Turning right on red when the hold line is far from the intersection

[jakeroot]

Long response, but please read.

Sorry for chiming in late, I'm so behind on general posts (maybe I can catch up over the holidays).

Anyways, a generic two-way to one-way left turn (at intersections without arrows) is basically equivalent to a RTOR, so it explains why such a movement is allowed in a few states.  In some ways, being allowed to turn on red (when there is a gap in cross traffic) may be easier when the one-way is relatively low traffic and the two-way is high traffic.  LTOR in that situation is like a protected turn vis a vi opposing traffic, and like a RTOR vis a vi cross traffic.

But given the complexity of signalization that now exists in many intersections with left turn arrows LPIs and other implements, I don't think the above is true anymore.  Deathtopumpkins objections begin to make more sense because it is now harder for drivers to realize who has the green.  Yielding to opposing traffic and yielding to cross traffic are different skills and the driver must be aware which one he is yielding to.  And I also believe that this may be too much for average drivers to keep track of.

FWIW, there's a rare situation allowing a left on red from a two-way to two-way in NYC, where even RTOR is generally not permitted.  It involves a cross street with very little traffic, essentially lefts from the main to the cross street on red should yield to the very little cross street traffic with the right of way.  Essentially, except for the need to yield to cross traffic, LTOR is like a protected left vis a vi main street traffic.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6079926,-73.8193506,3a,75y,182.34h,84.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO1MuQWZ8nYB9TEgWNgCS1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

I would not argue that the standard RTOR is necessarily any less complex. "Regular" right turn on red (two-way to two-way) require drivers to potentially look for the following (assuming no missing intersection legs):

* traffic coming towards them on a green left arrow (often)
* traffic coming from the left with a green light
* traffic from the right making a U-turn
* pedestrians and cyclists using near or right crosswalk or bike lanes
* added complexity such as all-way walks or LPIs

Compare this to a left turn on red from two-way to one-way (again, assuming there are no missing intersection legs):

* traffic coming towards them on a green circle
* traffic from right with a green circle
* pedestrians and cyclists using near or left crosswalk or bike lanes
* added complexity such as all-way walks or LPIs

On a basic level: RTOR typically requires drivers to watch for more things than a LTOR. Never mind that those added complex features (LPIs, all-way walks) are far more often found at regular two-way to two-way intersections.

If I were to change anything, it would be any of the following:

(1) eliminate turns on red at all intersections that are not onto one-way streets;
(2) keep things as they are, and encourage "no turn on red" signs at intersections with added complexity. Seattle already practices this.

Living somewhere that permits it (WA) and being surrounded by places that also permit it (BC, OR, ID), 99.9% of my mileage has been in places that permit LTOR. Yet all (yes, all) of the issues that I've personally encountered with turns on red have been at regular two-way to two-way right turns where drivers miss one of the above things. Plus, few drivers even realize that LTOR is permitted onto one-way streets. Attacking LTOR is a nearly hypothetical opposition when it is already practiced so rarely, plus it ignores existing issues with right turns on red.

Frankly, I'd like to see more "left on red OK after stop" signs at left turns like this or this so we can actually study the effectiveness of LTOR. Right now, honestly, there's just so few people turning on red from two-way streets that its hard for me to believe that there's ever been a crash related to that maneuver. Something that encourages it might actually allow us to more effectively study the safety of this kind of turn. Right now, basically all turn-on-red data is two-way to two-way, and is the source for basically all complaints from so-called "urbanist" groups. The AARoads Forum itself may, in fact, be the only place where anyone has actually professed opposition to LTOR.

[deathtopumpkins]

Does anyone know why Beverly changed that intersection so dramatically?  It looks nice, but is there a compelling reason to make the old right turn into the straight movement.

Rantoul St carries MA 1A and is the primary route for through traffic through downtown Beverly these days, rather than Cabot St. I'm sure the City wanted to direct through traffic to take Rantoul.

[stevashe]

(2) keep things as they are, and encourage "no turn on red" signs at intersections with added complexity. Seattle already practices this.

Actually, the MUTCD does already have a guidance statement with examples where a NTOR sign should be considered, which I coincidentally read today, as I'm going through the new proposed edition, and "exclusive pedestrian phases" (i.e. all-way walks) is one item listed. Full list quoted below:

Guidance:
If used, the No Turn on Red sign should be installed near the appropriate signal head.

A No Turn on Red sign should be considered when an engineering study finds that one or more of the following conditions exists:

    A. Inadequate sight distance to vehicles approaching from the left (or right, if applicable);
    B. Geometrics or operational characteristics of the intersection that might result in unexpected conflicts;
    C. An exclusive pedestrian phase;
    D. An unacceptable number of pedestrian conflicts with right-turn-on-red maneuvers, especially involving children, older pedestrians, or persons with disabilities;
    E. More than three right-turn-on-red accidents reported in a 12-month period for the particular approach; or
    F. The skew angle of the intersecting roadways creates difficulty for drivers to see traffic approaching from their left.

As for the safety of LTOR to one way streets, I'd argue you missed a key conflict: right turns on red from the opposing street. Sure, there won't necessarily be an conflict unless there is only one receiving lane, but turns onto one way streets can and are usually made to any lane, and looking out for cars that might be turning on red is both difficult and not something that needs to be done in any other situation so I think it could definitely cause issues.

And I actually had this exact problem come up recently as I was turning right on red to a freeway onramp and a car almost hit me that I suspect must have turned left on red. I say suspect because I didn't actually see them until I had mostly completed my turn and they honked at me. However, I can deduce that a left on red was the most likely way they got there since as I was coming up to the intersection, the light was green for the offramp, and cars in the right turn + thru lane on the offramp were waiting for some pedestrians in the crosswalk, so the car could not have come from there unless they went straight from one of the left turn lanes, which seems unlikely. I know the signal phase hadn't changed because the ped signal was still counting down. That leaves the only other possibility to be that they turned left on red to the onramp at the same time I turned right, causing the conflict.

However, I 100% agree that left on red to a one way while the opposing direction has a green is plenty safe, most likely even safer than normal right on red, but that's because it is simply a permitted left where you must stop first; and recognizing that, you might as well just signal it to properly allow that movement with a FYA or "left turn yield on green" (this phase is when the majority of opportunities for potential left turns on red would happen anyway, most likely, especially at freeway ramps that usually only give the ramp a green when there are cars present).

It is when the cross traffic has the green that it becomes more problematic, though given your arguments Jake, I think I could be convinced that it's about the same as right on red at two ways, not worse.

[interstatefan990]

Late to this discussion, but thought I'd add an example of this at a ramp to I-684 coming off US 202. In this case, there is a NO TURN ON RED sign. In fact, there's two of them, one just in front of the entrance to 684 and another right next to the limit line and at the corner of a side street (Argonne Rd). Makes sense, as you'd have to go way beyond the line and cross two approaches to reach the ramp. However, I'm not sure if they were meant to apply to both the side street and the interstate, or just the interstate. Seems like you could safely make a ROR to Argonne, although it would be a slightly sharp turn. In any case, I think they should put those prohibitory NTOR signs at the intersection mentioned in the original post. It wouldn't be safe in that situation, just like it isn't safe in this one (for drivers heading towards I-684).

GSV: https://bit.ly/3rKWlYS