News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Right on Red Arrow

Started by doogie1303, May 30, 2016, 09:30:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

bzakharin

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


jakeroot

^^
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.

bzakharin

#202
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).

jakeroot

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) or pedestrian crossings (here) (the latter is required because RTOR w/ red arrows is allowed in Washington, as it is in NJ).

jeffandnicole

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.


bzakharin

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.

jeffandnicole

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.

bzakharin

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.

Brandon

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) or pedestrian crossings (here) (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
Lit
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

jakeroot

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) or pedestrian crossings (here) (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
Lit

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.

Brandon

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) or pedestrian crossings (here) (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
Lit

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).
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

US 89

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) or pedestrian crossings (here) (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
Ramp to NB I-15 at Park Lane, Farmington
Ramp to SB Legacy at Park Lane, Farmington

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. These signs are there because a right turn would conflict with the CFI left-turn movements.

jakeroot

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) or pedestrian crossings (here) (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
Ramp to NB I-15 at Park Lane, Farmington
Ramp to SB Legacy at Park Lane, Farmington

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. 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.

mrsman

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) or pedestrian crossings (here) (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
Ramp to NB I-15 at Park Lane, Farmington
Ramp to SB Legacy at Park Lane, Farmington

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. 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.

jakeroot

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.

kphoger

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.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

jakeroot

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

mrsman

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.

jakeroot

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.

7/8

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.

kphoger

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.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

jakeroot

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).

jakeroot

#222
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.

jeffandnicole

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!

NoGoodNamesAvailable

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?



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.