Double left turns with permissive phasing

[jakeroot]

Having put on a plentiful number of miles in WA, OR, and BC (all places where the maneuver is legal), I have seen perhaps 10 or 15 people ever take advantage of it. I highly doubt ODOT specifically times their left turns to encourage this. I think they know as well as I do that people rarely actually turn left on red from a two-way to one-way. Problem is, all three places are full of people from places where the maneuver is not legal. Obviously they aren't aware of our laws. What would be nice, is if more places used these types of signs, commonly used by Seattle DOT. Then you get people to actually do the maneuver

Seems to me they should use a flashing red arrow, where left on red is permitted, instead of a solid red arrow plus (maybe) a sign.

I would strongly prefer this approach as well, as it would be more consistent with the rules of the other 47 states.

Here's a qn for Jake (or anyone else really familiar with WA/OR/BC rules), let's say you have the intersection of a 2-way street with a 1-way street.  (Not at a T-intersection) And let's say that the left turn is controlled by a RA-YA-GA signal.  This would mean that you should be able to make a permissive turn at all times, assuming you first come to a complete stop if you see a RA.  (Obviously, the turn is protected with a green arrow.)

Is there any way for you to know, while you see the RA, whether you have to yield to opposing traffic or whether you have to yield to the traffic on the one-way street that is coming from your right?  And what about when the traffic signal changes, is there an obvious point in time when you are aware that you have to change your yield from side street to opposing traffic (and vice versa).

I've always heard that the justification for this move is that it is not any different from a LTOR from one-way to one-way, permitted in a majority of states.  (And in that case, IMO correctly, the states contend that LTOR one-way to one-way is equivalent to RTOR and generally safe.)  But it seems like the need to contend with opposing traffic makes this, left from a 2-way to 1-way on red, a far riskier move.

For these kinds of maneuvers, you have to rely on the parallel through movement to know exactly who you'll be contending with. At left turns onto on-ramps for interchanges such as Parclo B4's, there is no off-ramp to look for, so you stop on red and then proceed when safe. At left turns where there is a one-way street coming up to, and continuing through the intersection, if the through light is red, you have to watch for traffic from the right. Because there would be no oncoming left turn at 99% of these intersections, seeing all-red would only be an indication that traffic from the right has a green, not that the oncoming traffic has an advanced left or something.

As liberal as I am when it comes to this law, I will almost always wait for the parallel through traffic to get their green before creeping forward and turning on red. It's very awkward when there's a double left turn and (something like) three through lanes, and suddenly you just barge into the intersection and turn. Legal? Yes. Uncomfortable for almost everyone? Definitely.

[mrsman]

Having put on a plentiful number of miles in WA, OR, and BC (all places where the maneuver is legal), I have seen perhaps 10 or 15 people ever take advantage of it. I highly doubt ODOT specifically times their left turns to encourage this. I think they know as well as I do that people rarely actually turn left on red from a two-way to one-way. Problem is, all three places are full of people from places where the maneuver is not legal. Obviously they aren't aware of our laws. What would be nice, is if more places used these types of signs, commonly used by Seattle DOT. Then you get people to actually do the maneuver

Seems to me they should use a flashing red arrow, where left on red is permitted, instead of a solid red arrow plus (maybe) a sign.

I would strongly prefer this approach as well, as it would be more consistent with the rules of the other 47 states.

Here's a qn for Jake (or anyone else really familiar with WA/OR/BC rules), let's say you have the intersection of a 2-way street with a 1-way street.  (Not at a T-intersection) And let's say that the left turn is controlled by a RA-YA-GA signal.  This would mean that you should be able to make a permissive turn at all times, assuming you first come to a complete stop if you see a RA.  (Obviously, the turn is protected with a green arrow.)

Is there any way for you to know, while you see the RA, whether you have to yield to opposing traffic or whether you have to yield to the traffic on the one-way street that is coming from your right?  And what about when the traffic signal changes, is there an obvious point in time when you are aware that you have to change your yield from side street to opposing traffic (and vice versa).

I've always heard that the justification for this move is that it is not any different from a LTOR from one-way to one-way, permitted in a majority of states.  (And in that case, IMO correctly, the states contend that LTOR one-way to one-way is equivalent to RTOR and generally safe.)  But it seems like the need to contend with opposing traffic makes this, left from a 2-way to 1-way on red, a far riskier move.

For these kinds of maneuvers, you have to rely on the parallel through movement to know exactly who you'll be contending with. At left turns onto on-ramps for interchanges such as Parclo B4's, there is no off-ramp to look for, so you stop on red and then proceed when safe. At left turns where there is a one-way street coming up to, and continuing through the intersection, if the through light is red, you have to watch for traffic from the right. Because there would be no oncoming left turn at 99% of these intersections, seeing all-red would only be an indication that traffic from the right has a green, not that the oncoming traffic has an advanced left or something.

As liberal as I am when it comes to this law, I will almost always wait for the parallel through traffic to get their green before creeping forward and turning on red. It's very awkward when there's a double left turn and (something like) three through lanes, and suddenly you just barge into the intersection and turn. Legal? Yes. Uncomfortable for almost everyone? Definitely.

It seems to me that the origins of the left turn law in WA/OR/BC was as it applied in a very simple intersection.  No left turn arrows.  Essentially 2-phase traffic signals, N-S and E-W.  Obviously, in a simple situation like that, you know very well who has the ROW.  But in the more modern signals with multiple phases, it can be downright complicated.  Yet the law hasn't been updated.

[US 89]

I think the WA/OR/BC left turn law creates more problems than it solves. Left on red from a one-way to another one-way makes sense, but when you add oncoming traffic to the mix it throws in a whole other set of issues and potential for accidents.

That being said, surely the DOTs in those areas know it's unique and the vast majority of other states/provinces don't have that. If they think it's safe and would help improve traffic flow, it'd be in their best interests to put up a sign at each intersection where this is a legal movement, so everyone would take advantage of the law and maximize traffic efficiency.

The thing that really throws me about it is that you're allowed to turn left on a red arrow. That to me is nuts, because when I learned to drive in Utah, a red arrow was taken as an explicit prohibition of that movement. In fact, in that state it is illegal to turn right on a red arrow. But to avoid problems with drivers from states where that movement is legal, almost every intersection with a red right arrow has a supplemental "no turn on red" sign.

[mrsman]

Having put on a plentiful number of miles in WA, OR, and BC (all places where the maneuver is legal), I have seen perhaps 10 or 15 people ever take advantage of it. I highly doubt ODOT specifically times their left turns to encourage this. I think they know as well as I do that people rarely actually turn left on red from a two-way to one-way. Problem is, all three places are full of people from places where the maneuver is not legal. Obviously they aren't aware of our laws. What would be nice, is if more places used these types of signs, commonly used by Seattle DOT. Then you get people to actually do the maneuver

Seems to me they should use a flashing red arrow, where left on red is permitted, instead of a solid red arrow plus (maybe) a sign.

I would strongly prefer this approach as well, as it would be more consistent with the rules of the other 47 states.

Here's a qn for Jake (or anyone else really familiar with WA/OR/BC rules), let's say you have the intersection of a 2-way street with a 1-way street.  (Not at a T-intersection) And let's say that the left turn is controlled by a RA-YA-GA signal.  This would mean that you should be able to make a permissive turn at all times, assuming you first come to a complete stop if you see a RA.  (Obviously, the turn is protected with a green arrow.)

Is there any way for you to know, while you see the RA, whether you have to yield to opposing traffic or whether you have to yield to the traffic on the one-way street that is coming from your right?  And what about when the traffic signal changes, is there an obvious point in time when you are aware that you have to change your yield from side street to opposing traffic (and vice versa).

I've always heard that the justification for this move is that it is not any different from a LTOR from one-way to one-way, permitted in a majority of states.  (And in that case, IMO correctly, the states contend that LTOR one-way to one-way is equivalent to RTOR and generally safe.)  But it seems like the need to contend with opposing traffic makes this, left from a 2-way to 1-way on red, a far riskier move.

For these kinds of maneuvers, you have to rely on the parallel through movement to know exactly who you'll be contending with. At left turns onto on-ramps for interchanges such as Parclo B4's, there is no off-ramp to look for, so you stop on red and then proceed when safe. At left turns where there is a one-way street coming up to, and continuing through the intersection, if the through light is red, you have to watch for traffic from the right. Because there would be no oncoming left turn at 99% of these intersections, seeing all-red would only be an indication that traffic from the right has a green, not that the oncoming traffic has an advanced left or something.

As liberal as I am when it comes to this law, I will almost always wait for the parallel through traffic to get their green before creeping forward and turning on red. It's very awkward when there's a double left turn and (something like) three through lanes, and suddenly you just barge into the intersection and turn. Legal? Yes. Uncomfortable for almost everyone? Definitely.

So you say that's one way of keeping track of when doing you left turn from a two way to a one way is by glancing at the through signal and letting that determine how you approached the intersection.  In my mind that is very counterintuitive.  Especially in the era of the fya, especially when they are used to prevent a yellow trap, we are taught that when making a left turn you need to focus solely on the left turn signal and ignore what the thru signal is doing.  To the extent that this is not being done, we have already discussed in the perceived yellow track threads.



Nexus 5X

[jakeroot]

So you say that's one way of keeping track of when doing you left turn from a two way to a one way is by glancing at the through signal and letting that determine how you approached the intersection.  In my mind that is very counterintuitive.  Especially in the era of the fya, especially when they are used to prevent a yellow trap, we are taught that when making a left turn you need to focus solely on the left turn signal and ignore what the thru signal is doing.  To the extent that this is not being done, we have already discussed in the perceived yellow track threads.

It's acceptable to rely on the parallel through traffic in this instance, because there is no oncoming left turn that may preemptively end the parallel through phase. The next time they get a red, would be the next time that I also would need to finish my turn.

If you look at the video I made about this maneuver, you can see (at 0:46 when I first arrive at the left turn) that the parallel traffic has a red light. Because the cross-traffic is one-way, I know that it can't be red because of an oncoming left turn. I can also see traffic coming off the freeway from my right. Turning through a gap here might be unwise, so I wait for them to receive a red light. Because the double left here is lagging, the through traffic gets to go next, while the left turn onto the freeway must wait. Again, because there is no oncoming left turn, I need not be worried about the parallel through traffic receiving a red light while I'm waiting. Though to the point that it matters, I'm still legally allowed to turn on red, even if they somehow ended up with a red light. Not that that would make much sense.

In this video, however, I do make a left turn on red while the parallel traffic also has a red light. This situation is relatively uncommon, and I find it more acceptable when traffic is quiet. Skip to 0:27:

https://youtu.be/2Qa7vD0_TkY?t=46

[mrsman]

So you say that's one way of keeping track of when doing you left turn from a two way to a one way is by glancing at the through signal and letting that determine how you approached the intersection.  In my mind that is very counterintuitive.  Especially in the era of the fya, especially when they are used to prevent a yellow trap, we are taught that when making a left turn you need to focus solely on the left turn signal and ignore what the thru signal is doing.  To the extent that this is not being done, we have already discussed in the perceived yellow track threads.

It's acceptable to rely on the parallel through traffic in this instance, because there is no oncoming left turn that may preemptively end the parallel through phase. The next time they get a red, would be the next time that I also would need to finish my turn.

If you look at the video I made about this maneuver, you can see (at 0:46 when I first arrive at the left turn) that the parallel traffic has a red light. Because the cross-traffic is one-way, I know that it can't be red because of an oncoming left turn. I can also see traffic coming off the freeway from my right. Turning through a gap here might be unwise, so I wait for them to receive a red light. Because the double left here is lagging, the through traffic gets to go next, while the left turn onto the freeway must wait. Again, because there is no oncoming left turn, I need not be worried about the parallel through traffic receiving a red light while I'm waiting. Though to the point that it matters, I'm still legally allowed to turn on red, even if they somehow ended up with a red light. Not that that would make much sense.

In this video, however, I do make a left turn on red while the parallel traffic also has a red light. This situation is relatively uncommon, and I find it more acceptable when traffic is quiet. Skip to 0:27:

https://youtu.be/2Qa7vD0_TkY?t=46

Regarding the left turn at 0:46, even though under WA law you are allowed to make the left turn while cross traffic has green, you decide against turning during a possible short gap, due to safety concerns.  So then, you do make the left turn when oncoming traffic has a green and you are able to turn during a gap.  So practically speaking, this is no different than making any permissive left, yielding to opposing traffic [as opposed to cross traffic].

What really bothers me a lot about some of this is that the same signal means different things, based on the situation.  It seems to ask the driver a lot to keep track of.

If I see a red left arrow crossing a two-way street, this is a protected only turn and I must wait for green arrow.  This is of course the rule in the majority of other states in all circumstances.

If I see a red left arrow crossing a one-way street, I can turn anytime I want, so long as I yield appropriately.  If I see a red orb nearby, that likely means that I will have to yield to cross traffic and can turn in a gap of traffic, but that is likely unsafe when it's busy.  if I see a green orb nearby, this is equivalent to a normal permissive turn and I turn during a gap in opposing traffic. [IMO, this would be so much more improved with a flashing red arrow, but of course I don't dictate WA law.]

If I see a red left arrow crossing a one-way street, that happens to be two-way in the other direction.  (I.e. I'm driving northbound, the cross street is one-way westbound leaving the intersection, but two-way east of the intersection.)  If I see a red orb nearby, that likely means that I will have to yield to cross traffic and can turn in a gap of traffic, but that is likely unsafe when it's busy.  But it could also possibly mean that opposing traffic has green and an opposing protected left to serve the two-way street.*  This is really problematic.  However, if I see a green orb nearby, this is equivalent to a normal permissive turn and I turn during a gap in opposing traffic, as in the case above.

If I see a red left arrow crossing a one-way street, that happens to be one-way in the other direction.  (I.e. I'm driving northbound, the cross street is one-way westbound leaving the intersection to the west, and also one-way eastbound leaving the intersection to the east.)  In essence, there is no cross-traffic, other than pedestrians. If I see a red orb nearby, that likely means that I will have to yield to cross traffic pedestrians and can turn.  Other than the pedestrians, this is equivalent to a protected turn, since opposing traffic is stopped.  But it could also possibly mean that opposing traffic has green and an opposing protected left to serve the two-way street.  But it could also possibly mean that opposing traffic has green and an opposing protected left to serve the opposite direction one-way street.*  This is also problematic.  However, if I see a green orb nearby, this is equivalent to a normal permissive turn and I turn during a gap in opposing traffic, as in the case above.

* The two opposing left turns may not necessarily have green arrows at the same time.  If they do, then this problem is largely eliminated, but at the expense of wasted green time.

[MNHighwayMan]

What really bothers me a lot about some of this is that the same signal means different things, based on the situation.  It seems to ask the driver a lot to keep track of.

If I see a red left arrow crossing a two-way street, this is a protected only turn and I must wait for green arrow.  This is of course the rule in the majority of other states in all circumstances.

These are two of the big reasons I don't like this Pacific Red Arrow law. (PRA for short, I'll call it from now on.) Consistency with traffic laws is key, and I'd call the PRA very inconsistent with both other states and with itself, for varying depending on the situation.

[mrsman]

What really bothers me a lot about some of this is that the same signal means different things, based on the situation.  It seems to ask the driver a lot to keep track of.

If I see a red left arrow crossing a two-way street, this is a protected only turn and I must wait for green arrow.  This is of course the rule in the majority of other states in all circumstances.

These are two of the big reasons I don't like this Pacific Red Arrow law. (PRA for short, I'll call it from now on.) Consistency with traffic laws is key, and I'd call the PRA very inconsistent with both other states and with itself, for varying depending on the situation.

The Pac NW Red arrow law also applies to red orbs.  Left turn from 2-way to 1-way, is basically permitted at all times.

I believe that the basic driving laws should be uniform across all 50 states.  There is a lot of confusion out there, and because we live in such a free country it is very easy for people to drive from state to state without restriction. 

There is no reason why if a local DOT feels that a certain intersection should be stop and then make a turn, that a red arrow couldn't be replaced with a flashing red arrow.  Any intersection that should be an exception can be signed as such, but that should be rare because the expectation is that a red arrow is stop until green arrow, a flashing red arrow is stop and then proceed when safe, and no arrow would allow a permissive turn (and no need to wait for a green arrow).

I will say that making a left turn from a 2-way to a 1-way at a T intersection (where the 1-way ends at the 2-way) would seem to be a safe turn on a red orb, even though it is prohibited in most states.  It's basically a protected left, except for possible pedestrian interaction.  It can be permitted by sign.  Here's an example from a relatively remote part of NYC (which generally doesn't even allow RTOR) to allow LTOR from 2-way to 1-way at a T-intersection.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6096868,-73.8190742,3a,75y,193.71h,88.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKnloxMvHK6TsGqbAqOvusQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

So I have no problem allowing the turn in that circumstance, just add a sign.

[roadfro]

Here's an example from a relatively remote part of NYC (which generally doesn't even allow RTOR) to allow LTOR from 2-way to 1-way at a T-intersection.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6096868,-73.8190742,3a,75y,193.71h,88.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKnloxMvHK6TsGqbAqOvusQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Looking around that intersection, I'm confused. I see the one way sign for the side street indicating it's one way away from this intersection. But why are there vehicular signals facing the side street and a stop bar on the side street? Was the side street formerly two way?

[MNHighwayMan]

Here's an example from a relatively remote part of NYC (which generally doesn't even allow RTOR) to allow LTOR from 2-way to 1-way at a T-intersection.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6096868,-73.8190742,3a,75y,193.71h,88.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKnloxMvHK6TsGqbAqOvusQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Looking around that intersection, I'm confused. I see the one way sign for the side street indicating it's one way away from this intersection. But why are there vehicular signals facing the side street and a stop bar on the side street? Was the side street formerly two way?

It's also possible that those were formerly used as pedestrian signals before there were dedicated pedestrian signal heads installed there.

Edit to add: If you go back to the 2013 GSV imagery, there isn't a stop line painted there. I think that might be a relatively recent addition, added in error.

[roadfro]

Here's an example from a relatively remote part of NYC (which generally doesn't even allow RTOR) to allow LTOR from 2-way to 1-way at a T-intersection.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6096868,-73.8190742,3a,75y,193.71h,88.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKnloxMvHK6TsGqbAqOvusQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Looking around that intersection, I'm confused. I see the one way sign for the side street indicating it's one way away from this intersection. But why are there vehicular signals facing the side street and a stop bar on the side street? Was the side street formerly two way?

It's also possible that those were formerly used as pedestrian signals before there were dedicated pedestrian signal heads installed there.

Edit to add: If you go back to the 2013 GSV imagery, there isn't a stop line painted there. I think that might be a relatively recent addition, added in error.

Plausible explanation...until noticing that there are not vehicular signals facing the other direction on the crosswalk...

[mrsman]

Here's an example from a relatively remote part of NYC (which generally doesn't even allow RTOR) to allow LTOR from 2-way to 1-way at a T-intersection.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6096868,-73.8190742,3a,75y,193.71h,88.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKnloxMvHK6TsGqbAqOvusQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Looking around that intersection, I'm confused. I see the one way sign for the side street indicating it's one way away from this intersection. But why are there vehicular signals facing the side street and a stop bar on the side street? Was the side street formerly two way?

It's also possible that those were formerly used as pedestrian signals before there were dedicated pedestrian signal heads installed there.

Edit to add: If you go back to the 2013 GSV imagery, there isn't a stop line painted there. I think that might be a relatively recent addition, added in error.

Plausible explanation...until noticing that there are not vehicular signals facing the other direction on the crosswalk...

I believe it was two-way at one point, even though it's very narrow.  Making the street one-way allows for parking.

[jakeroot]

What really bothers me a lot about some of this is that the same signal means different things, based on the situation.  It seems to ask the driver a lot to keep track of.

If I see a red left arrow crossing a two-way street, this is a protected only turn and I must wait for green arrow.  This is of course the rule in the majority of other states in all circumstances.

These are two of the big reasons I don't like this Pacific Red Arrow law. (PRA for short, I'll call it from now on.) Consistency with traffic laws is key, and I'd call the PRA very inconsistent with both other states and with itself, for varying depending on the situation.

I would argue that the "PRA" is actually quite consistent, at least within the states that have it as law: you may turn on any red light, unless it's a left turn onto a two-way street. Any other unsafe turn can be marked with NTOR signs.

The law could be changed in states like ours to represent the FHWA preference, but that would end up banning many turns on red, thanks to WSDOT and ODOT's preference for using all-arrow signals over turn-only lanes, in lieu of lane-use signs.

[jakeroot]

These RTOR accidents constituted between 1% and 3% of all pedestrian or bicycle accidents in the studied locations.

It's a drop in the bucket. There are almost certainly better ways to reduce pedestrian/bicycle casualties that don't also involve unnecessary congestion.

I would agree. However, if you're in charge of the roads department in a city, and you're looking to work towards your Vision Zero goal, you'll take any improvement you can get, no matter how small. Washington DC and Seattle are two agencies that are quickly banning many turns on red. Problem is, they don't seem to recognize the ripple effects from banning these turns: intersection blocking, drivers continuing to turn even after the yellow light has disappeared, worsening traffic that results in increased driver impatience (and therefore increasingly stupid maneuvers on their part), etc. The study that I linked to above takes this into account: you could potentially improve safety for Users X with a turn-on-red ban, but there could be a likewise increase in collisions amongst Users Y, totally offsetting any improvements from the ban.

[Revive 755]

What is the argument against being able to legally turn right on red, say, here?

Even if there was a turn on red prohibition, there's no guarantee it will be well obeyed.  I think Cook County, Illinois may be a good example of this, where a many unnecessary right on red prohibitions are degrading compliance with the more legitimate prohibitions.

[jakeroot]

Found another of these (thanks to US 89 (OP here)).

The westbound-to-southbound double left turn from Isleta Blvd to...Isleta Blvd, in southwest Albuquerque, is a double permissive left, signalized with the relatively normal 5-section tower.

I understand there are others in Albuquerque, but I was not aware of any away from I-25.

Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/CNyuwfmRDaMmf1Yw9

[paulthemapguy]

Found one of these for the first time last weekend, on the east side of Sioux Falls, along a section of SD-42 that was reconstructed last year.  I'm guessing they're more commonly found in states with universally low traffic volumes.


SD-YB1 by Paul Drives, on Flickr

Discussions are more enjoyable with photos 

[jakeroot]

Found one of these for the first time last weekend, on the east side of Sioux Falls, along a section of SD-42 that was reconstructed last year.  I'm guessing they're more commonly found in states with universally low traffic volumes.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48751134258_df577b7585_c.jpg

Discussions are more enjoyable with photos 

Nice! I would guess that the side-street in the photo with the dual-FYA setup (Highline Ave) is relatively quiet, which is actually a great reason to install this type of signal: they can allow side-street traffic to clear far quicker than with protected-only phasing, giving more green time to the primary artery (Arrowhead Parkway in this case).

I can't recall hearing of any others in South Dakota, so I'm guessing their state DOT must not have an objection to these types of installs. Especially as this is along a state route. Of course, this installation might have been installed/maintained by Sioux Falls directly, so that's not something I could be sure of.

[sprjus4]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but North Carolina has one at the I-87 / Wendell Falls Pkwy interchange outside of Raleigh

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7833133,-78.4420373,3a,37.5y,301.81h,80.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sigXGx1Og4legzr1eTQ664Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[jakeroot]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but North Carolina has one at the I-87 / Wendell Falls Pkwy interchange outside of Raleigh

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7833133,-78.4420373,3a,37.5y,301.81h,80.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sigXGx1Og4legzr1eTQ664Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Had not been mentioned to my knowledge. Thanks for bringing it up. I know that NC uses this style of signal, but I hadn't seen one in a while. Not with a mast arm at least.

[jakeroot]

No need for a battle.  A uniform law of traffic safety should follow the majority practice.  Look at this map showing the different left turn on red laws. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#/media/File:Legality_of_left_turn_on_red_in_USA.svg

The vast majority of the states follow a consistent practice as shown in light blue.  The dark blue states are more permissive (MI and the PNW).  These can largely be rectified with a flashing red arrow, if warranted. 

The red states are more restrictive and do not allow left on red from one-way to one-way.  If they feel so strongly about it, they can put no turn on red signs at every relevant intersection.

IMO, NYC should be required to post their NTOR signs at every intersection where it applies, not just at the city limits.  This would require the DOT to determine if the restriction is warranted, since signs cost money.  NTOR is justified where there are a lot of pedestrian movements, but I can tell you that there are many intersections in the outer boroughs where RTOR is perfectly safe, even though currently illegal.

On top of all of this, we also have the question of right against a red right turn arrow.  In a majority of states it is prohibited, and in some states it is no different than a red orb (and permissible after complete stop).  Why should anyone have to research the state laws of 50 states just to drive in this country?  If this were a uniform rule as well, the treatment would be easy.  (IMO, this can be rectified with a flashing red arrow for states that currently permit turn against a red arrow.)

I've spent a huge amount of time thinking about this post. I was supposed to have been at the gym an hour ago, but here I am, still typing this post.

I am totally for FRA signals, but my primary worry continues to be that, in states like WA and OR, where protected left turns are remarkably common, many of the left turns onto one-way streets will not be swapped for FRA signals.

For example, both states disallow permissive left turns with more than one lane, but none of their double left turns onto on-ramps have NTOR signs that I've seen; basically, whether they realize it or not, they both have a ton of permissive left turns with two (or perhaps even three) lanes. Never mind the numerous left turns with only one lane that also allow turns on red, but again, would likely not be swapped for FRA signals.

I guess my only real course of action is to pursue a PE licence and take control of the signals myself!

[mrsman]

No need for a battle.  A uniform law of traffic safety should follow the majority practice.  Look at this map showing the different left turn on red laws. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#/media/File:Legality_of_left_turn_on_red_in_USA.svg

The vast majority of the states follow a consistent practice as shown in light blue.  The dark blue states are more permissive (MI and the PNW).  These can largely be rectified with a flashing red arrow, if warranted. 

The red states are more restrictive and do not allow left on red from one-way to one-way.  If they feel so strongly about it, they can put no turn on red signs at every relevant intersection.

IMO, NYC should be required to post their NTOR signs at every intersection where it applies, not just at the city limits.  This would require the DOT to determine if the restriction is warranted, since signs cost money.  NTOR is justified where there are a lot of pedestrian movements, but I can tell you that there are many intersections in the outer boroughs where RTOR is perfectly safe, even though currently illegal.

On top of all of this, we also have the question of right against a red right turn arrow.  In a majority of states it is prohibited, and in some states it is no different than a red orb (and permissible after complete stop).  Why should anyone have to research the state laws of 50 states just to drive in this country?  If this were a uniform rule as well, the treatment would be easy.  (IMO, this can be rectified with a flashing red arrow for states that currently permit turn against a red arrow.)

I've spent a huge amount of time thinking about this post. I was supposed to have been at the gym an hour ago, but here I am, still typing this post.

I am totally for FRA signals, but my primary worry continues to be that, in states like WA and OR, where protected left turns are remarkably common, many of the left turns onto one-way streets will not be swapped for FRA signals.

For example, both states disallow permissive left turns with more than one lane, but none of their double left turns onto on-ramps have NTOR signs that I've seen; basically, whether they realize it or not, they both have a ton of permissive left turns with two (or perhaps even three) lanes. Never mind the numerous left turns with only one lane that also allow turns on red, but again, would likely not be swapped for FRA signals.

I guess my only real course of action is to pursue a PE licence and take control of the signals myself!

Thinking is good for you!   

I think you've identified some key issues about implementing some of these suggestions I had made.  I never suggested changing the effect of the laws onto the PNW (or onto the very restrictive northeastern states) would be easy or cheap, it's just that it is so important that the driving laws be made uniform, with exceptions signed on an intersection by intersection basis.

Of course, the best course of action would be replacement with the 4 aspect FYA signal - which generally seem to be capable of signalling for multiple scenarios.

[MASTERNC]

Found a double right turn FYA between Greensboro and High Point, NC on NC 68 at Penny Road.  The red signals are balls instead of arrows, implying right on red is permitted.

[jakeroot]

Found a double right turn FYA between Greensboro and High Point, NC on NC 68 at Penny Road.  The red signals are balls instead of arrows, implying right on red is permitted.

Ah yes, found it here: https://goo.gl/maps/pQVs2jFKQmtbMpXD8

I don't see any pedestrian signal heads or crosswalks, however, so I'm not sure what purpose the dual FYA serves. Dual right turns with permissive phasing, requiring two lanes of traffic to yield to crossing pedestrians, doesn't appear to be as taboo as left turns (thanks to one less conflict), though they're fairly rare anyways, at least outside of downtown areas. A new one was just installed in my area last year, though it uses 5-section towers (despite the city's recent attempts to use right-facing FYAs for pedestrian crossings at T-intersections).

I think you've identified some key issues about implementing some of these suggestions I had made.  I never suggested changing the effect of the laws onto the PNW (or onto the very restrictive northeastern states) would be easy or cheap, it's just that it is so important that the driving laws be made uniform, with exceptions signed on an intersection by intersection basis.

Of course, the best course of action would be replacement with the 4 aspect FYA signal - which generally seem to be capable of signalling for multiple scenarios.

What I haven't considered is the possibility of alerting local authorities to this law. I genuinely believe that engineers, locally, don't realize how liberal left turn laws actually are around here. Perhaps I could encourage WSDOT to study the possibility of using flashing red arrows at some on-ramps? Not sure how receptive they might be to that, but it beats the law changing without any modification to the traffic control infrastructure.

[MASTERNC]

Found a double right turn FYA between Greensboro and High Point, NC on NC 68 at Penny Road.  The red signals are balls instead of arrows, implying right on red is permitted.

Ah yes, found it here: https://goo.gl/maps/pQVs2jFKQmtbMpXD8

I don't see any pedestrian signal heads or crosswalks, however, so I'm not sure what purpose the dual FYA serves. Dual right turns with permissive phasing, requiring two lanes of traffic to yield to crossing pedestrians, doesn't appear to be as taboo as left turns (thanks to one less conflict), though they're fairly rare anyways, at least outside of downtown areas. A new one was just installed in my area last year, though it uses 5-section towers (despite the city's recent attempts to use right-facing FYAs for pedestrian crossings at T-intersections).

Found another one around Biltmore Village outside Asheville that does appear to have a pedestrian crossing. Thru signal is green when the right turns have the FYA and the pedestrian signal is active.