Right on Red Arrow

[jakeroot]

Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow.  Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.

I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.

Sure.  But think of all the confusion from waiting behind people who aren't familiar with the unique rules.

It would be a tough change for states that permit movements on red arrows. Washington has fundamentally moved away from 5-section signals, towards three- and four-head signals whenever there's an exclusive left or right turn lane (for purposes of permitting a filtered movement). They do this to avoid posting R3-5 signs (I assume to avoid clutter). The idea was not to banish turning on red because of poor sight-lines or whatnot. It's just the best signal for the job, because it can operate independently of the straight-through signal (which may or may not come in handy, depending on the creativity of the traffic engineer). Particularly when it comes to pedestrian safety, it helps to operate the right turn independently, so as to bring better attention to the parallel "walk" movement (most often by utilising a right-facing flashing yellow arrow).

Out of curiosity, do places that don't permit turns on red arrows post red arrows as a replacement for R10-11 signs?

[kphoger]

Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow.  Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.

I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.

Sure.  But think of all the confusion from waiting behind people who aren't familiar with the unique rules. 

Heck, there are so many Californians invading the Pac NW as it is.  Do you really want to wait behind them at a one-way if a sign could tell them what to do?

Frustration from having to wait behind a driver who is not processing on a red indication is not likely to become justification for additional signage. The absence of signs only make the intersection safer. Though counterexamples do exist, how likely do you think it is that a state agency will spend money telling people it's OK to proceed on a red signal, with little to no apparent benefit?

[mrsman]

Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow.  Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.

I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.

Sure.  But think of all the confusion from waiting behind people who aren't familiar with the unique rules.

It would be a tough change for states that permit movements on red arrows. Washington has fundamentally moved away from 5-section signals, towards three- and four-head signals whenever there's an exclusive left or right turn lane (for purposes of permitting a filtered movement). They do this to avoid posting R3-5 signs (I assume to avoid clutter). The idea was not to banish turning on red because of poor sight-lines or whatnot. It's just the best signal for the job, because it can operate independently of the straight-through signal (which may or may not come in handy, depending on the creativity of the traffic engineer). Particularly when it comes to pedestrian safety, it helps to operate the right turn independently, so as to bring better attention to the parallel "walk" movement (most often by utilising a right-facing flashing yellow arrow).

Out of curiosity, do places that don't permit turns on red arrows post red arrows as a replacement for R10-11 signs?

There is an easy answer to your concern.  A flashing red right arrow would be interpreted as stop and then proceed to turn right when safe, yielding to peds and other traffic.  This would still employ the separate signal head and would comply with the interpretation of red arrow in the majority of the states.

A solid right turn red arrow is generally not used to simply avoid the "No Turn on Red" sign - although in a sense it does that too.  Often times the red right arrow will be displayed at different times from red ball controlling straight-through movement.  One common application is for the leading pedestrian interval(LPI). 

When designing a LPI, a traffic engineer is aware that there will be a higher number of pedestrians crossing at the beginning of the green phase.  So when straight traffic gets their green ball, and peds get their walk signal, right turners will face a red arrow, so that they cannot go while the peds are beginning to cross.  If at some point, cars may turn right while peds are legally able to cross, you may begin to see a flashing yellow right arrow.  And if the right turn movement is protected from peds, you may see a green right arrow.

Solid red right arrows are also employed where right turning traffic may face a bike path or even a railroad crossing.  Don't turn on red arrow, even though straight through movements are perfectly OK and noted with a green ball.

I am unaware of any application of a right turn signal that has the exact same phasing as its straight through conterpart, outside of states that allow turning on red arrow.

When designi

[mrsman]

Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow.  Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.

I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.

Sure.  But think of all the confusion from waiting behind people who aren't familiar with the unique rules. 

Heck, there are so many Californians invading the Pac NW as it is.  Do you really want to wait behind them at a one-way if a sign could tell them what to do?

Frustration from having to wait behind a driver who is not processing on a red indication is not likely to become justification for additional signage. The absence of signs only make the intersection safer. Though counterexamples do exist, how likely do you think it is that a state agency will spend money telling people it's OK to proceed on a red signal, with little to no apparent benefit?

The benefit would be keeping traffic moving through the intersection.  And if the DOT does not want to put up a sign, they can avoid the situation with either a red ball in place of the red arrow or a flashing red arrow.

[kphoger]

Every state should prohibit a turn on solid red arrow.  Where it is allowed, there should be a sign permitting the movement.

I think there would be fewer signs if allowing a turn was the default.

Sure.  But think of all the confusion from waiting behind people who aren't familiar with the unique rules. 

Heck, there are so many Californians invading the Pac NW as it is.  Do you really want to wait behind them at a one-way if a sign could tell them what to do?

Frustration from having to wait behind a driver who is not processing on a red indication is not likely to become justification for additional signage. The absence of signs only make the intersection safer. Though counterexamples do exist, how likely do you think it is that a state agency will spend money telling people it's OK to proceed on a red signal, with little to no apparent benefit?

The benefit would be keeping traffic moving through the intersection.  And if the DOT does not want to put up a sign, they can avoid the situation with either a red ball in place of the red arrow or a flashing red arrow.

That is only an apparent benefit if traffic is already not flowing well through the intersection  such that the change would remove the blockage. Absent those conditions, it's just imaginary benefit.

So the alternative to erecting a sign is to replace the signal? Yeah, that's less likely. Especially when, as I said, they have no pressing reason to change anything at all.

[RobbieL2415]

Re. left on red, there are aren't that many intersections in CT that would benefit from this.  Most one-way intersections are concentrated in New Haven where the grid is laid out accordingly.  That's the only city I've ever seen them in.

[dfnva]

Two right lanes and one left lane.  Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.

Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.

Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?

[kalvado]

Two right lanes and one left lane.  Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.

Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.

Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?

probably changes in layout.. My bet is that turn from outer lane was OK until some point.

[1995hoo]

Or the red arrow predates the amended statute. Right on a red arrow used to be legal in Virginia. It no longer is.

[dfnva]

Two right lanes and one left lane.  Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.

Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.

Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?

probably changes in layout.. My bet is that turn from outer lane was OK until some point.

The traffic signal is new in the last couple months. The lane setup was changed from one left lane and one right lane to one left lane and two right lanes.

[plain]

Two right lanes and one left lane.  Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.

Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.

Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?

probably changes in layout.. My bet is that turn from outer lane was OK until some point.

The traffic signal is new in the last couple months. The lane setup was changed from one left lane and one right lane to one left lane and two right lanes.

If they're gonna do this then it would've been better to have the left lane with a left red arrow, the middle with a right red arrow and the right with a red ball. I can't imagine why they would have a doghouse signal in the middle if the middle lane doesn't allow turns in both directions.

[MASTERNC]

Pennsylvania's driver's manual says the same turns permitted with a red ball are permitted with a red arrow.  Most of the time, there is a No Turn on Red sign accompanying a right red arrow in PA, which makes the issue moot.

[UCFKnights]

Two right lanes and one left lane.  Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.

Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.

Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?

probably changes in layout.. My bet is that turn from outer lane was OK until some point.

The traffic signal is new in the last couple months. The lane setup was changed from one left lane and one right lane to one left lane and two right lanes.

If they're gonna do this then it would've been better to have the left lane with a left red arrow, the middle with a right red arrow and the right with a red ball. I can't imagine why they would have a doghouse signal in the middle if the middle lane doesn't allow turns in both directions.

I think its somewhat of an interpretation of the 2 signal minimum rule, which seems to be interpreted by many as there must be 2 signals for things other then the right turn, which is generally permissive on road (other then as discussed in this topic). On nearly all T intersections I encounter, they seem to put 2 lights that refer to the left turn lane. Many configured similar to this with the doghouse in the middle also seem unable to provide a right arrow while the street to the right has a left signal activated too, which annoys me greatly. My personal biggest wish the next version of the MUTCD is they recommend of require one signal per lane, period. Between the improved reliability with LEDs in the signals and FYA's that eliminate the doghouses being shared between 2 lanes, I feel any other configuration is flat out less efficient. If the signals were per lane, that would also allow a flashing red right arrow to clarify right turn on red, and a solid red arrow could potentially ban it, eliminating the need for all signs in any intersection with a dedicated right turn lane.

[dfnva]

Luckily the right lane's signal has now been changed to a red ball indication instead of a right arrow, so turns can be made from the rightmost right lane on red. The setup was confusing.

I agree the doghouse signal in the middle is odd but not uncommon in Virginia when there are two right turn lanes, I suppose the point is to have an equal amount of green ball indications to green arrow indications.

Two right lanes and one left lane.  Red arrows prohibit right turns on red in Virginia.

Seems like a convoluted way to prohibit right turns in this way, with a "No turn on red in this lane" for the leftmost right lane and a red arrow indication for the rightmost right lane.

Why not use a red ball indication and a "No Turn on Red" sign?

probably changes in layout.. My bet is that turn from outer lane was OK until some point.

The traffic signal is new in the last couple months. The lane setup was changed from one left lane and one right lane to one left lane and two right lanes.

If they're gonna do this then it would've been better to have the left lane with a left red arrow, the middle with a right red arrow and the right with a red ball. I can't imagine why they would have a doghouse signal in the middle if the middle lane doesn't allow turns in both directions.

[jakeroot]

Bump...

I've been spending a lot of time studying Virginia/DC roads lately (in preparation for my move). While most double right turns prohibit turns from the non-curb lane on red, I finally found one that permits the movement from all lanes: https://goo.gl/28WH1n

I don't think I've ever seen so many "no turn on red from outer lane" signs in my life. Building a second right turn lane, but disallowing turns on red from the inner lane, dramatically reduces the capacity of the turn. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone just piles into the lane that allows turning on red, and/or just turns from the outer lane anyway.

[1995hoo]

Bump...

I've been spending a lot of time studying Virginia/DC roads lately (in preparation for my move). While most double right turns prohibit turns from the non-curb lane on red, I finally found one that permits the movement from all lanes: https://goo.gl/28WH1n

I don't think I've ever seen so many "no turn on red from outer lane" signs in my life. Building a second right turn lane, but disallowing turns on red from the inner lane, dramatically reduces the capacity of the turn. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone just piles into the lane that allows turning on red, and/or just turns from the outer lane anyway.

The text in boldface accurately describes what people here usually do. You can usually tell someone who's not from this area because most local drivers don't get into a turn lane other than the curb lane if the light isn't already green or about to turn green.

(Now, in the District there is a different issue: People seem to assume you can turn from whichever lane you want regardless of lane markings. Very common to see people turning right or left out of a straight-only lane.)

[Brandon]

Bump...

I've been spending a lot of time studying Virginia/DC roads lately (in preparation for my move). While most double right turns prohibit turns from the non-curb lane on red, I finally found one that permits the movement from all lanes: https://goo.gl/28WH1n

I don't think I've ever seen so many "no turn on red from outer lane" signs in my life. Building a second right turn lane, but disallowing turns on red from the inner lane, dramatically reduces the capacity of the turn. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone just piles into the lane that allows turning on red, and/or just turns from the outer lane anyway.

What you see there is what is done commonly in Illinois as well.  "NO TURN ON RED EXCEPT RIGHT LANE".  And yes, everyone does just pile into the far right turn lane until the signal turns green.  Then it's a free for all after that.  And yes, people do turn from the far right turn lane to any lane they choose on red.

[cl94]

New York may be the only state that by default allows turns on red from any lane. Do note that double rights are generally NTOR per signage, but there are several out there. There is at least one double left allowed on red in the state (one way to one way), this being on NY 2 in Troy.

[jakeroot]

New York may be the only state that by default allows turns on red from any lane. Do note that double rights are generally NTOR per signage, but there are several out there. There is at least one double left allowed on red in the state (one way to one way), this being on NY 2 in Troy.

The vast majority (nearly all) double rights in Washington are allowed on red (arrow or ball). It's one of the things I'll miss when I move to Virginia.

Here's many examples: https://goo.gl/mYGmeP --&-- https://goo.gl/KrVWrk --&-- https://goo.gl/5e6cwm --&-- https://goo.gl/5eW61Z --&-- https://goo.gl/7oiZuy --&-- https://goo.gl/eYLGpe --&-- https://goo.gl/2XjQYE --&-- https://goo.gl/vqmRHu

I could keep going but I'm basically listing every double right in the state. Needless to say, restrictions on turns (left or right) are rare. The only thing always banned is left turns onto two-way streets (duh). Pretty much everything else is cool.

[bzakharin]

Surely in any state that does not explicitly disallow a right turn on red arrow, it is an unintentional loophole. Otherwise, what is the point of the red arrow?

[jakeroot]

Surely in any state that does not explicitly disallow a right turn on red arrow, it is an unintentional loophole. Otherwise, what is the point of the red arrow?

Distinguish a turn movement from a through movement without the use of signs.

[Brandon]

New York may be the only state that by default allows turns on red from any lane. Do note that double rights are generally NTOR per signage, but there are several out there. There is at least one double left allowed on red in the state (one way to one way), this being on NY 2 in Troy.

In Illinois, it requires the signage.  If there is no "NO TURN ON RED" or "NO TURN ON RED EXCEPT RIGHT LANE" signage, then a turn on red is legal on a double right turn lane.  Likewise, if "LEFT TURN ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" is not present, then a left turn on red (one way to one way only) or on green ball is legal on a double left turn lane.

[cl94]

Surely in any state that does not explicitly disallow a right turn on red arrow, it is an unintentional loophole. Otherwise, what is the point of the red arrow?

Distinguish a turn movement from a through movement without the use of signs.

MUTCD Section 4D.04, Standard A2 (bolded for emphasis)

Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed. When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign

In plain English, MUTCD requires a sign if turns are allowed on a red arrow.

Edit: required sign is the R10-17a (right turn on red arrow after stop) or similar.

[Brandon]

Surely in any state that does not explicitly disallow a right turn on red arrow, it is an unintentional loophole. Otherwise, what is the point of the red arrow?

Distinguish a turn movement from a through movement without the use of signs.

MUTCD Section 4D.04, Standard A2 (bolded for emphasis)

Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed. When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign

In plain English, MUTCD requires a sign if turns are allowed on a red arrow.

Only in states where the red arrow actually means something different.  In states like Illinois, where red ball = red arrow, no extra signage is required.

[jakeroot]

MUTCD [~4D.04] requires a sign if turns are allowed on a red arrow.

As long as the FHWA allows state supplements, this rule has no meaning.