most, I'd put up a sign that says "no turn on red except from right lane" and be done with it.
This is what happens when people who make Phase II plans have never gone outside before.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on November 29, 2016, 03:38:49 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 28, 2016, 12:31:04 PM
Quote from: plain on November 28, 2016, 12:05:00 PM
Jefferson Ave
https://goo.gl/maps/v2CiJQnMvoq
Technically turning any direction on a red arrow is prohibited... however, so many people don't realize this and so many states have poorly enforce this rule that it's often ignored
That's not accurate. In many states, a red arrow is defined the same as a red ball.
Seconding what Brandon said.
Also, I find it atrocious to have a red ball to the right of a red arrow. Either both should be red arrows, or both should be red balls (I'd probably go with red balls). It also blows my mind that there's a sign with an arrow pointing downward at a lane that doesn't exist beyond the intersection. At most, I'd put up a sign that says "no turn on red except from right lane" and be done with it.
This is what happens when people who make Phase II plans have never gone outside before.
To use a couple of Illinois examples (a state where red ball = red arrow):
https://goo.gl/maps/M2rGLxkvxT32
https://goo.gl/maps/UuCCErLaRpC2
Red right arrows are very rare here, but an example does exist:
https://goo.gl/maps/w5jLeeynaEy
Quote from: Brandon on November 29, 2016, 04:06:54 PM
To use a couple of Illinois examples (a state where red ball = red arrow):
https://goo.gl/maps/M2rGLxkvxT32
I would have thought with staggered stop bars, simultaneous turn-on-red would be acceptable (perhaps the reason why they were implemented to begin with). Guess not.
Quote from: Ace10 on November 26, 2016, 10:22:58 PM
I've probably said this before in this (or another) thread but I'll say it again here: I believe the MUTCD also specifies what a flashing red arrow means - stop, and proceed when clear. So how about we use a solid red arrow to mean no turn on red, and a flashing red arrow to mean turn permitted after stopping and yielding to traffic and pedestrians? We could have the same set of rules for the whole country instead of a patchwork of states that allow the turn on red arrow and those that don't. When people cross state lines (like from Oregon/Washington to Idaho) they don't have to keep in mind that they can turn on red arrows in OR/WA but not in ID. If the arrows flash, they know that they can make the turn; if they're solid, they know that they have to wait. And in states that usually permit turns on red arrows, if there's ever a case where turns on red need to be prohibited (such as cross traffic being able to make protected U-turns, or a railroad-preempted signal) they can just make the arrow solid instead of flashing without needing a separately-lit "no turn on red" sign.
I agree wholeheartedly and I would generalize what you say to cover other rules like turning left on red and right turn on red signal and even legal driving age that have one rule in the MUTCD and one rule that is applied in the state. The MUTCD should be a national rule, and exceptions can be clearly delineated.
Every state allows right turn on red ball, except NYC. NYC should put signs on every intersection where this is prohibited.
Every state should allow left turn on red ball from one-way to one-way. Where it is not allowed, there should be a sign.
Every state should prohibit left turn on red ball from two-way to one-way. Where it is allowed [WA,OR,ID - I think], there should be a sign permitting the movement.
Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow. Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.
Every state should allow a turn on flashing red arrow after stop.
Following the MUTCD should be a priority. Again, this does not infringe on WA's ability to allow a left turn from a two-way to a one-way, even though most other states prohibit this. It simply makes the rules more uniform (the U in MUTCD) and allows for exceptions if they are properly signed.
EDITED TO ADD: From the Wikipedia Article, we can gleam the following information:
AK, WA, OR, ID, MI ----Left turns on red from one-way and two-way streets into one-way streets generally permitted. (5 states)
ME, NH, RI, CT, NJ, NC, SD, MO + DC + NYC generally prohibit left turn on red (8 states, 2 cities)
The remaining 38 states allow a left turn on red from a one-way to a one-way, but not from a two-way to a one-way. This rule covers the vast majority of the states and the vast majority of the population. It should be the default national rule in all 50 states. Signed exceptions can exist where warranted.
"No Turn on Red" - this can be applied liberally. See Center City Philadelphia where almost every intersection has it.
"Left turn permitted on red after stop" - this sign is not as common, but it clearly would indicate situations where the DOT feels that making such a turn is safe, despite a general no turn on red rule in certain jurisdictions.
From this thread, I only learned that you can't turn left on red on a one-way in NJ. I grew up and learned to drive in CA. I live in MD and visit relatives in NY regularly, passing through NJ on the way. I had no idea that I could not make this turn there and I am sure that there are many drivers in the Northeast who are similarly caught off-guard.
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 05:24:11 PM
Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow. Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.
I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.
Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:00:38 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 05:24:11 PM
Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow. Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.
I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.
Sure. But think of all the confusion from waiting behind people who aren't familiar with the unique rules.
Heck, there are so many Californians invading the Pac NW as it is. Do you really want to wait behind them at a one-way if a sign could tell them what to do?
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 11:49:57 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:00:38 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 05:24:11 PM
Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow. Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.
I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.
Sure. But think of all the confusion from waiting behind people who aren't familiar with the unique rules.
It would be a tough change for states that permit movements on red arrows. Washington has fundamentally moved away from 5-section signals, towards three- and four-head signals whenever there's an exclusive left or right turn lane (for purposes of permitting a filtered movement). They do this to avoid posting R3-5 signs (I assume to avoid clutter). The idea was not to banish turning on red because of poor sight-lines or whatnot. It's just the best signal for the job, because it can operate independently of the straight-through signal (which may or may not come in handy, depending on the creativity of the traffic engineer). Particularly when it comes to pedestrian safety, it helps to operate the right turn independently, so as to bring better attention to the parallel "walk" movement (most often by utilising a right-facing flashing yellow arrow).
Out of curiosity, do places that don't permit turns on red arrows post red arrows as a replacement for R10-11 signs?
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 11:49:57 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:00:38 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 05:24:11 PM
Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow. Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.
I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.
Sure. But think of all the confusion from waiting behind people who aren't familiar with the unique rules.
Heck, there are so many Californians invading the Pac NW as it is. Do you really want to wait behind them at a one-way if a sign could tell them what to do?
Frustration from having to wait behind a driver who is not processing on a red indication is not likely to become justification for additional signage. The absence of signs only make the intersection safer. Though counterexamples do exist, how likely do you think it is that a state agency will spend money telling people it's OK to proceed on a red signal, with little to no apparent benefit?
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2016, 02:03:00 AM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 11:49:57 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:00:38 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 05:24:11 PM
Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow. Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.
I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.
Sure. But think of all the confusion from waiting behind people who aren't familiar with the unique rules.
It would be a tough change for states that permit movements on red arrows. Washington has fundamentally moved away from 5-section signals, towards three- and four-head signals whenever there's an exclusive left or right turn lane (for purposes of permitting a filtered movement). They do this to avoid posting R3-5 signs (I assume to avoid clutter). The idea was not to banish turning on red because of poor sight-lines or whatnot. It's just the best signal for the job, because it can operate independently of the straight-through signal (which may or may not come in handy, depending on the creativity of the traffic engineer). Particularly when it comes to pedestrian safety, it helps to operate the right turn independently, so as to bring better attention to the parallel "walk" movement (most often by utilising a right-facing flashing yellow arrow).
Out of curiosity, do places that don't permit turns on red arrows post red arrows as a replacement for R10-11 signs?
There is an easy answer to your concern. A flashing red right arrow would be interpreted as stop and then proceed to turn right when safe, yielding to peds and other traffic. This would still employ the separate signal head and would comply with the interpretation of red arrow in the majority of the states.
A solid right turn red arrow is generally not used to simply avoid the "No Turn on Red" sign - although in a sense it does that too. Often times the red right arrow will be displayed at different times from red ball controlling straight-through movement. One common application is for the leading pedestrian interval(LPI).
When designing a LPI, a traffic engineer is aware that there will be a higher number of pedestrians crossing at the beginning of the green phase. So when straight traffic gets their green ball, and peds get their walk signal, right turners will face a red arrow, so that they cannot go while the peds are beginning to cross. If at some point, cars may turn right while peds are legally able to cross, you may begin to see a flashing yellow right arrow. And if the right turn movement is protected from peds, you may see a green right arrow.
Solid red right arrows are also employed where right turning traffic may face a bike path or even a railroad crossing. Don't turn on red arrow, even though straight through movements are perfectly OK and noted with a green ball.
I am unaware of any application of a right turn signal that has the exact same phasing as its straight through conterpart, outside of states that allow turning on red arrow.
When designi
Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2016, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 11:49:57 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:00:38 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 05:24:11 PM
Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow. Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.
I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.
Sure. But think of all the confusion from waiting behind people who aren't familiar with the unique rules.
Heck, there are so many Californians invading the Pac NW as it is. Do you really want to wait behind them at a one-way if a sign could tell them what to do?
Frustration from having to wait behind a driver who is not processing on a red indication is not likely to become justification for additional signage. The absence of signs only make the intersection safer. Though counterexamples do exist, how likely do you think it is that a state agency will spend money telling people it's OK to proceed on a red signal, with little to no apparent benefit?
The benefit would be keeping traffic moving through the intersection. And if the DOT does not want to put up a sign, they can avoid the situation with either a red ball in place of the red arrow or a flashing red arrow.
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2016, 08:29:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2016, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 11:49:57 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:00:38 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 05:24:11 PM
Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow. Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.
I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.
Sure. But think of all the confusion from waiting behind people who aren't familiar with the unique rules.
Heck, there are so many Californians invading the Pac NW as it is. Do you really want to wait behind them at a one-way if a sign could tell them what to do?
Frustration from having to wait behind a driver who is not processing on a red indication is not likely to become justification for additional signage. The absence of signs only make the intersection safer. Though counterexamples do exist, how likely do you think it is that a state agency will spend money telling people it's OK to proceed on a red signal, with little to no apparent benefit?
The benefit would be keeping traffic moving through the intersection. And if the DOT does not want to put up a sign, they can avoid the situation with either a red ball in place of the red arrow or a flashing red arrow.
That is only an apparent benefit if traffic is already not flowing well through the intersection such that the change would remove the blockage. Absent those conditions, it's just imaginary benefit.
So the alternative to erecting a sign is to replace the signal? Yeah, that's less likely. Especially when, as I said, they have no pressing reason to change anything at all.
Re. left on red, there are aren't that many intersections in CT that would benefit from this. Most one-way intersections are concentrated in New Haven where the grid is laid out accordingly. That's the only city I've ever seen them in.
Two right lanes and one left lane. Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.
Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.
Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?
(https://image.ibb.co/hzVNVa/purcell_rd.jpg)
Quote from: dfnva on March 11, 2017, 11:27:01 AM
Two right lanes and one left lane. Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.
Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.
Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?
(https://image.ibb.co/hzVNVa/purcell_rd.jpg)
probably changes in layout.. My bet is that turn from outer lane was OK until some point.
Or the red arrow predates the amended statute. Right on a red arrow used to be legal in Virginia. It no longer is.
Quote from: kalvado on March 11, 2017, 12:22:52 PM
Quote from: dfnva on March 11, 2017, 11:27:01 AM
Two right lanes and one left lane. Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.
Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.
Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?
(https://image.ibb.co/hzVNVa/purcell_rd.jpg)
probably changes in layout.. My bet is that turn from outer lane was OK until some point.
The traffic signal is new in the last couple months. The lane setup was changed from one left lane and one right lane to one left lane and two right lanes.
Quote from: dfnva on March 12, 2017, 09:21:20 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 11, 2017, 12:22:52 PM
Quote from: dfnva on March 11, 2017, 11:27:01 AM
Two right lanes and one left lane. Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.
Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.
Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?
(https://image.ibb.co/hzVNVa/purcell_rd.jpg)
probably changes in layout.. My bet is that turn from outer lane was OK until some point.
The traffic signal is new in the last couple months. The lane setup was changed from one left lane and one right lane to one left lane and two right lanes.
If they're gonna do this then it would've been better to have the left lane with a left red arrow, the middle with a right red arrow and the right with a red ball. I can't imagine why they would have a doghouse signal in the middle if the middle lane doesn't allow turns in both directions.
Pennsylvania's driver's manual says the same turns permitted with a red ball are permitted with a red arrow. Most of the time, there is a No Turn on Red sign accompanying a right red arrow in PA, which makes the issue moot.
Quote from: plain on March 16, 2017, 10:38:09 PM
Quote from: dfnva on March 12, 2017, 09:21:20 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 11, 2017, 12:22:52 PM
Quote from: dfnva on March 11, 2017, 11:27:01 AM
Two right lanes and one left lane. Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.
Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.
Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?
(https://image.ibb.co/hzVNVa/purcell_rd.jpg)
probably changes in layout.. My bet is that turn from outer lane was OK until some point.
The traffic signal is new in the last couple months. The lane setup was changed from one left lane and one right lane to one left lane and two right lanes.
If they're gonna do this then it would've been better to have the left lane with a left red arrow, the middle with a right red arrow and the right with a red ball. I can't imagine why they would have a doghouse signal in the middle if the middle lane doesn't allow turns in both directions.
I think its somewhat of an interpretation of the 2 signal minimum rule, which seems to be interpreted by many as there must be 2 signals for things other then the right turn, which is generally permissive on road (other then as discussed in this topic). On nearly all T intersections I encounter, they seem to put 2 lights that refer to the left turn lane. Many configured similar to this with the doghouse in the middle also seem unable to provide a right arrow while the street to the right has a left signal activated too, which annoys me greatly. My personal biggest wish the next version of the MUTCD is they recommend of require one signal per lane, period. Between the improved reliability with LEDs in the signals and FYA's that eliminate the doghouses being shared between 2 lanes, I feel any other configuration is flat out less efficient. If the signals were per lane, that would also allow a flashing red right arrow to clarify right turn on red, and a solid red arrow could potentially ban it, eliminating the need for all signs in any intersection with a dedicated right turn lane.
Luckily the right lane's signal has now been changed to a red ball indication instead of a right arrow, so turns can be made from the rightmost right lane on red. The setup was confusing.
I agree the doghouse signal in the middle is odd but not uncommon in Virginia when there are two right turn lanes, I suppose the point is to have an equal amount of green ball indications to green arrow indications.
Quote from: plain on March 16, 2017, 10:38:09 PM
Quote from: dfnva on March 12, 2017, 09:21:20 AM
Quote from: kalvado on March 11, 2017, 12:22:52 PM
Quote from: dfnva on March 11, 2017, 11:27:01 AM
Two right lanes and one left lane. Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.
Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.
Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?
(https://image.ibb.co/hzVNVa/purcell_rd.jpg)
probably changes in layout.. My bet is that turn from outer lane was OK until some point.
The traffic signal is new in the last couple months. The lane setup was changed from one left lane and one right lane to one left lane and two right lanes.
If they're gonna do this then it would've been better to have the left lane with a left red arrow, the middle with a right red arrow and the right with a red ball. I can't imagine why they would have a doghouse signal in the middle if the middle lane doesn't allow turns in both directions.
Bump...
I've been spending a lot of time studying Virginia/DC roads lately (in preparation for my move). While most double right turns prohibit turns from the non-curb lane on red, I finally found one that permits the movement from all lanes: https://goo.gl/28WH1n
I don't think I've ever seen so many "no turn on red from outer lane" signs in my life. Building a second right turn lane, but disallowing turns on red from the inner lane, dramatically reduces the capacity of the turn. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone just piles into the lane that allows turning on red, and/or just turns from the outer lane anyway.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:42:42 AM
Bump...
I've been spending a lot of time studying Virginia/DC roads lately (in preparation for my move). While most double right turns prohibit turns from the non-curb lane on red, I finally found one that permits the movement from all lanes: https://goo.gl/28WH1n
I don't think I've ever seen so many "no turn on red from outer lane" signs in my life. Building a second right turn lane, but disallowing turns on red from the inner lane, dramatically reduces the capacity of the turn. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone just piles into the lane that allows turning on red, and/or just turns from the outer lane anyway.
The text in boldface accurately describes what people here usually do. You can usually tell someone who's not from this area because most local drivers don't get into a turn lane other than the curb lane if the light isn't already green or about to turn green.
(Now, in the District there is a different issue: People seem to assume you can turn from whichever lane you want regardless of lane markings. Very common to see people turning right or left out of a straight-only lane.)
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:42:42 AM
Bump...
I've been spending a lot of time studying Virginia/DC roads lately (in preparation for my move). While most double right turns prohibit turns from the non-curb lane on red, I finally found one that permits the movement from all lanes: https://goo.gl/28WH1n
I don't think I've ever seen so many "no turn on red from outer lane" signs in my life. Building a second right turn lane, but disallowing turns on red from the inner lane, dramatically reduces the capacity of the turn. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone just piles into the lane that allows turning on red, and/or just turns from the outer lane anyway.
What you see there is what is done commonly in Illinois as well. "NO TURN ON RED EXCEPT RIGHT LANE". And yes, everyone does just pile into the far right turn lane until the signal turns green. Then it's a free for all after that. And yes, people do turn from the far right turn lane to any lane they choose on red.
New York may be the only state that by default allows turns on red from any lane. Do note that double rights are generally NTOR per signage, but there are several out there. There is at least one double left allowed on red in the state (one way to one way), this being on NY 2 in Troy.
Quote from: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 12:32:13 PM
New York may be the only state that by default allows turns on red from any lane. Do note that double rights are generally NTOR per signage, but there are several out there. There is at least one double left allowed on red in the state (one way to one way), this being on NY 2 in Troy.
The vast majority (nearly all) double rights in Washington are allowed on red (arrow or ball). It's one of the things I'll miss when I move to Virginia.
Here's many examples: https://goo.gl/mYGmeP --&-- https://goo.gl/KrVWrk --&-- https://goo.gl/5e6cwm --&-- https://goo.gl/5eW61Z --&-- https://goo.gl/7oiZuy --&-- https://goo.gl/eYLGpe --&-- https://goo.gl/2XjQYE --&-- https://goo.gl/vqmRHu
I could keep going but I'm basically listing every double right in the state. Needless to say, restrictions on turns (left or right) are rare. The only thing always banned is left turns onto two-way streets (duh). Pretty much everything else is cool.
Surely in any state that does not explicitly disallow a right turn on red arrow, it is an unintentional loophole. Otherwise, what is the point of the red arrow?
Quote from: bzakharin on October 02, 2017, 03:16:13 PM
Surely in any state that does not explicitly disallow a right turn on red arrow, it is an unintentional loophole. Otherwise, what is the point of the red arrow?
Distinguish a turn movement from a through movement without the use of signs.
Quote from: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 12:32:13 PM
New York may be the only state that by default allows turns on red from any lane. Do note that double rights are generally NTOR per signage, but there are several out there. There is at least one double left allowed on red in the state (one way to one way), this being on NY 2 in Troy.
In Illinois, it requires the signage. If there is no "NO TURN ON RED" or "NO TURN ON RED EXCEPT RIGHT LANE" signage, then a turn on red is legal on a double right turn lane. Likewise, if "LEFT TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" is not present, then a left turn on red (one way to one way only) or on green ball is legal on a double left turn lane.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:33:40 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 02, 2017, 03:16:13 PM
Surely in any state that does not explicitly disallow a right turn on red arrow, it is an unintentional loophole. Otherwise, what is the point of the red arrow?
Distinguish a turn movement from a through movement without the use of signs.
MUTCD Section 4D.04, Standard A2 (bolded for emphasis)
QuoteVehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed. When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign
In plain English, MUTCD requires a sign if turns are allowed on a red arrow.
Edit: required sign is the R10-17a (right turn on red arrow after stop) or similar.
Quote from: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 04:43:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:33:40 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 02, 2017, 03:16:13 PM
Surely in any state that does not explicitly disallow a right turn on red arrow, it is an unintentional loophole. Otherwise, what is the point of the red arrow?
Distinguish a turn movement from a through movement without the use of signs.
MUTCD Section 4D.04, Standard A2 (bolded for emphasis)
QuoteVehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed. When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign
In plain English, MUTCD requires a sign if turns are allowed on a red arrow.
Only in states where the red arrow actually means something different. In states like Illinois, where red ball = red arrow, no extra signage is required.
Quote from: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 04:43:44 PM
MUTCD [~4D.04] requires a sign if turns are allowed on a red arrow.
As long as the FHWA allows state supplements, this rule has no meaning.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:59:58 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 04:43:44 PM
MUTCD [~4D.04] requires a sign if turns are allowed on a red arrow.
As long as the FHWA allows state supplements, this rule has no meaning.
Partially. Standards can only be removed if they're in conflict with state law. From the FAQ section of the MUTCD site:
QuoteQ: What does substantial conformance mean in regard to State Supplements and State MUTCDs?
A: In 2006 a specific definition of substantial conformance was added to the Code of Federal Regulations. 23 CFR 655.603(b) states that "substantial conformance means that the State MUTCD or supplement shall conform as a minimum to the standard statements included in the National MUTCD" and that "the guidance statements contained in the National MUTCD shall also be in the State Manual or supplement unless the reason for not including it is satisfactorily explained based on engineering judgment, specific conflicting State law, or a documented engineering study." This section of the CFR also allows FHWA to grant exceptions in cases where a State MUTCD or supplement cannot conform to standard statements in the National MUTCD because of the requirements of a specific State law that was in effect prior to the January 16, 2007 effective date of this provision, if FHWA determines the non-conformance does not create a safety concern. Also, legal precedents have determined that State Supplements and State MUTCDs can be more prescriptive than the national MUTCD. This means that a State can make a national MUTCD "should" condition a "shall" condition in that State, can allow in that State only one of several national MUTCD optional designs for a particular device, or can prohibit the use in that State of a particular optional device. However, State Supplements and State MUTCDs cannot omit or change a national MUTCD "shall" to a "should" or change a "should" to a "may". The FHWA reviews each State Supplement and State MUTCD and makes determinations as to substantial conformance.
Going back to Illinois, the supplement complies with 4D.04 by requiring an R10-17a in locations where turns on red are allowed and a right arrow is used:
QuoteSection 4D.04 Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications
Support:
The Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-306) permits a right turn (or a left turn from a one-way street to a one-way street) on a red arrow after stopping under the same conditions as with a red ball. This conflicts with Section 4D.04 which prohibits turning after stopping on a red arrow unless specifically permitted by signs or other traffic control devices.
Standard:
Where it is intended to prohibit turns on red arrows after stopping where such turns would otherwise be permitted under the Illinois Vehicle Code, NO TURN ON RED ARROW(R10-I102) word message signs shall be installed.
Guidance:
Where it is intended to permit turns on red, a red ball rather than a red arrow should be used.
Quote from: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 05:08:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:59:58 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 02, 2017, 04:43:44 PM
MUTCD [~4D.04] requires a sign if turns are allowed on a red arrow.
As long as the FHWA allows state supplements, this rule has no meaning.
Partially. Standards can only be removed if they're in conflict with state law.
Honestly, I don't know what any of that meant. So here's Washington's modifications on signal meanings:
Quote from: WAC 468-95-250
Pursuant to RCW 46.61.055, amend paragraph 03 in the Standard of MUTCD Section 4D.04, item C.1, to read:
Vehicle operators facing a steady circular red signal 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 or two-way street into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn; unless a sign posted by a competent authority prohibits such movement. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall remain stopped to allow other vehicles lawfully within or approaching the intersection control area to complete their movements. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall also remain stopped for pedestrians who are lawfully within the intersection control area.
Pursuant to RCW 46.61.055, amend the Standard of MUTCD Section 4D.04, item C.2, to read:
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 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 a competent authority prohibits such movement. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall remain stopped to allow other vehicles lawfully within or approaching the intersection control area to complete their movements. Vehicle operators planning to make such turns shall also remain stopped for pedestrians who are lawfully within the intersection control area.
Take from it what you may. These laws are laid out in RCW 46.61.055 (https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.055).
Also note this amdendment:
Quote from: WAC 468-95-260 -- Application of steady signal indications
((A steady RED ARROW signal indication shall be displayed when it is intended to prohibit vehicular traffic from entering the intersection or other controlled area to make the indicated turn when regulatory signing is in place prohibiting such movement. Pedestrians directed by a pedestrian signal head may enter the intersection or other controlled area.)) A steady RED ARROW signal indication shall be displayed when it is intended to prohibit vehicular traffic from entering the intersection or other controlled area to make the indicated turn when regulatory signing is in place prohibiting such movement. Pedestrians directed by a pedestrian signal head may enter the intersection or other controlled area.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 02, 2017, 03:16:13 PM
Surely in any state that does not explicitly disallow a right turn on red arrow, it is an unintentional loophole. Otherwise, what is the point of the red arrow?
They've definitely been playing with using right red arrows for pedestrian safety, along with flashing yellow arrows which gives the right turn a red arrow as well, usually without the intention of prohibiting a right turn on red. This one was recently installed in Florida and gives a red when a pedestrian activated the push button or the opposing left has a green, but otherwise displays green all the time:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6146901,-82.3913396,3a,30.9y,242.23h,92.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sntQ82pn1wms51W14OoJNQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I'm a big fan of this setup as it then requires a stop and seems like it would be the most likely to get noticed for pedestrian safety. And since it is activated by the pedestrian push button, it gives a clear purpose to the button encouraging its use, and provides an extra safety feature for them. Interestingly, the side street here has the right turn lane with its own 5 segment display, and when the pedestrian button is not activated during the cycle for the side street, the green arrow and green ball both appear for this lane. When the pedestrian button IS activated, it gives the green ball without the green arrow, which is totally non-obvious to drivers.
I'll tell you nobody interprets this as no turn on red even though there isn't a supplement sign. And honestly, if a cop tried to enforce it without a sign, I'd think the person would be right to be pretty pissed about the associated ticket.
Edit: Come to think of it, its almost like they reversed the installation of the signals from their more typical setup, so I wonder if this was intentional or just a mistake where they accidentally swapped the signals. They typically would have used the same signals, just the 5 segment on the main road and the 3 segment on the side road.
With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)
Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:42:42 AM
Bump...
I've been spending a lot of time studying Virginia/DC roads lately (in preparation for my move). While most double right turns prohibit turns from the non-curb lane on red, I finally found one that permits the movement from all lanes: https://goo.gl/28WH1n
I don't think I've ever seen so many "no turn on red from outer lane" signs in my life. Building a second right turn lane, but disallowing turns on red from the inner lane, dramatically reduces the capacity of the turn. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone just piles into the lane that allows turning on red, and/or just turns from the outer lane anyway.
I've been through that intersection. I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.
If you move forward on Street View:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4511/37206204890_c63824dfde_b.jpg)
Quote from: MASTERNC on October 02, 2017, 09:08:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:42:42 AM
[clipped]
I've been through that intersection. I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 02, 2017, 09:27:58 PM
If you move forward on Street View:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4511/37206204890_c63824dfde_b.jpg)
Shit, you're right. And here I was thinking I found a unicorn.
:pan:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2017, 08:31:31 PM
With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)
Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.
Yeah, there's almost always a sign when any sort of arrow (permissive or restrictive) exists, but I can't think of any red right arrows in NJ. Nor can I think of any double turn lanes where turning on red is only permitted from one of them. The most unusual turn-related situation I've seen is at this intersection https://goo.gl/TX1q25 . It's the only place I know where you *must* turn on red.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2017, 12:25:22 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2017, 08:31:31 PM
With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)
Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.
Yeah, there's almost always a sign when any sort of arrow (permissive or restrictive) exists, but I can't think of any red right arrows in NJ. Nor can I think of any double turn lanes where turning on red is only permitted from one of them. The most unusual turn-related situation I've seen is at this intersection https://goo.gl/TX1q25 . It's the only place I know where you *must* turn on red.
Wonder what school buses and other vehicles that can't turn on red do there.
Quote from: cl94 on October 03, 2017, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2017, 12:25:22 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2017, 08:31:31 PM
With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)
Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.
Yeah, there's almost always a sign when any sort of arrow (permissive or restrictive) exists, but I can't think of any red right arrows in NJ. Nor can I think of any double turn lanes where turning on red is only permitted from one of them. The most unusual turn-related situation I've seen is at this intersection https://goo.gl/TX1q25 . It's the only place I know where you *must* turn on red.
Wonder what school buses and other vehicles that can't turn on red do there.
Is that a New Jersey law? I always that was one of those laws that everyone thought was a law but actually wasn't. Definitely not a law out here.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2017, 03:01:13 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 03, 2017, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2017, 12:25:22 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2017, 08:31:31 PM
With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)
Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.
Yeah, there's almost always a sign when any sort of arrow (permissive or restrictive) exists, but I can't think of any red right arrows in NJ. Nor can I think of any double turn lanes where turning on red is only permitted from one of them. The most unusual turn-related situation I've seen is at this intersection https://goo.gl/TX1q25 . It's the only place I know where you *must* turn on red.
Wonder what school buses and other vehicles that can't turn on red do there.
Is that a New Jersey law? I always that was one of those laws that everyone thought was a law but actually wasn't. Definitely not a law out here.
Need a NJ person to confirm that, but it is the law in many eastern states, plus many contractors forbid drivers from doing so even in states where it is legal. Definitely a law in New York (hazmats can't turn on red either).
Quote from: cl94 on October 03, 2017, 03:08:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2017, 03:01:13 PM
Quote from: cl94 on October 03, 2017, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 03, 2017, 12:25:22 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2017, 08:31:31 PM
With red arrows, NJ will always have a sign allowing or disallowing a right turn on red. Removes any ambiguity. (I don't think State law actually mentions red arrows anyway)
Likewise, NJ always signs double right turn lanes with what is permitted. I'm most cases it's a NTOR, but I've seen at least one where only the right lane can turn right, and one signed turning on red permitted after stop.
Yeah, there's almost always a sign when any sort of arrow (permissive or restrictive) exists, but I can't think of any red right arrows in NJ. Nor can I think of any double turn lanes where turning on red is only permitted from one of them. The most unusual turn-related situation I've seen is at this intersection https://goo.gl/TX1q25 . It's the only place I know where you *must* turn on red.
Wonder what school buses and other vehicles that can't turn on red do there.
Is that a New Jersey law? I always that was one of those laws that everyone thought was a law but actually wasn't. Definitely not a law out here.
Need a NJ person to confirm that, but it is the law in many eastern states, plus many contractors forbid drivers from doing so even in states where it is legal. Definitely a law in New York (hazmats can't turn on red either).
To be technical, I can't spot anywhere in the NJ State Statutes where it states a school bus cannot turn right on red. I also can't, via a Google Search, find any indication where this is illegal in NJ, other than in some forums where people say it's not legal (of course, they don't have any proof either).
I have seen bus drivers make that right turn on red. Of course, bus companies can make their own rules though, prohibiting their drivers from turning right on red as well.
I'm an NJ person, though I don't know whether school buses can turn on red here either. answers.com says no, but I haven't found a relevant law. At any rate, I'd assume they would avoid approaching this intersection from this direction. There are plenty of other NJ 73 South entrances nearby controlled by stop signs. Or turn left and use NJ 38 to NJ 41 to NJ 73 to make a U-Turn.
The reason I'm familiar with this intersection is that it allows one to reach I-295 spending the minimum amount of time on NJ 73 which tends to back up here (it's even better for coming back from 295 South because you can avoid 73 entirely).
What's the idea behind the setup anyway?
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.
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2017, 04:26:46 PM
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.
Quote from: mrsman on May 30, 2016, 03:07:28 PM
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. :bigass:
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 09:28:24 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on October 02, 2017, 09:08:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:42:42 AM
[clipped]
I've been through that intersection. I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 02, 2017, 09:27:58 PM
If you move forward on Street View:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4511/37206204890_c63824dfde_b.jpg)
Shit, you're right. And here I was thinking I found a unicorn.
:pan:
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any intersection in Virginia with dual right-turn lanes that does not have some sort of sign prohibiting right turns on red from any lane other than the curb lane (the wording will vary, but the point is consistent). That doesn't mean there might not be one somewhere where it's allowed, but I can't think of one. Oddly, however, the same is NOT true at intersections where left on red is permitted and there are multiple turn lanes. I can think of three of those off the top of my head and none has a sign prohibiting left on red from a lane other than the curb lane.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 03, 2017, 10:00:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 09:28:24 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on October 02, 2017, 09:08:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:42:42 AM
[clipped]
I've been through that intersection. I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 02, 2017, 09:27:58 PM
If you move forward on Street View:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4511/37206204890_c63824dfde_b.jpg)
Shit, you're right. And here I was thinking I found a unicorn.
:pan:
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any intersection in Virginia with dual right-turn lanes that does not have some sort of sign prohibiting right turns on red from any lane other than the curb lane (the wording will vary, but the point is consistent). That doesn't mean there might not be one somewhere where it's allowed, but I can't think of one. Oddly, however, the same is NOT true at intersections where left on red is permitted and there are multiple turn lanes. I can think of three of those off the top of my head and none has a sign prohibiting left on red from a lane other than the curb lane.
The only place I can think of is in Hampton, where VA 415 leaves W. Queen St to follow Power Plant Pkwy (formally Powhatan Pkwy). No restrictions for either right turn lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/tfRmZSC2jWM2
Quote from: plain on October 04, 2017, 08:21:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 03, 2017, 10:00:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 09:28:24 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on October 02, 2017, 09:08:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:42:42 AM
[clipped]
I've been through that intersection. I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 02, 2017, 09:27:58 PM
If you move forward on Street View:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4511/37206204890_c63824dfde_b.jpg
Shit, you're right. And here I was thinking I found a unicorn.
:pan:
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any intersection in Virginia with dual right-turn lanes that does not have some sort of sign prohibiting right turns on red from any lane other than the curb lane (the wording will vary, but the point is consistent). That doesn't mean there might not be one somewhere where it's allowed, but I can't think of one. Oddly, however, the same is NOT true at intersections where left on red is permitted and there are multiple turn lanes. I can think of three of those off the top of my head and none has a sign prohibiting left on red from a lane other than the curb lane.
The only place I can think of is in Hampton, where VA 415 leaves W. Queen St to follow Power Plant Pkwy (formally Powhatan Pkwy). No restrictions for either right turn lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/tfRmZSC2jWM2
Nice! An
actual example. Can't help but wonder if it's a mistake.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2017, 09:30:31 PM
Quote from: plain on October 04, 2017, 08:21:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 03, 2017, 10:00:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 09:28:24 PM
Quote from: MASTERNC on October 02, 2017, 09:08:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 02, 2017, 04:42:42 AM
[clipped]
I've been through that intersection. I think there is a sign under the signal (hidden by the turning truck) that says no turn on red for the inside lane.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 02, 2017, 09:27:58 PM
If you move forward on Street View:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4511/37206204890_c63824dfde_b.jpg
Shit, you're right. And here I was thinking I found a unicorn.
:pan:
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any intersection in Virginia with dual right-turn lanes that does not have some sort of sign prohibiting right turns on red from any lane other than the curb lane (the wording will vary, but the point is consistent). That doesn't mean there might not be one somewhere where it's allowed, but I can't think of one. Oddly, however, the same is NOT true at intersections where left on red is permitted and there are multiple turn lanes. I can think of three of those off the top of my head and none has a sign prohibiting left on red from a lane other than the curb lane.
The only place I can think of is in Hampton, where VA 415 leaves W. Queen St to follow Power Plant Pkwy (formally Powhatan Pkwy). No restrictions for either right turn lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/tfRmZSC2jWM2
Nice! An actual example. Can't help but wonder if it's a mistake.
I doubt it. This double right turn have been here for at least 25 years now. Interestingly both right turn signals were originally doghouses. They were replaced about ten years ago.
Quote from: plain on October 04, 2017, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2017, 09:30:31 PM
Quote from: plain on October 04, 2017, 08:21:02 PM
The only place I can think of is in Hampton, where VA 415 leaves W. Queen St to follow Power Plant Pkwy (formally Powhatan Pkwy). No restrictions for either right turn lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/tfRmZSC2jWM2
Nice! An actual example. Can't help but wonder if it's a mistake.
I doubt it. This double right turn have been here for at least 25 years now. Interestingly both right turn signals were originally doghouses. They were replaced about ten years ago.
Also note that both right turn lanes have circular red indications as opposed to red arrows. IMO, this should be the national standards to denote whether a turn is or is not permitted on red.
Quote from: signalman on October 04, 2017, 10:59:14 PM
Quote from: plain on October 04, 2017, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2017, 09:30:31 PM
Quote from: plain on October 04, 2017, 08:21:02 PM
The only place I can think of is in Hampton, where VA 415 leaves W. Queen St to follow Power Plant Pkwy (formally Powhatan Pkwy). No restrictions for either right turn lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/tfRmZSC2jWM2
Nice! An actual example. Can't help but wonder if it's a mistake.
I doubt it. This double right turn have been here for at least 25 years now. Interestingly both right turn signals were originally doghouses. They were replaced about ten years ago.
Also note that both right turn lanes have circular red indications as opposed to red arrows. IMO, this should be the national standards to denote whether a turn is or is not permitted on red.
I was actually thinking that was the case but other posters pointed out that some states doesn't follow such a standard.. there are jurisdictions that allow a turn on a red arrow
Quote from: plain on October 05, 2017, 12:29:41 AM
Quote from: signalman on October 04, 2017, 10:59:14 PM
Also note that both right turn lanes have circular red indications as opposed to red arrows. IMO, this should be the national standards to denote whether a turn is or is not permitted on red.
I was actually thinking that was the case but other posters pointed out that some states doesn't follow such a standard.. there are jurisdictions that allow a turn on a red arrow
I know some jurisdictions allow turns against red arrows. If I'm somewhere I don't frequent and I'm not 100% certain that I'm allowed to turn against a red arrow, I won't. The same goes for LTOR, whether it be arrow or circular red.
I personally interpret a red arrow to mean you can't make the movement and must wait for green. I guess I view it the same way as circular red and my intended movement was thru...I'd have to wait for green to proceed. 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.
Quote from: signalman on October 05, 2017, 01:24:07 AM
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. Where I'm from, right red arrows are used because it's consistent with the way left turn signals are designed. Left turn lanes get left turn arrows. Right turn lanes get right turn arrows (instead of plastering the mast arm with "LEFT/RIGHT TURN ONLY" or "LEFT/RIGHT TURN SIGNAL" signs). It wasn't until this site that I realized that about half of US states don't permit turns on red arrows. Seems odd to me, because it's just a different shape. But whatever.
Here in the Seattle area, there are several signals in the CBD [along one-way streets] that have a red arrow pointing left or right at the same time that a green signal is displayed for the through movement. The red arrow is used because a red orb would not be allowed while a green signal is also being displayed (arrow or ball). The arrow is used to protect pedestrians and cyclists. Most of these signals have "NO TURN ON RED" signs, so, in that sense, sign clutter does become an issue due to the law normally allowing turns against red arrows. But I see more of these red arrows pointing right in the suburbs than in downtown areas, and at those intersections, turns on red are allowed.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2017, 01:43:53 AM
Quote from: signalman on October 05, 2017, 01:24:07 AM
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.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 03, 2017, 04:58:05 PM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 03, 2017, 04:26:46 PM
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.
Quote from: realjd on October 05, 2017, 11:23:11 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 03, 2017, 04:58:05 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: roadman on October 06, 2017, 09:54:06 AM
Quote from: realjd on October 05, 2017, 11:23:11 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on October 03, 2017, 04:58:05 PM
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)
Quote5. 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.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 03, 2017, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 30, 2016, 03:07:28 PM
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. :bigass:
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.)
Quote from: cl94 on October 03, 2017, 04:43:44 PM
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.
Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2017, 08:39:36 AM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on October 03, 2017, 04:58:49 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 30, 2016, 03:07:28 PM
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. :bigass:
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....
Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2017, 08:39:36 AM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 09:27:50 AM
Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2017, 08:39:36 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 19, 2017, 10:15:21 AM
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.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 19, 2017, 10:15:21 AM
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).
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 10:42:17 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 19, 2017, 10:15:21 AM
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...
Quote from: kalvado on October 19, 2017, 11:33:26 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 10:42:17 AM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 19, 2017, 10:15:21 AM
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.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 12:32:10 PM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on October 19, 2017, 12:41:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 12:32:10 PM
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).
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 12:54:37 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 19, 2017, 12:41:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 12:32:10 PM
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.
Quote from: 1 on October 19, 2017, 12:58:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 12:54:37 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 19, 2017, 12:41:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 12:32:10 PM
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)).
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 :pan:
Quote from: johndoe on October 20, 2017, 06:44:50 PM
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 :pan:
No, because FYAs aren't used throughout the country. Many states still haven't adopted them yet.
Quote from: johndoe on October 20, 2017, 06:44:50 PM
Just think, if you REALLY trusted drivers, you could give FYA to through movements where lefts got protected movements :pan:
Problem is that I really don't. At all.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2017, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: johndoe on October 20, 2017, 06:44:50 PM
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).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2017, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: johndoe on October 20, 2017, 06:44:50 PM
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 :pan:
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.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 21, 2017, 07:45:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2017, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: johndoe on October 20, 2017, 06:44:50 PM
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 :pan:
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.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on October 21, 2017, 07:45:08 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2017, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: johndoe on October 20, 2017, 06:44:50 PM
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 :pan:
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.
Usually has nothing to do with state law...just transportation policy.
If you were to look at NJ law for example, it simply refers to what to do at a red, yellow, and green light, and green arrow. It doesn't even reference bimodels. It does reference using LEDs though!
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 02:37:39 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 19, 2017, 12:58:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 12:54:37 PM
Quote from: kalvado on October 19, 2017, 12:41:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 12:32:10 PM
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)).
Jakeroot - I'm trying to understand your last point. Are you saying that if you are on a 2-way street in WA state with a dual left that turns onto a one-way street (or more likely the diamond ramp of a freeway on-ramp), you are generally allowed to make that turn against both a red ball and a red arrow so long as the street is not a state highway but if it is a state highway you must wait for the green arrow?
I think that it is inherently dangerous to allow people to make this left turn agaisnt a red arrow for the simple reason that the driver making the left will have to keep track of two separate movements of traffic. At a normal permissive left turn, you keep track of opposing traffic only and you make your left when there is a gap. You never make the turn when your light is green (or FYA) knowing that cross traffic has a red light and is not your concern. But if you are also generally allowed to make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way (which is only the law in WA and a few other states in the NW) then your focus will be on making the left by keeping track of cross traffic and not worrying about opposing traffic. At a simple intersection where there are no arrows, you may be able to keep track of the difference due to the difference in your light being red or green. But where there are all these arrows that permit or restrict turns are you able to keep track of which direction has the green in a safe manner? (If you are so focused on finding the gap in cross traffic, will you be aware when opposing traffic gets the green?)
So in some sense, going back to an earlier point, the uniformity of these laws do in fact involve safety. For while many can safely make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way safely, it seems that it is the judgment of the FHWA that it is generally not a safe manuever and it is generally banned, even though there are a few states that allow it.
As a Utah driver, the way I think about arrows seems to be quite different from the PacNW but consistent with the rest of the country. For me, a red arrow is an explicit prohibition of the movement it indicates (and that's the law here, though red right arrows will usually be accompanied by a NO TURN ON RED sign for those drivers who think red right arrows are equivalent to red balls).
The concept of turning left on red in any situation, even if it's onto a one way street, seems extremely odd and dangerous to me. I don't understand how that makes a difference, since you are still turning from a 2-way. Left on red from a one-way onto a one-way does make sense to me (and it is legal in UT, though I can't think of anywhere that actually applies in UT since almost all our roads are 2-way).
As for dual right turn lanes on red as discussed upthread, both lanes (not just the curb lane) can turn right on red here. Personally I'd feel safer doing this in the curb lane, but it is legal from either.
Quote from: mrsman on October 23, 2017, 12:02:04 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2017, 02:37:39 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 19, 2017, 12:58:07 PM
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)).
Jakeroot - I'm trying to understand your last point. Are you saying that if you are on a 2-way street in WA state with a dual left that turns onto a one-way street (or more likely the diamond ramp of a freeway on-ramp), you are generally allowed to make that turn against both a red ball and a red arrow so long as the street is not a state highway but if it is a state highway you must wait for the green arrow?
Sorry, that reply was very poorly written. Even I had trouble figuring out what I was trying to say!
I was partly speaking hypothetically.
Today, all left turns on red are legal, so long as the left turn is onto a one-way street. The signal can be a red arrow or red ball. The only way to prohibit the movement would be to post a sign, which WSDOT never has (I've never seen a "NO TURN ON RED" sign posted by WSDOT under these circumstances).
In the context of flashing red arrows,
1 proposed them to replace left or right turns that currently use solid red arrows (leaving SRA's to mean "no turn on red in this direction"). In Washington, left turns onto one-way streets are technically all permissive, even if they have red arrows, because turning left on red is legal. This is great, because if I'm turning left onto a freeway on-ramp, I
never have to wait for a green arrow. Even in situations where there is more than one left turn lane, turning left on red is still legal, because the maneuver is still onto a one-way street. My expectation, under
1's hypothetical situation, is that WSDOT would replace left turns onto one-way streets with flashing red arrows, because they are technically already permissive movements under current law. However, WSDOT prefers to use protected-only turns at on-ramps, so I fear the possibility of these left turns remaining solid red arrows, rendering my exploit of the current law useless.
For additional context, check this out:
Right now, this left turn in Washington is permissive, so long as you stop: https://goo.gl/xPeMYJ
Under 1's hyopothetical scenario where flashing red arrows replace solid red arrows where turning on red is acceptable, this is what
should replace the above setup: https://goo.gl/i1kg7V
However, I am almost certain that it would not, due to WSDOT's preference towards protected-only turns at off-ramps. I sincerely believe that WSDOT does not realise that left on red is legal. If they knew this, I am almost certain that they would install far more "NO TURN ON RED" signs at freeway on-ramps.
As for the "double left yields" comment, Washington's MUTCD supplement bans dual permissive left turns, however, WSDOT technically installs them all the time anyways, since left on red is always legal unless otherwise posted. The first link above is technically a dual permissive left, albeit with a stop required.
Quote from: mrsman on October 23, 2017, 12:02:04 AM
I think that it is inherently dangerous to allow people to make this left turn agaisnt a red arrow for the simple reason that the driver making the left will have to keep track of two separate movements of traffic. At a normal permissive left turn, you keep track of opposing traffic only and you make your left when there is a gap. You never make the turn when your light is green (or FYA) knowing that cross traffic has a red light and is not your concern. But if you are also generally allowed to make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way (which is only the law in WA and a few other states in the NW) then your focus will be on making the left by keeping track of cross traffic and not worrying about opposing traffic. At a simple intersection where there are no arrows, you may be able to keep track of the difference due to the difference in your light being red or green. But where there are all these arrows that permit or restrict turns are you able to keep track of which direction has the green in a safe manner? (If you are so focused on finding the gap in cross traffic, will you be aware when opposing traffic gets the green?)
So in some sense, going back to an earlier point, the uniformity of these laws do in fact involve safety. For while many can safely make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way safely, it seems that it is the judgment of the FHWA that it is generally not a safe manuever and it is generally banned, even though there are a few states that allow it.
Turning left onto one-way streets from two-way streets is definitely a learned skill. There's four parts to it:
1) watching traffic from your right, who has a green
2) watching oncoming traffic who may proceed on green while you're looking right
3) watching your signal to ensure you don't camp on green because you're too busy looking right
4) ensuring you don't pull too far forward while waiting, because you might get in the way of traffic from your right that intends to turn left
Part 4 is the problem I encounter most, and it ties into part 1. Left turns here generally lead, so I usually don't have to worry about part 2, and part 3 isn't too big of a deal because you can sense it coming when traffic from your right begins to slow down.
The photo below demonstrates how parts 4 and 1 become a problem: You pull forward for improved visibility, however, you inevitably get in the way of someone coming from your right intending to turn left (you're basically sitting directly in their turning path).
(https://i.imgur.com/keyopQJ.png)
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2017, 01:39:28 AM
Quote from: mrsman on October 23, 2017, 12:02:04 AM
I think that it is inherently dangerous to allow people to make this left turn agaisnt a red arrow for the simple reason that the driver making the left will have to keep track of two separate movements of traffic. At a normal permissive left turn, you keep track of opposing traffic only and you make your left when there is a gap. You never make the turn when your light is green (or FYA) knowing that cross traffic has a red light and is not your concern. But if you are also generally allowed to make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way (which is only the law in WA and a few other states in the NW) then your focus will be on making the left by keeping track of cross traffic and not worrying about opposing traffic. At a simple intersection where there are no arrows, you may be able to keep track of the difference due to the difference in your light being red or green. But where there are all these arrows that permit or restrict turns are you able to keep track of which direction has the green in a safe manner? (If you are so focused on finding the gap in cross traffic, will you be aware when opposing traffic gets the green?)
So in some sense, going back to an earlier point, the uniformity of these laws do in fact involve safety. For while many can safely make a left on red from a two-way to a one-way safely, it seems that it is the judgment of the FHWA that it is generally not a safe manuever and it is generally banned, even though there are a few states that allow it.
Turning left onto one-way streets from two-way streets is definitely a learned skill. There's four parts to it:
1) watching traffic from your right, who has a green
2) watching oncoming traffic who may proceed on green while you're looking right
3) watching your signal to ensure you don't camp on green because you're too busy looking right
4) ensuring you don't pull too far forward while waiting, because you might get in the way of traffic from your right that intends to turn left
Part 4 is the problem I encounter most, and it ties into part 1. Left turns here generally lead, so I usually don't have to worry about part 2, and part 3 isn't too big of a deal because you can sense it coming when traffic from your right begins to slow down.
The photo below demonstrates how parts 4 and 1 become a problem: You pull forward for improved visibility, however, you inevitably get in the way of someone coming from your right intending to turn left (you're basically sitting directly in their turning path).
*snipped photo*
You might as well be doing a checklist to see if you can safely run the red light going straight. To me, that actually seems safer, since you don't have to worry about the oncoming traffic.
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 23, 2017, 07:36:42 PM
You might as well be doing a checklist to see if you can safely run the red light going straight. To me, that actually seems safer, since you don't have to worry about the oncoming traffic.
The only thing worse than left on red onto one-way streets from two way streets is turning left on red onto a two-way street from another two way street. Going straight, at least you [generally] won't get in the way of turning traffic.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2017, 10:24:19 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 23, 2017, 07:36:42 PM
You might as well be doing a checklist to see if you can safely run the red light going straight. To me, that actually seems safer, since you don't have to worry about the oncoming traffic.
The only thing worse than left on red onto one-way streets from two way streets is turning left on red onto a two-way street from another two way street. Going straight, at least you [generally] won't get in the way of turning traffic.
So why isn't it legal to drive through red lights in Washington if the coast is clear?
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 23, 2017, 11:08:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2017, 10:24:19 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 23, 2017, 07:36:42 PM
You might as well be doing a checklist to see if you can safely run the red light going straight. To me, that actually seems safer, since you don't have to worry about the oncoming traffic.
The only thing worse than left on red onto one-way streets from two way streets is turning left on red onto a two-way street from another two way street. Going straight, at least you [generally] won't get in the way of turning traffic.
So why isn't it legal to drive through red lights in Washington if the coast is clear?
You'll have to ask now-dead law makers, or still-alive former Governor Dan Evans. The law has been the same since at least 1965: https://goo.gl/NdbM2z
In an ideal world, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever as to what's allowed. E.g. if right on red is permitted, there would be a flashing red right arrow, which would mean the same thing as a flashing red ball (stop and proceed when safe). Same with left. If a signal has no arrows, it should control all movements in the same way. No supplemental signs needed. This would make things a lot easier on the driver, as there is only one set of rules to learn (stop on red, go on green, proceed with caution on flashing yellow, etc), and a lot less things to figure out (is this a one way street? Is there a "No turn on red" sign I can't see from here?). But in the absence of that, at least consistency and common sense (no turn on solid red arrow, ever, just like turning on solid green arrow is always permitted)
Quote from: bzakharin on October 24, 2017, 01:09:49 PM
In an ideal world, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever as to what's allowed. E.g. if right on red is permitted, there would be a flashing red right arrow, which would mean the same thing as a flashing red ball (stop and proceed when safe).
What would you do if there was no right turn lane (instead, an option straight/right lane)? Can't (or shouldn't) use arrows in that setup.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2017, 02:22:58 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 24, 2017, 01:09:49 PM
In an ideal world, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever as to what's allowed. E.g. if right on red is permitted, there would be a flashing red right arrow, which would mean the same thing as a flashing red ball (stop and proceed when safe).
What would you do if there was no right turn lane (instead, an option straight/right lane)? Can't (or shouldn't) use arrows in that setup.
Why not? You only need a (flashing) red arrow between the red ball and the yellow and green balls. The rest of the light would be shared between right turning and straight ahead traffic.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 24, 2017, 03:37:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2017, 02:22:58 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 24, 2017, 01:09:49 PM
In an ideal world, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever as to what's allowed. E.g. if right on red is permitted, there would be a flashing red right arrow, which would mean the same thing as a flashing red ball (stop and proceed when safe).
What would you do if there was no right turn lane (instead, an option straight/right lane)? Can't (or shouldn't) use arrows in that setup.
Why not? You only need a (flashing) red arrow between the red ball and the yellow and green balls. The rest of the light would be shared between right turning and straight ahead traffic.
Oh, I see. Yes, I suppose that would work. A bit unorthodox, but not unprecedented (I've seen right turn filter signals used when there wasn't a dedicated right turn lane, but only in Vancouver).
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2017, 04:23:17 PM
A permissive left after stop is, in my understanding, a left turn on a red light. In this situation, you conflict with oncoming traffic turning right on red (or on a green arrow if present) as well as cross-traffic coming through on a green light. This is not similar, because you're contending with two conflicting streams, which also happen to be about 100° apart from each other.
I think the conversation turned more to "left on red from one-way to one-way" instead of "left on red from two-way to one way". In the former situation, there is no oncoming traffic, just traffic (and pedestrians) from your right. Basically a mirrored right turn on red.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2017, 04:45:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2017, 04:23:17 PM
A permissive left after stop is, in my understanding, a left turn on a red light. In this situation, you conflict with oncoming traffic turning right on red (or on a green arrow if present) as well as cross-traffic coming through on a green light. This is not similar, because you're contending with two conflicting streams, which also happen to be about 100° apart from each other.
I think the conversation turned more to "left on red from one-way to one-way" instead of "left on red from two-way to one way". In the former situation, there is no oncoming traffic, just traffic (and pedestrians) from your right. Basically a mirrored right turn on red.
Oh, I thought everyone on the forum was on board with that one. See, I'm all confused now.
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2017, 05:00:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2017, 04:45:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2017, 04:23:17 PM
A permissive left after stop is, in my understanding, a left turn on a red light. In this situation, you conflict with oncoming traffic turning right on red (or on a green arrow if present) as well as cross-traffic coming through on a green light. This is not similar, because you're contending with two conflicting streams, which also happen to be about 100° apart from each other.
I think the conversation turned more to "left on red from one-way to one-way" instead of "left on red from two-way to one way". In the former situation, there is no oncoming traffic, just traffic (and pedestrians) from your right. Basically a mirrored right turn on red.
Oh, I thought everyone on the forum was on board with that one. See, I'm all confused now.
We were. What happened was, roadguy2 commented...
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 23, 2017, 11:37:08 PM
I don't think there should ever be left turns allowed if any cross traffic has a green.
Which, at least as far as some of us understood, meant that he was against left turn on red under all circumstances. "Cross traffic" could be interpreted to mean either "traffic coming towards you" or "traffic from any direction"; some of us took it to mean the latter, and attempted to point out that left turns on red from one-way to one-way streets is the norm in almost all states, and that it's really not any more dangerous than right turn on red, since both are curb-to-curb movements.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2017, 05:50:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2017, 05:00:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2017, 04:45:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 24, 2017, 04:23:17 PM
A permissive left after stop is, in my understanding, a left turn on a red light. In this situation, you conflict with oncoming traffic turning right on red (or on a green arrow if present) as well as cross-traffic coming through on a green light. This is not similar, because you're contending with two conflicting streams, which also happen to be about 100° apart from each other.
I think the conversation turned more to "left on red from one-way to one-way" instead of "left on red from two-way to one way". In the former situation, there is no oncoming traffic, just traffic (and pedestrians) from your right. Basically a mirrored right turn on red.
Oh, I thought everyone on the forum was on board with that one. See, I'm all confused now.
We were. What happened was, roadguy2 commented...
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 23, 2017, 11:37:08 PM
I don't think there should ever be left turns allowed if any cross traffic has a green.
Which, at least as far as some of us understood, meant that he was against left turn on red under all circumstances. "Cross traffic" could be interpreted to mean either "traffic coming towards you" or "traffic from any direction"; some of us took it to mean the latter, and attempted to point out that left turns on red from one-way to one-way streets is the norm in almost all states, and that it's really not any more dangerous than right turn on red, since both are curb-to-curb movements.
Ok, I'll clarify. I'm good with left turn on red from a one-way onto another one-way.
But if there are any two-way streets involved (whether you're on one or you're crossing one) there should not be any left turns on red if traffic coming from the left or coming from the right has a green.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2017, 01:22:45 AM
However, I am almost certain that it would not, due to WSDOT's preference towards protected-only turns at off-ramps. I sincerely believe that WSDOT does not realise that left on red is legal. If they knew this, I am almost certain that they would install far more "NO TURN ON RED" signs at freeway on-ramps.
As for the "double left yields" comment, Washington's MUTCD supplement bans dual permissive left turns, however, WSDOT technically installs them all the time anyways, since left on red is always legal unless otherwise posted. The first link above is technically a dual permissive left, albeit with a stop required.
So basically, Wash State DOT is unaware of the rules of driving in Wash State.
And the only way to have a protected only left in Wash is with a sign that says left on arrow only.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2017, 03:53:36 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 24, 2017, 03:37:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2017, 02:22:58 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 24, 2017, 01:09:49 PM
In an ideal world, there would be no ambiguity whatsoever as to what's allowed. E.g. if right on red is permitted, there would be a flashing red right arrow, which would mean the same thing as a flashing red ball (stop and proceed when safe).
What would you do if there was no right turn lane (instead, an option straight/right lane)? Can't (or shouldn't) use arrows in that setup.
Why not? You only need a (flashing) red arrow between the red ball and the yellow and green balls. The rest of the light would be shared between right turning and straight ahead traffic.
Oh, I see. Yes, I suppose that would work. A bit unorthodox, but not unprecedented (I've seen right turn filter signals used when there wasn't a dedicated right turn lane, but only in Vancouver).
In a hypothetical U.S. where all turns on red can only be made with a flashing indication, this could work. In the current U.S., I don't think that signal arrangement is currently allowed in the MUTCD.
Quote from: mrsman on October 25, 2017, 12:06:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2017, 01:22:45 AM
However, I am almost certain that it would not, due to WSDOT's preference towards protected-only turns at off-ramps. I sincerely believe that WSDOT does not realise that left on red is legal. If they knew this, I am almost certain that they would install far more "NO TURN ON RED" signs at freeway on-ramps.
As for the "double left yields" comment, Washington's MUTCD supplement bans dual permissive left turns, however, WSDOT technically installs them all the time anyways, since left on red is always legal unless otherwise posted. The first link above is technically a dual permissive left, albeit with a stop required.
So basically, Wash State DOT is unaware of the rules of driving in Wash State.
And the only way to have a protected only left in Wash is with a sign that says left on arrow only.
Technically, the MUTCD is a guide, not law. Exceptions can be made.
In NJ, NJDOT will occasionally widen a shoulder near an intersection for the purpose of allowing motorists to pass a left turning vehicle, which by law is illegal.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2017, 11:06:37 AM
In NJ, NJDOT will occasionally widen a shoulder near an intersection for the purpose of allowing motorists to pass a left turning vehicle, which by law is illegal.
I thought it was only illegal if you drove off the pavement. That would be why they widen the shoulder.
Quote from: New Jersey Traffic Laws, Title 39
39:4-85. Improper Passing
39:4-85. Passing to left when overtaking; passing when in lines; signaling to pass; passing upon right
The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a safe distance to the left thereof and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. If vehicles on the roadway are moving in two or more substantially continuous lines, the provisions of this paragraph and section 39:4-87 of this Title shall not be considered as prohibiting the vehicles in one line overtaking and passing the vehicles in another line either upon the right or left, nor shall those provisions be construed to prohibit drivers overtaking and passing upon the right another vehicle which is making or about to make a left turn.
The driver of an overtaking motor vehicle not within a business or residence district shall give audible warning with his horn or other warning device before passing or attempting to pass a vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right as provided in this section only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
(Side note: It's interesting that the same statute apparently requires you to honk your horn whenever you're about to pass someone in a rural area.)
It does also say "main-travelled portion of the roadway", which usually means everything but a marked shoulder. I'll pass on the right regardless if it involves crossing a shoulder, but as long as there's no line, you don't have to worry about a ticket.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 25, 2017, 02:05:27 PM
It does also say "main-travelled portion of the roadway", which usually means everything but a marked shoulder. I'll pass on the right regardless if it involves crossing a shoulder, but as long as there's no line, you don't have to worry about a ticket.
Ah, yes, I forgot that the definition of "roadway" specifically excludes the shoulder in most states. Just to double-check, I did verify that NJ is one such state. You are correct.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2017, 02:46:30 PM
As defined in Article 39: ""Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder ."
Of course, it's legalize so it's a bit confusing, but regardless of such confusion, or even what other states have used as definitions, the shoulder is not part of the main travelled portion of the roadway, and thus is illegal to use for passing.
I still can't believe I missed that, though, because the legal definition of "roadway" is something I was already quite familiar with. That's because I used to hitchhike, and most states follow the UVC and only (1) only prohibit hitchhiking from "within a roadway" and (2) define a roadway as being "exclusive of berm or shoulder", hence it being legal in most states to hitchhike from within the shoulder.
BTW, reverting back to the Right on Red arrow, NJ's State Statute online database is giving pretty good results right now.
http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=Publish:10.1048/Enu
Type in 'Red Arrow' into the search box, and you get a single result, in reference to traffic light energy efficiency.
Type in 'Arrow' into the search box, and you get multiple results, but only one is traffic related, and that is actually in reference to a special traffic movement at a traffic light by using a green arrow.
I can't find anything in relation to making a right turn on a red arrow. Even though I've read numerous places where you can't do it, I can't find an official source (and those other places never site such a source) that says it is illegal to turn right on a red arrow. Thus, it must be legal. From a practical standpoint, I can't recall seeing an intersection in NJ with a red arrow without a "NTOR" or a "Right Turn Permitted After Stop" sign.
And since I finally found it, here's the applicable portion of the law that permits right turns on red in the state (unfortunately, it doesn't permit left turns). Note...due to the wording of the law, it's actually required to make a right turn on red after you stop and it's safe to do so! (There was one ticket given out years ago in regards to this that made the newspaper. Someone took it to court claiming that they shouldn't have to turn right if they don't want to do so. They actually lost in court!)
39:4-115. The driver of a vehicle...intending to turn right at an intersection where traffic is controlled by a traffic control signal shall, unless an official sign of the State, municipality, or county authority having jurisdiction over the intersection prohibits the same, proceed to make the turn upon a "stop" or "caution" signal with proper care to avoid accidents after coming to a full stop, observing traffic in all directions, yielding to other vehicular traffic traveling in a direction in which the turn will be made, and stopping and remaining stopped for pedestrians crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk, or at an unmarked crosswalk, into which the driver is turning. Both the approach for and the turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right -hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless such intersection is otherwise posted.
I don't recall ever seeing a red right arrow in NJ at all. In fact, there is one intersection where right turns are permitted during certain parts of a red light, but not others. Instead of a red arrow, this is solved by having an electric NTOR sign that lights up when right turns are not allowed:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9253871,-74.9593138,3a,37.5y,102h,98.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWGHKt6j1_RZmv975LFYwTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Given that, as you see, it is also a doghouse with yellow and green right arrow phases, I can't help but think the entire setup would be simplified by using a red arrow. Since the cross street only goes right here, the following phases currently exist:
Green ball: cross traffic has red, opposing traffic also has a green ball, and left turning opposing traffic must yield
Red ball with NTOR lit up: cross traffic has red, opposing traffic has red ball and green left arrow
Red ball with green right arrow: Cross traffic has green, opposing traffic has red
Red ball with NTOR not lit up: Can't think of why this phase would exist, but I'm pretty sure it does
^^
Why is there a phase where a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required? I don't see any pedestrian accommodation, nor any railway tracks.
You could replace the red ball with a red arrow, but judging by the law posted by jeffandnicole, it wouldn't change the operation of the intersection.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 25, 2017, 06:30:48 PM
^^
Why is there a phase where a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required? I don't see any pedestrian accommodation, nor any railway tracks.
You could replace the red ball with a red arrow, but judging by the law posted by jeffandnicole, it wouldn't change the operation of the intersection.
Because the traffic in the opposite direction has a protected left turn phase. I am actually wondering why there is a phase when "no turn on red" is *not* required as the green right arrow would be on when the protected left is not in use (or maybe there isn't one and I'm misremembering, but then why not just have a regular "no turn on red" sign there? Do people get confused when a red ball and a green arrow are coupled with NTOR? Then a red arrow is even more called for).
Quote from: bzakharin on October 26, 2017, 10:21:27 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 25, 2017, 06:30:48 PM
^^
Why is there a phase where a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required? I don't see any pedestrian accommodation, nor any railway tracks.
You could replace the red ball with a red arrow, but judging by the law posted by jeffandnicole, it wouldn't change the operation of the intersection.
Because the traffic in the opposite direction has a protected left turn phase. I am actually wondering why there is a phase when "no turn on red" is *not* required as the green right arrow would be on when the protected left is not in use (or maybe there isn't one and I'm misremembering, but then why not just have a regular "no turn on red" sign there? Do people get confused when a red ball and a green arrow are coupled with NTOR? Then a red arrow is even more called for).
Even during the oncoming protected left, right turn on red would still be common/acceptable (at least out west), either in between gaps in turning cars, or right after the last car has turned. Much of the time, no one will get through until the light turns green anyway, but I see no reason to go to great lengths (installing electronic signage) just to ban a turn on red for one phase, when there's no expectation that you'd be able to turn anyways.
If what you say is true, and the direction in question has a green light, in some form, for 2/3 of all cycles, I do believe a permanent "no turn on red" sign would acceptable. The only time I see electronic turn prohibition signs are at railway crossings (here (https://goo.gl/rJu5zw)) or pedestrian crossings (here (https://goo.gl/ogYWnF)) (the latter is required because RTOR w/ red arrows is allowed in Washington, as it is in NJ).
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 02:16:06 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 26, 2017, 10:21:27 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 25, 2017, 06:30:48 PM
^^
Why is there a phase where a "NO TURN ON RED" sign is required? I don't see any pedestrian accommodation, nor any railway tracks.
You could replace the red ball with a red arrow, but judging by the law posted by jeffandnicole, it wouldn't change the operation of the intersection.
Because the traffic in the opposite direction has a protected left turn phase. I am actually wondering why there is a phase when "no turn on red" is *not* required as the green right arrow would be on when the protected left is not in use (or maybe there isn't one and I'm misremembering, but then why not just have a regular "no turn on red" sign there? Do people get confused when a red ball and a green arrow are coupled with NTOR? Then a red arrow is even more called for).
Even during the oncoming protected left, right turn on red would still be common/acceptable (at least out west), either in between gaps in turning cars, or right after the last car has turned. Much of the time, no one will get through until the light turns green anyway, but I see no reason to go to great lengths (installing electronic signage) just to ban a turn on red for one phase, when there's no expectation that you'd be able to turn anyways.
This is an exception to the normal practice here too. I think it's just a condition of way too much traffic at this small, tight intersection, and probably to try to get people to wait just a few more seconds rather than trying to fit in to the small gaps left by left turning traffic.
I wish I could examine it at length to verify exactly how it works and what phases it has, but when I'm there, it's rush hour and I'm trying to get to work. And I'm never waiting right at that light either because traffic tends to back up there.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 25, 2017, 05:22:28 PM
I don't recall ever seeing a red right arrow in NJ at all.
They do seem to be pretty limited, and in fact a few intersections where I thought there was one, it turns out they are just red balls.
But, on Rt. 129 North in Trenton they do use them, as that road runs alongside railroad tracks:
https://goo.gl/maps/JRGXYorAaFM2
https://goo.gl/maps/wxGp5vjniip
https://goo.gl/maps/P3WdAv14zfN2
In these 3 cases, the red arrow is shown for when the opposing left turn arrow is green, and when the train is crossing the intersection.
Also, in reference to Jake's comment regarding turning right on red, these would also be exceptions. On Rt. 129 South, standard traffic lights are used, and 2 of the 3 intersections permit right turns on red, including against the opposing left green arrow.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2017, 03:20:19 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 25, 2017, 05:22:28 PM
I don't recall ever seeing a red right arrow in NJ at all.
They do seem to be pretty limited, and in fact a few intersections where I thought there was one, it turns out they are just red balls.
But, on Rt. 129 North in Trenton they do use them, as that road runs alongside railroad tracks:
https://goo.gl/maps/JRGXYorAaFM2
https://goo.gl/maps/wxGp5vjniip
https://goo.gl/maps/P3WdAv14zfN2
In these 3 cases, the red arrow is shown for when the opposing left turn arrow is green, and when the train is crossing the intersection.
Also, in reference to Jake's comment regarding turning right on red, these would also be exceptions. On Rt. 129 South, standard traffic lights are used, and 2 of the 3 intersections permit right turns on red, including against the opposing left green arrow.
Interesting. And they do have NTOR posted. Does that mean it would be permitted otherwise? Probably not a proof either way. After all, the left arrow signals in those pics say "Left on Green Arrow Only" and that's definitely not required by law.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 02:16:06 PM
If what you say is true, and the direction in question has a green light, in some form, for 2/3 of all cycles, I do believe a permanent "no turn on red" sign would acceptable. The only time I see electronic turn prohibition signs are at railway crossings (here (https://goo.gl/rJu5zw)) or pedestrian crossings (here (https://goo.gl/ogYWnF)) (the latter is required because RTOR w/ red arrows is allowed in Washington, as it is in NJ).
Interesting. I've seen ones that light up for the opposing protected left turn phase in Michigan.
Example:
Unlit (https://goo.gl/maps/erJAgBxh6BH2)
Lit (https://goo.gl/maps/tC2eoNfkHmE2)
Quote from: Brandon on October 26, 2017, 04:12:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 02:16:06 PM
If what you say is true, and the direction in question has a green light, in some form, for 2/3 of all cycles, I do believe a permanent "no turn on red" sign would acceptable. The only time I see electronic turn prohibition signs are at railway crossings (here (https://goo.gl/rJu5zw)) or pedestrian crossings (here (https://goo.gl/ogYWnF)) (the latter is required because RTOR w/ red arrows is allowed in Washington, as it is in NJ).
Interesting. I've seen ones that light up for the opposing protected left turn phase in Michigan.
Example:
Unlit (https://goo.gl/maps/erJAgBxh6BH2)
Lit (https://goo.gl/maps/tC2eoNfkHmE2)
The idea of prohibiting something, that should already be prohibited
in practice, seems odd. I'm guessing, based on the fact that you posted a street view link from Michigan, you also are not used to seeing such signs.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 05:16:28 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 26, 2017, 04:12:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 02:16:06 PM
If what you say is true, and the direction in question has a green light, in some form, for 2/3 of all cycles, I do believe a permanent "no turn on red" sign would acceptable. The only time I see electronic turn prohibition signs are at railway crossings (here (https://goo.gl/rJu5zw)) or pedestrian crossings (here (https://goo.gl/ogYWnF)) (the latter is required because RTOR w/ red arrows is allowed in Washington, as it is in NJ).
Interesting. I've seen ones that light up for the opposing protected left turn phase in Michigan.
Example:
Unlit (https://goo.gl/maps/erJAgBxh6BH2)
Lit (https://goo.gl/maps/tC2eoNfkHmE2)
The idea of prohibiting something, that should already be prohibited in practice, seems odd. I'm guessing, based on the fact that you posted a street view link from Michigan, you also are not used to seeing such signs.
I'm used to seeing them there (from a lot of driving in the state).
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 02:16:06 PM
The only time I see electronic turn prohibition signs are at railway crossings (here (https://goo.gl/rJu5zw)) or pedestrian crossings (here (https://goo.gl/ogYWnF)) (the latter is required because RTOR w/ red arrows is allowed in Washington, as it is in NJ).
There are several of these signs in my area that aren't at railway or pedestrian crossings:
Ramp to SB I-15 at Parrish Lane, Centerville (https://goo.gl/maps/zmKfMkMyrko)
Ramp to NB I-15 at Park Lane, Farmington (https://goo.gl/maps/dLQbLnNcgiw)
Ramp to SB Legacy at Park Lane, Farmington (https://goo.gl/maps/JEP1eRUEkQ32)
All three are at a freeway onramp. I'm not sure why these movements would be prohibited, unless it's just poor visibility.
There are also several of these signs at the many CFI's along Bangerter Highway, such as this one (https://goo.gl/maps/uGNJVgYWtrv). These signs are there because a right turn would conflict with the CFI left-turn movements.
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 26, 2017, 07:00:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 02:16:06 PM
The only time I see electronic turn prohibition signs are at railway crossings (here (https://goo.gl/rJu5zw)) or pedestrian crossings (here (https://goo.gl/ogYWnF)) (the latter is required because RTOR w/ red arrows is allowed in Washington, as it is in NJ).
There are several of these signs in my area that aren't at railway or pedestrian crossings:
Ramp to SB I-15 at Parrish Lane, Centerville (https://goo.gl/maps/zmKfMkMyrko)
Ramp to NB I-15 at Park Lane, Farmington (https://goo.gl/maps/dLQbLnNcgiw)
Ramp to SB Legacy at Park Lane, Farmington (https://goo.gl/maps/JEP1eRUEkQ32)
All three are at a freeway onramp. I'm not sure why these movements would be prohibited, unless it's just poor visibility.
There are also several of these signs at the many CFI's along Bangerter Highway, such as this one (https://goo.gl/maps/uGNJVgYWtrv). These signs are there because a right turn would conflict with the CFI left-turn movements.
Hmm. More common than I realized. Unless another PNW user knows of one that I can't think of, I am certain that no electronic prohibition signs exist in my area for purposes other than railways or crosswalks. Still seems a bit odd.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 12:25:52 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 26, 2017, 07:00:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 02:16:06 PM
The only time I see electronic turn prohibition signs are at railway crossings (here (https://goo.gl/rJu5zw)) or pedestrian crossings (here (https://goo.gl/ogYWnF)) (the latter is required because RTOR w/ red arrows is allowed in Washington, as it is in NJ).
There are several of these signs in my area that aren't at railway or pedestrian crossings:
Ramp to SB I-15 at Parrish Lane, Centerville (https://goo.gl/maps/zmKfMkMyrko)
Ramp to NB I-15 at Park Lane, Farmington (https://goo.gl/maps/dLQbLnNcgiw)
Ramp to SB Legacy at Park Lane, Farmington (https://goo.gl/maps/JEP1eRUEkQ32)
All three are at a freeway onramp. I'm not sure why these movements would be prohibited, unless it's just poor visibility.
There are also several of these signs at the many CFI's along Bangerter Highway, such as this one (https://goo.gl/maps/uGNJVgYWtrv). These signs are there because a right turn would conflict with the CFI left-turn movements.
Hmm. More common than I realized. Unless another PNW user knows of one that I can't think of, I am certain that no electronic prohibition signs exist in my area for purposes other than railways or crosswalks. Still seems a bit odd.
I would only venture a guess that it is done that way in order to prevent people from inching in when another group has clear right of way and a short cycle.
If you are on a street and want to make a right turn onto the freeway on-ramp. You will normally focus on finding even a small gap in traffic to make that turn and continue. But what if the gap is really small. When you make your turn, the traffic that has the right of way will react by slowing down, thereby limiting throughput on their turn. Basically, it is a form of aggressive driving.
I know of one intersection near here at Forest Glen and Georgia in Silver Sping, MD where during the morning rush there is a long line of cars making the right turn from Eastbound Forest Glen to SB Georgia. (On-ramps tothe Beltway are just south of there.) Because traffic signals favor Georgia, a very heavy left turn movement from FG westbound to SB Georgia with many heading to the right lane of Georgia to access the Beltway ramps, and a decent amount of pedestrians walking to the nearby Metro station on the green light, the time to make this right turn is actuaully quite short, so people make the turn in whatever gap they can find. If their gap to turn is big enough for their car to fit, but small enough that conflicting traffic with ROW would have to slow down to let them through, then those right turners are stealing available throughput.
In their judgment, MD allows for this turn by not prohibiting the turn on red. UT prohibits this turn so that the left turners can get maximum throughput on their turn. Fully protected from all users, even if it is slightly inefficient where there are right turn gaps.
If a particular turn movement really needs just that extra bit of capacity, I suppose I could see a case being made. But under most circumstances, it doesn't seem like it would be necessary.
One particular turn on red I like to take advantage of is turning into an unused turn lane. Sometimes around here, you'll have left turning cars all stacked in the left-most left turn lane (usually because the other turn lane ends after the turn). I'll turn right on red into the right lane, and then merge over. That little maneuver wouldn't be possible with a RTOR restriction.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 02:52:30 PM
If a particular turn movement really needs just that extra bit of capacity, I suppose I could see a case being made. But under most circumstances, it doesn't seem like it would be necessary.
One particular turn on red I like to take advantage of is turning into an unused turn lane. Sometimes around here, you'll have left turning cars all stacked in the left-most left turn lane (usually because the other turn lane ends after the turn). I'll turn right on red into the right lane, and then merge over. That little maneuver wouldn't be possible with a RTOR restriction.
Am I understanding you correctly? :
Oncoming traffic has dual left-turn lanes and a green arrow.
You intend to turn right and have a red light.
The crossroad tapers to one lane in that direction, so everyone is in the leftmost turn lane.
This frees up the lane you intend to turn into, because it would be for the nonexistent traffic in the rightmost turn lane.
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2017, 03:10:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 02:52:30 PM
If a particular turn movement really needs just that extra bit of capacity, I suppose I could see a case being made. But under most circumstances, it doesn't seem like it would be necessary.
One particular turn on red I like to take advantage of is turning into an unused turn lane. Sometimes around here, you'll have left turning cars all stacked in the left-most left turn lane (usually because the other turn lane ends after the turn). I'll turn right on red into the right lane, and then merge over. That little maneuver wouldn't be possible with a RTOR restriction.
Am I understanding you correctly? :
Oncoming traffic has dual left-turn lanes and a green arrow.
You intend to turn right and have a red light.
The crossroad tapers to one lane in that direction, so everyone is in the leftmost turn lane.
This frees up the lane you intend to turn into, because it would be for the nonexistent traffic in the rightmost turn lane.
Precisely. And this is the intersection where I used to perform the maneuver most often, before moving away: https://goo.gl/4oP4cs
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 07:52:00 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2017, 03:10:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 02:52:30 PM
If a particular turn movement really needs just that extra bit of capacity, I suppose I could see a case being made. But under most circumstances, it doesn't seem like it would be necessary.
One particular turn on red I like to take advantage of is turning into an unused turn lane. Sometimes around here, you'll have left turning cars all stacked in the left-most left turn lane (usually because the other turn lane ends after the turn). I'll turn right on red into the right lane, and then merge over. That little maneuver wouldn't be possible with a RTOR restriction.
Am I understanding you correctly? :
Oncoming traffic has dual left-turn lanes and a green arrow.
You intend to turn right and have a red light.
The crossroad tapers to one lane in that direction, so everyone is in the leftmost turn lane.
This frees up the lane you intend to turn into, because it would be for the nonexistent traffic in the rightmost turn lane.
Precisely. And this is the intersection where I used to perform the maneuver most often, before moving away: https://goo.gl/4oP4cs
The RTOR maneuver onto a freeway on-ramp during the time when opposing traffic has a protected left turn green arrow seems to be what we are discussing. We acknowledge that the movement is likely to be busy and likely to have a fairly limited amount of the time in the traffic signal cycle. This seems to be what is prohibited in roadguy2's examples from Utah.
It is also prohibited in this example here in the Los Angeles area:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1552031,-118.4311256,3a,75y,29.73h,93.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skD_063hQkbP0Ln4pRUAnJg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DkD_063hQkbP0Ln4pRUAnJg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D220.16148%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
(As can be seen at the Woodman Ave onramp to southbound (eastbound) US 101 in Van Nuys, there is NTOR but only 7-9AM weekdays. So for the busiest time periods of the on-ramp, both for those who make the opposing left turn and any cross traffic from off-ramp to on-ramp, the DOT decided that they do not want right turners interfering with the limited time the other people have for making this turn. Since the traffic signal generally favors Woodman, the right turners have sufficient time on their own portion of the cycle to make the turn and they do not need to steal time from other directions.)
Off-peak, no problem. Make the right turn when it is safe, if you see a gap in traffic.
So the reason for many of these instances appears to be throughput. A left turn onto a freeway on ramp will have a lot of demand but generally have a short phase in a traffic signal that favors through traffic along the main street. There is likely not going to be much of a gap anyway, excepting for someone sneaking in because someone is making their left turn movement slowly. So to prevent drivers from taking away part of the signal time, a NTOR is imposed on traffic turning right at the same ramp.
Quote from: mrsman on October 28, 2017, 09:57:08 PM
So the reason for many of these instances appears to be throughput. A left turn onto a freeway on ramp will have a lot of demand but generally have a short phase in a traffic signal that favors through traffic along the main street. There is likely not going to be much of a gap anyway, excepting for someone sneaking in because someone is making their left turn movement slowly. So to prevent drivers from taking away part of the signal time, a NTOR is imposed on traffic turning right at the same ramp.
I still don't understand the math. A gap, is a gap, is a gap...if a right turner decides to fill that gap, I don't see how that could affect the flow of those turning left. The flow of those turning left is exacerbated by the slow left turner, not the guy taking advantage of a dimwitted driver.
The
only reason I could see this being an issue is a chain-reaction brake, but that shouldn't be an issue here, since traffic was already stopped waiting for the green arrow.
Side note: California could improve their traffic flow if they stopped using so many single-lane protected lefts.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 28, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 28, 2017, 09:57:08 PM
So the reason for many of these instances appears to be throughput. A left turn onto a freeway on ramp will have a lot of demand but generally have a short phase in a traffic signal that favors through traffic along the main street. There is likely not going to be much of a gap anyway, excepting for someone sneaking in because someone is making their left turn movement slowly. So to prevent drivers from taking away part of the signal time, a NTOR is imposed on traffic turning right at the same ramp.
I still don't understand the math. A gap, is a gap, is a gap...if a right turner decides to fill that gap, I don't see how that could affect the flow of those turning left. The flow of those turning left is exacerbated by the slow left turner, not the guy taking advantage of a dimwitted driver.
The only reason I could see this being an issue is a chain-reaction brake, but that shouldn't be an issue here, since traffic was already stopped waiting for the green arrow.
Side note: California could improve their traffic flow if they stopped using so many single-lane protected lefts.
The problem is you
might get someone who tries getting in a small gap that forces the left turners to brake. Still, I think this is rare enough to not warrant a NTOR sign. In my area, things work just fine without prohibiting right turns during this phase.
I
do think it could be useful in areas with lots of U-turns. I almost hit someone since I made a ROR and they were doing a U-turn. I'm not used to looking out for that, but this one intersection has lots of people doing U-turns to get to a nearby street.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 07:52:00 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2017, 03:10:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 02:52:30 PM
If a particular turn movement really needs just that extra bit of capacity, I suppose I could see a case being made. But under most circumstances, it doesn't seem like it would be necessary.
One particular turn on red I like to take advantage of is turning into an unused turn lane. Sometimes around here, you'll have left turning cars all stacked in the left-most left turn lane (usually because the other turn lane ends after the turn). I'll turn right on red into the right lane, and then merge over. That little maneuver wouldn't be possible with a RTOR restriction.
Am I understanding you correctly? :
Oncoming traffic has dual left-turn lanes and a green arrow.
You intend to turn right and have a red light.
The crossroad tapers to one lane in that direction, so everyone is in the leftmost turn lane.
This frees up the lane you intend to turn into, because it would be for the nonexistent traffic in the rightmost turn lane.
Precisely. And this is the intersection where I used to perform the maneuver most often, before moving away: https://goo.gl/4oP4cs
I was having trouble coming up with an example around me, but I wasn't thinking of highway on-ramps. Here's one where I do the same thing, less than a mile from my house.
south on Oliver Road, turning onto westbound Kellogg (https://goo.gl/maps/VEsjKekC1JA2).
Quote from: 7/8 on October 29, 2017, 12:52:43 AM
The problem is you might get someone who tries getting in a small gap that forces the left turners to brake. Still, I think this is rare enough to not warrant a NTOR sign. In my area, things work just fine without prohibiting right turns during this phase.
That's basically my stance. It just seems so unusual that it seems like a total waste to even bother with all the wiring, timing, etc.
Quote from: 7/8 on October 29, 2017, 12:52:43 AM
I do think it could be useful in areas with lots of U-turns. I almost hit someone since I made a ROR and they were doing a U-turn. I'm not used to looking out for that, but this one intersection has lots of people doing U-turns to get to a nearby street.
Most of the roads with medians in my area permit U-turns, so I'm pretty used to having to yield to U-turners. Here's a common sign: https://goo.gl/i7SrmL (still didn't prevent a cop from cutting me off while I was doing a U-turn a few years ago).
I finally found a double right in my area with a restriction on the left lane: https://goo.gl/8i2rnN (27 Ave NE @ 172 St NE, Marysville, WA).
As far as I can tell, the restriction was put in place sometime between 2012 and 2015, judging by GSV. There's been a double right turn in this location for at least ten years. No idea what would have caused the change. Double rights are very common in my area, and no others have this kind of restriction.
FWIW, the far-right signal head has a red arrow.
EDIT 11 OCT 2017: double right turn removed from this location, so disregard the above post.
Waking this thread up slightly...
In the past we've talked in NJ of the Right on Red Arrow. In the past, any red arrows that we've seen have always been accompanied by a 'No Turn On Red' sign, clarifying right turns on red are not permitted.
I finally found an instance in NJ of red arrows without accompanying signage. In Camden, NJ, on a street mostly serving Cooper Hospital's parking garage: https://goo.gl/maps/Kg8zASwgoDD2 . Only right turns can be made here, and there doesn't appear to be any ground-mounted signage missing as other signage in the area restricting right turns is mast-mounted, and older GSVs don't show any additional signage that may have gone missing over the years. So based on all other similar examples and everything I've read in the past, right turns on red are permitted here
Across the street, there is a bad MUTCD violation though...Here's an example of a shared thru/right turn lane with a turning signal arrow directly above the lane: https://goo.gl/maps/hRFt2Jq2Aft . This seems to be a holdover from when the lane was truly a right turn only lane, as seen in this 2009 GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/obz3stv18xm . When converted to a shared lane the signal should've been modified but wasn't. Even more oddly: The next intersection continues the shared thru/right turn lane with another non-MUTCD permitted signal. And that lane instantly becomes a street parking lane, so the lane shouldn't have thru access at that point to begin with!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2018, 01:40:52 PM
Across the street, there is a bad MUTCD violation though...Here's an example of a shared thru/right turn lane with a turning signal arrow directly above the lane: https://goo.gl/maps/hRFt2Jq2Aft . This seems to be a holdover from when the lane was truly a right turn only lane, as seen in this 2009 GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/obz3stv18xm . When converted to a shared lane the signal should've been modified but wasn't. Even more oddly: The next intersection continues the shared thru/right turn lane with another non-MUTCD permitted signal. And that lane instantly becomes a street parking lane, so the lane shouldn't have thru access at that point to begin with!
Which paragraph(s) does this violate?
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 11, 2018, 04:51:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2018, 01:40:52 PM
Across the street, there is a bad MUTCD violation though...Here's an example of a shared thru/right turn lane with a turning signal arrow directly above the lane: https://goo.gl/maps/hRFt2Jq2Aft . This seems to be a holdover from when the lane was truly a right turn only lane, as seen in this 2009 GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/obz3stv18xm . When converted to a shared lane the signal should've been modified but wasn't. Even more oddly: The next intersection continues the shared thru/right turn lane with another non-MUTCD permitted signal. And that lane instantly becomes a street parking lane, so the lane shouldn't have thru access at that point to begin with!
Which paragraph(s) does this violate?
Yeah, I'm not sure this is technically a violation of the MUTCD. It's a tough situation due the rail lines, but since the rail lines always have ROW (or usually do, in most cities), they have no choice but to fully protect all movements going across that road.
There is a seldom-used option that permits both a red arrow and red orb. When the light turns green, the red orb stays lit for whatever direction to protect another movement. Spokane, WA has this for a pedestrian crossing: https://goo.gl/kD6L5X. It would be a good option for these right turns.
The only "improvement" that could be made would be to make the right lanes exclusive right turn lanes, but I don't see how that helps the situation, besides reducing the chance that a driver might get stuck behind someone turning.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 11, 2018, 05:07:16 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 11, 2018, 04:51:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2018, 01:40:52 PM
Across the street, there is a bad MUTCD violation though...Here's an example of a shared thru/right turn lane with a turning signal arrow directly above the lane: https://goo.gl/maps/hRFt2Jq2Aft . This seems to be a holdover from when the lane was truly a right turn only lane, as seen in this 2009 GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/obz3stv18xm . When converted to a shared lane the signal should've been modified but wasn't. Even more oddly: The next intersection continues the shared thru/right turn lane with another non-MUTCD permitted signal. And that lane instantly becomes a street parking lane, so the lane shouldn't have thru access at that point to begin with!
Which paragraph(s) does this violate?
Yeah, I'm not sure this is technically a violation of the MUTCD. It's a tough situation due the rail lines, but since the rail lines always have ROW (or usually do, in most cities), they have no choice but to fully protect all movements going across that road.
There is a seldom-used option that permits both a red arrow and red orb. When the light turns green, the red orb stays lit for whatever direction to protect another movement. Spokane, WA has this for a pedestrian crossing: https://goo.gl/kD6L5X. It would be a good option for these right turns.
The only "improvement" that could be made would be to make the right lanes exclusive right turn lanes, but I don't see how that helps the situation, besides reducing the chance that a driver might get stuck behind someone turning.
Actually, it's a violation, at least in the 2009 MUTCD...
Quote
Section 4D.21 Signal Indications for Right-Turn Movements — General
...
Standard:
...
05 A protected only mode right-turn movement that does not begin and terminate at the same time as the adjacent through movement shall not be provided on an approach unless an exclusive right-turn lane exists.
Probably the kosher solution here is to use an activated blank out "no right turn" symbol sign when the train is approaching.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 12:25:52 AM
Hmm. More common than I realized. Unless another PNW user knows of one that I can't think of, I am certain that no electronic prohibition signs exist in my area for purposes other than railways or crosswalks. Still seems a bit odd.
There's this one in Renton, where traffic coming down hill from around the corner may not be visible to cars turning right. https://goo.gl/maps/m5zfhW5grEk
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 13, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 12:25:52 AM
Hmm. More common than I realized. Unless another PNW user knows of one that I can't think of, I am certain that no electronic prohibition signs exist in my area for purposes other than railways or crosswalks. Still seems a bit odd.
There's this one in Renton, where traffic coming down hill from around the corner may not be visible to cars turning right. https://goo.gl/maps/m5zfhW5grEk
Very nice. I appreciate them not immediately using a NTOR sign. What does it say when activated?
It's definitely a "No Right Turn" sign. You can kind of see a faint outline of the symbol in this image here (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.441163,-122.2131261,3a,15y,162.3h,100.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm9u8f3Pn-TEgVzxxL2lYEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Found this today exiting the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) to Telegraph Road. Virginia normally doesn't allow right on red arrow, but this is an interesting exception. I've used that exit before (not often, though, just because of where it is) but I had not noticed this sign. Don't know whether there are any other places like this. (The arrows were flashing red when I took the picture. I guess they were dark when I snapped it.)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/e5efa17d936b507b12841bc963a0e49e.jpg)
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 14, 2018, 04:10:34 PM
Found this today exiting the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) to Telegraph Road. Virginia normally doesn't allow right on red arrow, but this is an interesting exception. I've used that exit before (not often, though, just because of where it is) but I had not noticed this sign. Don't know whether there are any other places like this. (The arrows were flashing red when I took the picture. I guess they were dark when I snapped it.)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/e5efa17d936b507b12841bc963a0e49e.jpg)
Gotta love having to read nine words in order to know what to do.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 14, 2018, 04:10:34 PM
Found this today exiting the Fairfax County Parkway (VA-286) to Telegraph Road. Virginia normally doesn't allow right on red arrow, but this is an interesting exception. I've used that exit before (not often, though, just because of where it is) but I had not noticed this sign. Don't know whether there are any other places like this. (The arrows were flashing red when I took the picture. I guess they were dark when I snapped it.)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181014/e5efa17d936b507b12841bc963a0e49e.jpg)
Definitely the first time I've heard of flashing red arrows in Virginia. Do they always flash during the red cycle?
I don't know simply because I don't use that exit often enough. Also, when I do use that exit I've always turned left (as I did today–I was going from my parents' house to Wegmans and I just didn't feel like taking the Beltway), so I'm usually not paying attention to the right-turn lights (if I can even see them, depending on which lane I'm in). Today I was in the right lane of two left-turn lanes and I had a fairly long wait for a green, which is why I noticed it this time.
Quote from: kphoger on October 14, 2018, 04:57:17 PM
Gotta love having to read nine words in order to know what to do.
It's definitely self-explanatory, but even as implemented, it's a massive improvement compared to 99% of VA's double right turns, which inevitably ban RTOR from the left lane.
Quote from: plain on October 14, 2018, 04:59:57 PM
Definitely the first time I've heard of flashing red arrows in Virginia. Do they always flash during the red cycle?
Flashing red arrows are pretty rare, period (except in Maryland). I suspect it goes to solid red following the green cycle, before switching to flashing red after a couple moments. Similar to an FYA cycle.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 14, 2018, 05:22:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 14, 2018, 04:57:17 PM
Gotta love having to read nine words in order to know what to do.
It's definitely self-explanatory, but even as implemented, it's a massive improvement compared to 99% of VA's double right turns, which inevitably ban RTOR from the left lane.
Despite the two signals, it's actually only a single lane (https://goo.gl/maps/PzSyQjAxcrv), unless they widened it since the Street View was taken (which 1995hoo didn't mention having been done).
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 14, 2018, 08:52:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 14, 2018, 05:22:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 14, 2018, 04:57:17 PM
Gotta love having to read nine words in order to know what to do.
It's definitely self-explanatory, but even as implemented, it's a massive improvement compared to 99% of VA's double right turns, which inevitably ban RTOR from the left lane.
Despite the two signals, it's actually only a single lane (https://goo.gl/maps/PzSyQjAxcrv), unless they widened it since the Street View was taken (which 1995hoo didn't mention having been done).
When I went through there today, there were two right-turn lanes and two left-turn lanes. I haven't looked at Street View (including your link) to see if it's been revised over the years. Too lazy and more interested in the can of DC Brau that's sitting over here.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 14, 2018, 09:15:53 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 14, 2018, 08:52:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 14, 2018, 05:22:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 14, 2018, 04:57:17 PM
Gotta love having to read nine words in order to know what to do.
It's definitely self-explanatory, but even as implemented, it's a massive improvement compared to 99% of VA's double right turns, which inevitably ban RTOR from the left lane.
Despite the two signals, it's actually only a single lane (https://goo.gl/maps/PzSyQjAxcrv), unless they widened it since the Street View was taken (which 1995hoo didn't mention having been done).
When I went through there today, there were two right-turn lanes and two left-turn lanes. I haven't looked at Street View (including your link) to see if it's been revised over the years. Too lazy and more interested in the can of DC Brau that's sitting over here.
Huh, interesting. The pavement was definitely there for two lanes, though even in the old Street View before the flashing red arrow, there were two signals.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 14, 2018, 12:40:00 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 13, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 12:25:52 AM
Hmm. More common than I realized. Unless another PNW user knows of one that I can't think of, I am certain that no electronic prohibition signs exist in my area for purposes other than railways or crosswalks. Still seems a bit odd.
There's this one in Renton, where traffic coming down hill from around the corner may not be visible to cars turning right. https://goo.gl/maps/m5zfhW5grEk
Very nice. I appreciate them not immediately using a NTOR sign. What does it say when activated?
It has a symbolic no right turn prohibition, like this one. (https://goo.gl/maps/GL6qA8guX6U2) In this intersection in Kirkland the prohibition comes on not on the walk sign, but when opposing left turning traffic is in the protected phase. It turns off when it is in the permissive phase.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1928/30388024057_c1d885be56_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NihyRg)Blankable right on red restriction (https://flic.kr/p/NihyRg) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 14, 2018, 10:41:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 14, 2018, 12:40:00 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 13, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 12:25:52 AM
Hmm. More common than I realized. Unless another PNW user knows of one that I can't think of, I am certain that no electronic prohibition signs exist in my area for purposes other than railways or crosswalks. Still seems a bit odd.
There's this one in Renton, where traffic coming down hill from around the corner may not be visible to cars turning right. https://goo.gl/maps/m5zfhW5grEk
Very nice. I appreciate them not immediately using a NTOR sign. What does it say when activated?
It has a symbolic no right turn prohibition, like this one. (https://goo.gl/maps/GL6qA8guX6U2) In this intersection in Kirkland the prohibition comes on not on the walk sign, but when opposing left turning traffic is in the protected phase. It turns off when it is in the permissive phase.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1928/30388024057_c1d885be56_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NihyRg)Blankable right on red restriction (https://flic.kr/p/NihyRg) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Seems like it'd make more sense for the LED display to say No Turn On Red.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 14, 2018, 10:27:17 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 14, 2018, 09:15:53 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 14, 2018, 08:52:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 14, 2018, 05:22:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 14, 2018, 04:57:17 PM
Gotta love having to read nine words in order to know what to do.
It's definitely self-explanatory, but even as implemented, it's a massive improvement compared to 99% of VA's double right turns, which inevitably ban RTOR from the left lane.
Despite the two signals, it's actually only a single lane (https://goo.gl/maps/PzSyQjAxcrv), unless they widened it since the Street View was taken (which 1995hoo didn't mention having been done).
When I went through there today, there were two right-turn lanes and two left-turn lanes. I haven't looked at Street View (including your link) to see if it's been revised over the years. Too lazy and more interested in the can of DC Brau that's sitting over here.
Huh, interesting. The pavement was definitely there for two lanes, though even in the old Street View before the flashing red arrow, there were two signals.
You know, upon reflection I think I should amend my comment to say the people turning right had formed two lanes, so I assumed there were two. That's not always a valid assumption, of course! I did not look over to see the actual pavement markings.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 15, 2018, 08:21:12 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 14, 2018, 10:41:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 14, 2018, 12:40:00 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 13, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 12:25:52 AM
Hmm. More common than I realized. Unless another PNW user knows of one that I can't think of, I am certain that no electronic prohibition signs exist in my area for purposes other than railways or crosswalks. Still seems a bit odd.
There's this one in Renton, where traffic coming down hill from around the corner may not be visible to cars turning right. https://goo.gl/maps/m5zfhW5grEk
Very nice. I appreciate them not immediately using a NTOR sign. What does it say when activated?
It has a symbolic no right turn prohibition, like this one. (https://goo.gl/maps/GL6qA8guX6U2) In this intersection in Kirkland the prohibition comes on not on the walk sign, but when opposing left turning traffic is in the protected phase. It turns off when it is in the permissive phase.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1928/30388024057_c1d885be56_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NihyRg)Blankable right on red restriction (https://flic.kr/p/NihyRg) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Seems like it'd make more sense for the LED display to say No Turn On Red.
Why? Symbol signs tend to be more easily readable than text-based signs, which can get a little bit wordy.
Here's an example of a text "No Right Turn on Red" electronic sign (https://goo.gl/maps/uxCznk9bUXm). It turns off only when either the green or yellow arrow in the doghouse is on. Oddly, it doesn't turn off if only the actual through light is green, and not the arrow (which only happens if someone activates the pedestrian crossing on the right). While that's
technically correct, I think it just invites confusion to leave the "NRTOR" sign up while right turns are allowed on a green light. If they could reprogram the sign to turn off on any green light or arrow, it would almost certainly work better as a symbol No Right Turn sign.
That Washington example is very similar to this one in Utah (https://goo.gl/maps/4tTknxq7Mbw): the electronic No Right Turn sign is only on when the opposing left turn light is green. Right turns are allowed while traffic coming off the freeway has a green light (and of course, with the eastbound green light).
Quote from: US 89 on October 15, 2018, 09:45:07 AM
Here's an example of a text "No Right Turn on Red" electronic sign (https://goo.gl/maps/uxCznk9bUXm). It turns off only when either the green or yellow arrow in the doghouse is on. Oddly, it doesn't turn off if only the actual through light is green, and not the arrow (which only happens if someone activates the pedestrian crossing on the right). While that's technically correct, I think it just invites confusion to leave the "NRTOR" sign up while right turns are allowed on a green light. If they could reprogram the sign to turn off on any green light or arrow, it would almost certainly work better as a symbol No Right Turn sign.
Why did they even bother with the electronic sign? Panning the GSV to the right there's a traditional NTOR sign posted, so regardless if the electronic sign is on or off, no one is permitted to turn on red anyway.
I believe that turning on a solid red arrow should not be allowed, and flashing red arrows should be the primary way to distinguish between whether RTOR is allowed or not, instead of using signs.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 14, 2018, 05:22:50 PM
Quote from: plain on October 14, 2018, 04:59:57 PM
Definitely the first time I've heard of flashing red arrows in Virginia. Do they always flash during the red cycle?
Flashing red arrows are pretty rare, period (except in Maryland). I suspect it goes to solid red following the green cycle, before switching to flashing red after a couple moments. Similar to an FYA cycle.
Yeah the only other state I've seen them in is Delaware and I don't think they even have them there anymore.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 15, 2018, 08:21:12 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 14, 2018, 10:41:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 14, 2018, 12:40:00 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 13, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 12:25:52 AM
Hmm. More common than I realized. Unless another PNW user knows of one that I can't think of, I am certain that no electronic prohibition signs exist in my area for purposes other than railways or crosswalks. Still seems a bit odd.
There's this one in Renton, where traffic coming down hill from around the corner may not be visible to cars turning right. https://goo.gl/maps/m5zfhW5grEk
Very nice. I appreciate them not immediately using a NTOR sign. What does it say when activated?
It has a symbolic no right turn prohibition, like this one. (https://goo.gl/maps/GL6qA8guX6U2) In this intersection in Kirkland the prohibition comes on not on the walk sign, but when opposing left turning traffic is in the protected phase. It turns off when it is in the permissive phase.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1928/30388024057_c1d885be56_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NihyRg)Blankable right on red restriction (https://flic.kr/p/NihyRg) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Seems like it'd make more sense for the LED display to say No Turn On Red.
Michigan seems to use them extensively where they light up for while the opposing left turn is protected.
https://goo.gl/maps/K4dHu6f7MJG2
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 14, 2018, 10:41:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 14, 2018, 12:40:00 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 13, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 27, 2017, 12:25:52 AM
Hmm. More common than I realized. Unless another PNW user knows of one that I can't think of, I am certain that no electronic prohibition signs exist in my area for purposes other than railways or crosswalks. Still seems a bit odd.
There's this one in Renton, where traffic coming down hill from around the corner may not be visible to cars turning right. https://goo.gl/maps/m5zfhW5grEk
Very nice. I appreciate them not immediately using a NTOR sign. What does it say when activated?
It has a symbolic no right turn prohibition, like this one. (https://goo.gl/maps/GL6qA8guX6U2) In this intersection in Kirkland the prohibition comes on not on the walk sign, but when opposing left turning traffic is in the protected phase. It turns off when it is in the permissive phase.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1928/30388024057_c1d885be56_c.jpg
That's my favorite intersection in Kirkland! (For undisclosed reasons). Never noticed that sign before. Kind of odd they'd bother with that sign at all, given the total lack of a crosswalk. It's only purpose would be for what it's being used for (NTOR during oncoming left turn), but I can't figure out why that phase needs such total exclusivity. If there's cars coming, no one's going to turn on red anyways.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 15, 2018, 10:10:32 AM
Quote from: US 89 on October 15, 2018, 09:45:07 AM
Here's an example of a text "No Right Turn on Red" electronic sign (https://goo.gl/maps/uxCznk9bUXm). It turns off only when either the green or yellow arrow in the doghouse is on. Oddly, it doesn't turn off if only the actual through light is green, and not the arrow (which only happens if someone activates the pedestrian crossing on the right). While that's technically correct, I think it just invites confusion to leave the "NRTOR" sign up while right turns are allowed on a green light. If they could reprogram the sign to turn off on any green light or arrow, it would almost certainly work better as a symbol No Right Turn sign.
Why did they even bother with the electronic sign? Panning the GSV to the right there's a traditional NTOR sign posted, so regardless if the electronic sign is on or off, no one is permitted to turn on red anyway.
That brings up a good point, what do you do if you’re looking at a NTOR sign and a green arrow at the same time? Even if the electronic sign didn’t turn off for the arrows, it’s clearly obvious that you’re intended to go on a red light/green arrow combination. I wonder what the MUTCD says about setups like this.
Looking at it more, that’s a really weird intersection in more ways than that. Looking at this GSV frame (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7759558,-111.8908556,3a,15y,275.63h,94.57t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sQ4awL5Wmux_RlKOwSo4RwQ!2e0), it appears that there’s an extended green to allow eastbound traffic to turn left. That’s something I’d never seen or heard of in Utah before, despite the fact that I’ve been through that intersection more times than I can count.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 15, 2018, 01:57:32 PM
That's my favorite intersection in Kirkland! (For undisclosed reasons). Never noticed that sign before. Kind of odd they'd bother with that sign at all, given the total lack of a crosswalk. It's only purpose would be for what it's being used for (NTOR during oncoming left turn), but I can't figure out why that phase needs such total exclusivity. If there's cars coming, no one's going to turn on red anyways.
I disagree. Yes you aren’t supposed to, but the stupidity level of many drivers is quite high. I’ve had several close calls with idiots who made a right turn on red in front of me, not realizing I had a green arrow. This specific intersection may have had a high enough crash rate from this that they just put up the sign and called it good.
Quote from: US 89 on October 15, 2018, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 15, 2018, 01:57:32 PM
That's my favorite intersection in Kirkland! (For undisclosed reasons). Never noticed that sign before. Kind of odd they'd bother with that sign at all, given the total lack of a crosswalk. It's only purpose would be for what it's being used for (NTOR during oncoming left turn), but I can't figure out why that phase needs such total exclusivity. If there's cars coming, no one's going to turn on red anyways.
I disagree. Yes you aren't supposed to, but the stupidity level of many drivers is quite high. I've had several close calls with idiots who made a right turn on red in front of me, not realizing I had a green arrow. This specific intersection may have had a high enough crash rate from this that they just put up the sign and called it good.
Thinking again, it might be due to capacity. The oncoming left turn, logically, has less opportunity to turn, compared to the opposing right turn (the movement with the electronic no-right-turn sign). To reduce the chance that drivers turning right would fill up the ramp meters for the ramps to 405 as they would be constantly turning (more or less), they limit turns on red when oncoming traffic is turning to reduce the opportunity for that right turn to saturate the capacity of the ramps.
WA barely bans turning on red except in cases of reduced visibility, but one example I'm familiar with is the eastbound Valley Ave right turn onto southbound WA-161 (https://goo.gl/Uw6cFs) in Puyallup. Yes, it's a double right turn, but that's not the reason for the NTOR restriction. There is a freeway entrance just after the right turn, and it's a popular destination for this right turn. But the other movements at the intersection also like entering the freeway at this point. To avoid the right turn constantly going on red and using all available capacity on 161, they deny turns on red, so the oncoming left turn and the perpendicular straight movement have more of an opportunity to go.
Quote from: US 89 on October 15, 2018, 02:08:30 PM
That brings up a good point, what do you do if you're looking at a NTOR sign and a green arrow at the same time? Even if the electronic sign didn't turn off for the arrows, it's clearly obvious that you're intended to go on a red light/green arrow combination. I wonder what the MUTCD says about setups like this.
Right turns on green arrows are not considered a violation of NTOR. Such combinations are very common in PA.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 15, 2018, 03:10:16 PM
Quote from: US 89 on October 15, 2018, 02:08:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 15, 2018, 01:57:32 PM
That's my favorite intersection in Kirkland! (For undisclosed reasons). Never noticed that sign before. Kind of odd they'd bother with that sign at all, given the total lack of a crosswalk. It's only purpose would be for what it's being used for (NTOR during oncoming left turn), but I can't figure out why that phase needs such total exclusivity. If there's cars coming, no one's going to turn on red anyways.
I disagree. Yes you aren't supposed to, but the stupidity level of many drivers is quite high. I've had several close calls with idiots who made a right turn on red in front of me, not realizing I had a green arrow. This specific intersection may have had a high enough crash rate from this that they just put up the sign and called it good.
Thinking again, it might be due to capacity. The oncoming left turn, logically, has less opportunity to turn, compared to the opposing right turn (the movement with the electronic no-right-turn sign). To reduce the chance that drivers turning right would fill up the ramp meters for the ramps to 405 as they would be constantly turning (more or less), they limit turns on red when oncoming traffic is turning to reduce the opportunity for that right turn to saturate the capacity of the ramps.
WA barely bans turning on red except in cases of reduced visibility, but one example I'm familiar with is the eastbound Valley Ave right turn onto southbound WA-161 (https://goo.gl/Uw6cFs) in Puyallup. Yes, it's a double right turn, but that's not the reason for the NTOR restriction. There is a freeway entrance just after the right turn, and it's a popular destination for this right turn. But the other movements at the intersection also like entering the freeway at this point. To avoid the right turn constantly going on red and using all available capacity on 161, they deny turns on red, so the oncoming left turn and the perpendicular straight movement have more of an opportunity to go.
The NTOR also provides pedestrians a safe opportunity to cross the right turn lanes. This shouldn't be a big deal, since it seems that right turners here have a lot of time to make their turn, both the time that EB Valley faces green as well as the time that NB Meridian makes the left turn to WB Valley.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 15, 2018, 03:10:16 PM
Quote from: US 89 on October 15, 2018, 02:08:30 PM
That brings up a good point, what do you do if you're looking at a NTOR sign and a green arrow at the same time? Even if the electronic sign didn't turn off for the arrows, it's clearly obvious that you're intended to go on a red light/green arrow combination. I wonder what the MUTCD says about setups like this.
Right turns on green arrows are not considered a violation of NTOR. Such combinations are very common in PA.
NJ uses them on occasion as well. But why they use them some times but not other times seems to be a question that can't be answered. At a public meeting recently in regards to an intersection reconstruction project, I asked why they weren't putting a green arrow on a particular leg of an intersection (in a location where one has been previously prior to the last intersection reconstruction) when the cross traffic has a green left arrow. The answer I got back from a arrogant smooth-talking consultant was that it didn't need one because right turns on red are allowed. When I said, but you're putting one on this leg of the intersection, even though the same exact conditions exist, he tried telling me about pedestrians crossing and such...which wouldn't be happening because, again, the cross traffic has a green left arrow. I literally argued about this for a few minutes, until he directed his assistant to take a note down about it. NJDOT officials were in the room as well, but declined to get involved. I would prefer them more often especially when there's a lengthy arrow, although the downside is when the arrow isn't let some motorists treat it as a NTOR indicator and feel they can't turn right at all.
Quote from: mrsman on October 19, 2018, 12:58:04 PM
The NTOR also provides pedestrians a safe opportunity to cross the right turn lanes. This shouldn't be a big deal, since it seems that right turners here have a lot of time to make their turn, both the time that EB Valley faces green as well as the time that NB Meridian makes the left turn to WB Valley.
Yes, there is plenty of green time for this right turn, but it nevertheless does get very busy in the evening hours. Agreed on improved ped safety.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2018, 01:32:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 15, 2018, 03:10:16 PM
Quote from: US 89 on October 15, 2018, 02:08:30 PM
That brings up a good point, what do you do if you're looking at a NTOR sign and a green arrow at the same time? Even if the electronic sign didn't turn off for the arrows, it's clearly obvious that you're intended to go on a red light/green arrow combination. I wonder what the MUTCD says about setups like this.
Right turns on green arrows are not considered a violation of NTOR. Such combinations are very common in PA.
NJ uses them on occasion as well. But why they use them some times but not other times seems to be a question that can't be answered. At a public meeting recently in regards to an intersection reconstruction project, I asked why they weren't putting a green arrow on a particular leg of an intersection (in a location where one has been previously prior to the last intersection reconstruction) when the cross traffic has a green left arrow. The answer I got back from a arrogant smooth-talking consultant was that it didn't need one because right turns on red are allowed. When I said, but you're putting one on this leg of the intersection, even though the same exact conditions exist, he tried telling me about pedestrians crossing and such...which wouldn't be happening because, again, the cross traffic has a green left arrow. I literally argued about this for a few minutes, until he directed his assistant to take a note down about it. NJDOT officials were in the room as well, but declined to get involved. I would prefer them more often especially when there's a lengthy arrow, although the downside is when the arrow isn't let some motorists treat it as a NTOR indicator and feel they can't turn right at all.
When I was referring to PA, I was referring to their oft-sighted combination of NTOR and doghouse right turn signals.
With that said, that is pretty annoying. Seems like they forgot to include one but, rather than acknowledge your point and include one, they'd rather just not do anything and implement as-is. I've been starting to see more right turn filter signals here in WA, although it lacks the popularity that exists in some states like Illinois or California. I suspect it has something to do with our U-turn laws, which permit U-turns pretty much anywhere (especially at signals without any other signage), so a right turn filter might come into contact with a U-turn unless a sign prohibiting the maneuver exists.
Quote from: doogie1303 on May 30, 2016, 09:30:01 AM
So just out of curiosity, how many states allow "Right on Red Arrow" movement?
I was just out in Washington state for about two weeks and on several occasions got honked waiting at a light with a right red arrow. Coming from a state that does not allow that movement, I was confused on why people were honking and started thinking about "what the heck are they teaching them in drivers ed?". Come to find out i read online that WA allows for right turn on red arrow.
So here's my question, how are people from out of state supposed to know if the current state they are driving in allows for or doesn't allow this movement? There are no signs posting this movement and it seems counter intuitive to the meaning of a red arrow.
I always feel a red arrow in a direction should mean stop, if they really want to allow rights on red put a red ball where the red arrow would go
iPhone
Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 29, 2018, 05:07:55 PM
I always feel a red arrow in a direction should mean stop, if they really want to allow rights on red put a red ball where the red arrow would go
What if the straight-ahead movement is green? That's why I'm in support of flashing red arrows.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 02:07:54 PM
I've been starting to see more right turn filter signals here in WA, although it lacks the popularity that exists in some states like Illinois or California. I suspect it has something to do with our U-turn laws, which permit U-turns pretty much anywhere (especially at signals without any other signage), so a right turn filter might come into contact with a U-turn unless a sign prohibiting the maneuver exists.
But that's not much different than Illinois, which likewise permits U-turns pretty much anywhere (other than Chicago).
Quote from: Illinois Vehicle Code
(625 ILCS 5/11-802) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-802)
Sec. 11-802. Limitations on U turns.
(a) The driver of any vehicle shall not turn such vehicle so as to proceed in the opposite direction unless such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with other traffic.
(b) No vehicle shall be turned so as to proceed in the opposite direction upon any curve, or upon the approach to or near the crest of a grade, where such vehicle cannot be seen by the driver of any other vehicle approaching from either direction within 500 feet.
I thought I remembered there being a restriction against making a U-turn at any location other than a traffic-controlled intersection, but now I can find no such restriction in the statutes.
Quote from: 1 on December 29, 2018, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 29, 2018, 05:07:55 PM
I always feel a red arrow in a direction should mean stop, if they really want to allow rights on red put a red ball where the red arrow would go
What if the straight-ahead movement is green? That's why I'm in support of flashing red arrows.
You could always use green straight up arrows. But if that situation is needed, then use a FRA
Quote from: kphoger on December 29, 2018, 06:03:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2018, 02:07:54 PM
I've been starting to see more right turn filter signals here in WA, although it lacks the popularity that exists in some states like Illinois or California. I suspect it has something to do with our U-turn laws, which permit U-turns pretty much anywhere (especially at signals without any other signage), so a right turn filter might come into contact with a U-turn unless a sign prohibiting the maneuver exists.
But that's not much different than Illinois, which likewise permits U-turns pretty much anywhere (other than Chicago).
Quote from: Illinois Vehicle Code
(625 ILCS 5/11-802) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-802)
Sec. 11-802. Limitations on U turns.
(a) The driver of any vehicle shall not turn such vehicle so as to proceed in the opposite direction unless such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with other traffic.
(b) No vehicle shall be turned so as to proceed in the opposite direction upon any curve, or upon the approach to or near the crest of a grade, where such vehicle cannot be seen by the driver of any other vehicle approaching from either direction within 500 feet.
I thought I remembered there being a restriction against making a U-turn at any location other than a traffic-controlled intersection, but now I can find no such restriction in the statutes.
I do wonder who would have priority at those intersections in Illinois if neither a "NO U-TURN" or "U-TURN YIELD TO RIGHT TURN" signs were present.
In fairness, I have found recently that more than a few of these right turn filter signals in WA are installed even without "NO U-TURN" signs, which seems legally questionable since it grants guaranteed ROW to two movements towards the same exit point.
Quote from: 1 on December 29, 2018, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 29, 2018, 05:07:55 PM
I always feel a red arrow in a direction should mean stop, if they really want to allow rights on red put a red ball where the red arrow would go
What if the straight-ahead movement is green? That's why I'm in support of flashing red arrows.
In that situation, if there's a right turn with a separate cycle DC posts both the red arrow and a sign saying you can go right only when the green arrow is lit. (18th & L NW is an example going from NB 18th to EB L.)
Quote from: jakeroot on December 30, 2018, 11:02:12 PM
I do wonder who would have priority at those intersections in Illinois if neither a "NO U-TURN" or "U-TURN YIELD TO RIGHT TURN" signs were present.
In fairness, I have found recently that more than a few of these right turn filter signals in WA are installed even without "NO U-TURN" signs, which seems legally questionable since it grants guaranteed ROW to two movements towards the same exit point.
I don't see
permitting a U-turn as equivalent to
guaranteeing right of way.
Maryland is a big fan of this.
Quote from: kphoger on December 31, 2018, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 30, 2018, 11:02:12 PM
I do wonder who would have priority at those intersections in Illinois if neither a "NO U-TURN" or "U-TURN YIELD TO RIGHT TURN" signs were present.
In fairness, I have found recently that more than a few of these right turn filter signals in WA are installed even without "NO U-TURN" signs, which seems legally questionable since it grants guaranteed ROW to two movements towards the same exit point.
I don't see permitting a U-turn as equivalent to guaranteeing right of way.
I've always understood left green arrows to simply mean "movements proceeding towards a left-of-center exit from an intersection have the ROW".
The laws typically state that arrow signals are to apply for movements in those directions, but U-turns are still, in a way, left turns (just two instead of one).
Quote from: jakeroot on December 31, 2018, 04:02:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 31, 2018, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 30, 2018, 11:02:12 PM
I do wonder who would have priority at those intersections in Illinois if neither a "NO U-TURN" or "U-TURN YIELD TO RIGHT TURN" signs were present.
In fairness, I have found recently that more than a few of these right turn filter signals in WA are installed even without "NO U-TURN" signs, which seems legally questionable since it grants guaranteed ROW to two movements towards the same exit point.
I don't see permitting a U-turn as equivalent to guaranteeing right of way.
I've always understood left green arrows to simply mean "movements proceeding towards a left-of-center exit from an intersection have the ROW".
The laws typically state that arrow signals are to apply for movements in those directions, but U-turns are still, in a way, left turns (just two instead of one).
Ah, I neglected to account for the fact that a green right-turn arrow would typically be accompanied by a green left-turn arrow on the other road. I had simply been assuming the U-turning vehicle had a solid green ball.
How would someone deduce whether the oncoming traffic (or any other direction except your own) gets to make U-Turns? I mean any time the movement I want to make doesn't have green, I should look for traffic from every possible direction (within reason; obviously if there is a green ball and I'm making a left, I wouldn't expect straight-ahead traffic from the right) before proceeding, right?
Quote from: bzakharin on December 31, 2018, 04:25:26 PM
How would someone deduce whether the oncoming traffic (or any other direction except your own) gets to make U-Turns? I mean any time the movement I want to make doesn't have green, I should look for traffic from every possible direction (within reason; obviously if there is a green ball and I'm making a left, I wouldn't expect straight-ahead traffic from the right) before proceeding, right?
You wouldn't be able to deduce that. The issue is as described below:
You are preparing to turn right. Your direction of traffic has a solid red light, but your movement has a protected green right-turn arrow. Left-turning traffic coming from your right has a protected left-turn arrow. If we assume that cross-traffic is allowed to make a U-turn on a green left-turn arrow (which is a reasonable assumption), then both of you have a green arrow directing you into the same roadway. Furthermore, it is nearly impossible at many intersections for a U-turning car to take the nearest lane, which means your paths will probably conflict.
Quote from: epzik8 on December 31, 2018, 02:20:05 PM
Maryland is a big fan of this.
Though there's normally a sign that either prohibits right on red in general or for a specific lane (usually the inner lane when there is more than one turn lane).
Quote from: MASTERNC on December 31, 2018, 08:34:01 PM
Quote from: epzik8 on December 31, 2018, 02:20:05 PM
Maryland is a big fan of this.
Though there's normally a sign that either prohibits right on red in general or for a specific lane (usually the inner lane when there is more than one turn lane).
That's used normally in Massachusetts, I've found a couple signed used. "No turn on red except from right lane" , and "No turn on red from this lane" (with a downward arrow). (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190101/915d9b0b611ea6cf33485613e6db3688.jpg)
iPhone
Just found this fun right turn arrow in Mexico City: https://goo.gl/maps/p1ECUSEnPMzP15FZ7 (https://goo.gl/maps/p1ECUSEnPMzP15FZ7)
I wonder if it's for the Metrobús... ?
Quote from: kphoger on August 07, 2019, 08:53:31 PM
Just found this fun right turn arrow in Mexico City: https://goo.gl/maps/p1ECUSEnPMzP15FZ7 (https://goo.gl/maps/p1ECUSEnPMzP15FZ7)
I wonder if it's for the Metrobús... ?
Pretty fun looking around that intersection. No idea how many oncoming left turn lanes there are, but it seems to vary between 2 and 4, depending on how liberal the drivers are. Gotta love Mexico!
Found some new examples in Somerville/Boston MA where left on red arrow is permitted with double turn lanes...
1. When the area around Sullivan Square was reconstructed due to the Encore Boston resort, the intersection of Main and Beacham Street was signalised. The Beacham approach has two left-turn lanes with red arrows, and left on red here is legal as no sign prohibits the movement...
Location (not updated as of today): Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3850559,-71.0749895,3a,86.3y,15.1h,93.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5DFPhnlpXHmDzrW3ws8-1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
(https://i.ibb.co/RC2HsT5/IMG-5763.png) (https://ibb.co/9qnY1HM)
2. Medford St and MA 28 - similar to the first example only this time this involves an option lane
Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.377114,-71.0889362,3a,40.4y,54.69h,89.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDjBaw1a6i2hZIvSlsXnNJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Not a lot of people take advantage of the free left on red after stopping as MA allows left on red from one-way to one way and MA law doesn't distinguish between red arrows and balls unless a NTOR sign is posted...
3. This is in Boston at Congress and Atlantic Ave... is a left turn on red arrow permitted here? The approach shown here is one way, but the other approach on the opposing side turns to two way and Atlantic is one way. The left turn from Congress to Atlantic is lagging left by the way.
Congress and Atlantic Ave, Boston MA (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3537714,-71.0537625,3a,90y,133.06h,85.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6lWHpxqbCkyRXLPBdjI58A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D6lWHpxqbCkyRXLPBdjI58A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D328.80402%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
Does anyone know if it is permitted to right-on-red-arrow in Nevada? I was recently in Las Vegas and I noticed locals doing this when there isn't an accompanying "no turn on red" sign.
Quote from: andrepoiy on March 02, 2024, 12:07:06 PM
Does anyone know if it is permitted to right-on-red-arrow in Nevada? I was recently in Las Vegas and I noticed locals doing this when there isn't an accompanying "no turn on red" sign.
Nevada state law (in NRS 484B.307 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484B.html#NRS484BSec307)) assigns legal meanings to a variety of signal indications and specifies the actions that vehicles and pedestrians may take when facing such indications. However, while green arrows and flashing yellow arrows are mentioned, there is no specific definition given to a red arrow (only a steady red indication). Thus, it is legal to turn on a red arrow in Nevada, unless specifically prohibited by another traffic control device.
In Nevada, it is unusual to find a right red arrow signal that is not accompanied by a "No Turn on Red" sign (especially for dual/triple) right turns. I'm not aware of any in greater Reno area. I'm also not aware of any in the Vegas area, but I'm not down there enough to be familiar with everything. I'd be interested to see examples.
Quote from: roadfro on March 03, 2024, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: andrepoiy on March 02, 2024, 12:07:06 PM
Does anyone know if it is permitted to right-on-red-arrow in Nevada? I was recently in Las Vegas and I noticed locals doing this when there isn't an accompanying "no turn on red" sign.
Nevada state law (in NRS 484B.307 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484B.html#NRS484BSec307)) assigns legal meanings to a variety of signal indications and specifies the actions that vehicles and pedestrians may take when facing such indications. However, while green arrows and flashing yellow arrows are mentioned, there is no specific definition given to a red arrow (only a steady red indication). Thus, it is legal to turn on a red arrow in Nevada, unless specifically prohibited by another traffic control device.
In Nevada, it is unusual to find a right red arrow signal that is not accompanied by a "No Turn on Red" sign (especially for dual/triple) right turns. I'm not aware of any in greater Reno area. I'm also not aware of any in the Vegas area, but I'm not down there enough to be familiar with everything. I'd be interested to see examples.
The specific place in which I saw this was here: double right w/ red arrow, but no "no turn on red" sign. Locals were turning on red.
(https://i.imgur.com/7JRpdnw.png)
link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tsC1GErvadmZ2PHd8
Quote from: andrepoiy on March 04, 2024, 10:42:05 AM
Quote from: roadfro on March 03, 2024, 02:56:29 PM
In Nevada, it is unusual to find a right red arrow signal that is not accompanied by a "No Turn on Red" sign (especially for dual/triple) right turns. I'm not aware of any in greater Reno area. I'm also not aware of any in the Vegas area, but I'm not down there enough to be familiar with everything. I'd be interested to see examples.
The specific place in which I saw this was here: double right w/ red arrow, but no "no turn on red" sign. Locals were turning on red.
(https://i.imgur.com/7JRpdnw.png)
link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tsC1GErvadmZ2PHd8
Well I'll be. Good example. That whole area is just a little unusual traffic-wise, with the bus lanes on Grand Central and the Iron Horse loop (former jughandle that they didn't completely eliminate during I-15 Project Neon).
By default, a right turn on a red arrow is not permitted in Minnesota. However, I found what may be the only exception in the state, with double right turn lanes as well. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/tCiTfUhrD3WQBk8n6) Notice the sign permitting the movement. Correct me if there are other examples of this in the state.