Right on Red Arrow

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

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.

[Amtrakprod]

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

[hotdogPi]

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.

[kphoger]

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).

(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.

[Amtrakprod]

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

[jakeroot]

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).

(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.

[1995hoo]

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.)

[kphoger]

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.

[epzik8]

Maryland is a big fan of this.

[jakeroot]

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).

[kphoger]

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.

[bzakharin]

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?

[kphoger]

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.

[MASTERNC]

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).

[Amtrakprod]

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).


iPhone

[kphoger]

Just found this fun right turn arrow in Mexico City:  https://goo.gl/maps/p1ECUSEnPMzP15FZ7

I wonder if it's for the Metrobús... ?

[jakeroot]

Just found this fun right turn arrow in Mexico City:  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!

[fwydriver405]

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


2. Medford St and MA 28 - similar to the first example only this time this involves an option lane
Streetview

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

[andrepoiy]

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.

[roadfro]

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) 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.

[andrepoiy]

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) 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.



link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tsC1GErvadmZ2PHd8

[roadfro]

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.



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).

[andarcondadont]

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. Notice the sign permitting the movement. Correct me if there are other examples of this in the state.