Does the red arrow traffic signal have any special meaning (vs. red ball)?

[KCRoadFan]

One thing I've seen with dedicated left-turn signals is that, in addition to the green and yellow left arrows, the red signal aspect will be an arrow as well. (Red left arrows are most common, but I've sometimes seen red right and even straight-ahead arrows as well.)

What I wanted to know is as follows: does having a red arrow specifically - as opposed to a normal red circle light - have any particular meaning, or is it simply a stylistic choice by the state or local authorities in charge of the signal?

I suppose the red arrow is meant to signify "do not proceed in that direction" - but if they're part of a dedicated left-turn signal installation (as they most commonly are), then I suppose an ordinary red ball would convey the same message to drivers - especially when, say, that light is red at the same time that the signals governing right turns and through-movements are green. Therefore, I believe that the choice of red arrow vs. red circle is purely a matter of aesthetics - although I suppose the cost of the lenses for the various signal aspects could play a role as well.

Might anyone have any insight on this?

[jakeroot]

Simplest answer: it depends on the state.

Some allow turns on a red arrow: WA, OR, etc
Some do not allow turns on a red arrow: CA, DC, etc

In states that allow turns on red arrows, you'll find more all-arrow signals in lieu of lane assignment signs (those black-on-white arrow signs that say "left turn only" or whatever). It's not unusual to find right turns in WA that have all arrow displays in front of them; right-on-red (and left-on-red!) is still allowed so they use the red arrow to more clearly indicate what that lane does. Other states, like CA, might use a red ball here instead to explicitly allow turns on red, reserving red arrows for those specific occasions where they want to ban turns on red.

As to what's better: I think you could argue in favor of both.

[STLmapboy]

No

[TheHighwayMan3561]

They're fairly rare in Minnesota, with the only one I can think off offhand being an "all traffic must turn"  situation where a two-way road meets an oncoming off-ramp. A red ball probably would have sufficed but they must have wanted to emphasize the all traffic must turn part of it.

[Occidental Tourist]

One thing I've seen with dedicated left-turn signals is that, in addition to the green and yellow left arrows, the red signal aspect will be an arrow as well. (Red left arrows are most common, but I've sometimes seen red right and even straight-ahead arrows as well.)

What I wanted to know is as follows: does having a red arrow specifically - as opposed to a normal red circle light - have any particular meaning, or is it simply a stylistic choice by the state or local authorities in charge of the signal?

I suppose the red arrow is meant to signify "do not proceed in that direction" - but if they're part of a dedicated left-turn signal installation (as they most commonly are), then I suppose an ordinary red ball would convey the same message to drivers - especially when, say, that light is red at the same time that the signals governing right turns and through-movements are green. Therefore, I believe that the choice of red arrow vs. red circle is purely a matter of aesthetics - although I suppose the cost of the lenses for the various signal aspects could play a role as well.

Might anyone have any insight on this?

Maybe it's for motorist clarity.  In California we don't have many three-way signals and we also don't have many intersections with one signalhead per lane like some other states.  Except in special circumstances, a green ball is used to show that all allowed movements have the right of way in that direction.  So there's not necessarily an obvious correlation for a motorist between a particular signalhead and a given lane or lane movement.  A driver approaching an intersection with one signalhead showing a red ball and another signalhead showing a green ball might be confused, whereas a driver approaching an intersection with a red left arrow and a green ball knows that through movements and right turns have the right of way but left turns do not.

[Henry]

One way you can tell if turning right on a red arrow is forbidden is whether the intersection has signs that say "No Turn on Red". If there are no such signs present, then a right turn would be allowed, provided the driver comes to a complete stop first. FWIW, red arrows give a clear indication of what the signal is intended for, and are far less ambiguous than the standard red ball.

[hotdogPi]

One way you can tell if turning right on a red arrow is forbidden is whether the intersection has signs that say "No Turn on Red". If there are no such signs present, then a right turn would be allowed, provided the driver comes to a complete stop first. FWIW, red arrows give a clear indication of what the signal is intended for, and are far less ambiguous than the standard red ball.

Some states prohibit right on red arrow, even if there is no sign present.

[mrsman]

One way you can tell if turning right on a red arrow is forbidden is whether the intersection has signs that say "No Turn on Red". If there are no such signs present, then a right turn would be allowed, provided the driver comes to a complete stop first. FWIW, red arrows give a clear indication of what the signal is intended for, and are far less ambiguous than the standard red ball.

The signage isn't always there.  CA state law requires NTO red arrow, but the sign isn't always present.  State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.

[hotdogPi]

and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.

There is a fix for it, but it would require changing about 10—15% of signals in the country. Right on red arrow would be prohibited if solid and allowed if flashing, no signs necessary.

[Ned Weasel]

So, do some states just allow RTOR on a red arrow, without a sign saying so?  If so, that really irks me.  The MUTCD makes it pretty clear:

From Section 4D.04:

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.

Sure, I complain about my home state and metro area a lot, but they also do a lot of things well and get a lot of things right: https://goo.gl/maps/2zQCKpXZ1Fo3rVwc7

State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.

Except for that handy-dandy MUTCD, which is free and available for anyone to read 24/7 online.

[1995hoo]

Virginia is an example of a state that changed the law. Virginia law used to allow turns on red (not necessarily just right turns) at red arrows due to an arguable oversight in the way the statutes were written. The statutes simply referred to a red signal and didn't distinguish between a red arrow and a circular red indicator. This was amended a few years ago–the statutes now say as follows (the old statutes merely referred to "traffic facing a steady red signal" and the second paragraph wasn't included in either of these provisions):

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed prohibiting turns on steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red circular signal, after coming to a full stop, may cautiously enter the intersection and make a right turn.

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed permitting turns on a steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow, after coming to a full stop, shall remain standing until a signal to proceed is shown.

....

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed prohibiting turns on steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red circular signal on a one-way highway, after coming to a full stop, may cautiously enter the intersection and make a left turn onto another one-way highway.

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed permitting turns on a steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow signal, after coming to a full stop, shall remain standing until a signal to proceed is shown.

....

I can think of at least one intersection off the top of my head where the far right lane has a circular red and the second lane from the right has a red arrow (westbound Eisenhower Avenue at Van Dorn Street in the City of Alexandria, for those who know the area), although there is also a typical Virginia sign saying turns on red are allowed only from the curb lane. Prior to the statute being amended as described above, the sign was there but both lanes had red arrows. I always thought that was mildly interesting because if you had any doubt about whether turning on a red arrow was allowed, that sign basically confirmed it, although if you didn't know what the statute said it would have been fair to question whether it was allowed generally or whether that sign created an exception for that particular intersection.

[kphoger]

So, do some states just allow RTOR on a red arrow, without a sign saying so?  If so, that really irks me.

Yes.  Your home state of Kansas allows this.

Article 15 — Uniform Act Regulating Traffic;  Rules of the Road

§ 8-1508 — Traffic-control signal legend

(c) Steady red indication.

(1) Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of this subsection. Any turn provided for in paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) shall be governed by the applicable provisions of K.S.A. 8-1545, and amendments thereto.

(2) Unless a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn after stopping as required by paragraph (1) of this subsection. After stopping, the driver shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.

Sure, I complain about my home state and metro area a lot, but they also do a lot of things well and get a lot of things right: https://goo.gl/maps/2zQCKpXZ1Fo3rVwc7

As illustrated above, that sign is unnecessary in the state of Kansas.  Right turn on red arrow is permitted unless a sign prohibits it.

The MUTCD makes it pretty clear:

From Section 4D.04:

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.

State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.

Except for that handy-dandy MUTCD, which is free and available for anyone to read 24/7 online.

Except that the Uniform Vehicle Code, on which many states' codes are based, contradicts the MUTCD section you cited.  The Kansas code referenced above, in fact, is nearly identical to the UVC.  Moreover, the UVC goes so far as to permit left turn on red left arrow after stop.

ARTICLE 11 — TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

§ 11-202 — Traffic-control signal legend

(c) Steady red indication

1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subsection (c)3.

2. [...]

3. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subsection (c) 1 or subsection (c)2. After stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. Such driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.

[roadfro]

State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.

Except for that handy-dandy MUTCD, which is free and available for anyone to read 24/7 online.

Except that the MUTCD is not "law", but rather a national policy on the application of traffic control devices (which itself can be modified or supplemented by state versions). So the actual vehicular statutes of the state is what applies.

For example, Nevada has no definition of a steady red arrow in Nevada Revised Statutes, so RTOR arrow is technically legal here. However, it is extremely rare in Nevada to find a red right arrow signal that isn't also accompanied by a "No turn on red" sign (I only know of one example statewide), as NDOT and the various agencies require using sign to achieve the MUTCD-intended effect.

[roadfro]

The MUTCD makes it pretty clear:

From Section 4D.04:

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.

State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.

Except for that handy-dandy MUTCD, which is free and available for anyone to read 24/7 online.

Except that the Uniform Vehicle Code, on which many states' codes are based, contradicts the MUTCD section you cited.  The Kansas code referenced above, in fact, is nearly identical to the UVC.  Moreover, the UVC goes so far as to permit left turn on red left arrow after stop.

ARTICLE 11 — TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

§ 11-202 — Traffic-control signal legend

(c) Steady red indication

1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subsection (c)3.

2. [...]

3. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subsection (c) 1 or subsection (c)2. After stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. Such driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.

You omitted the text of subsection 2...the part that agrees with the MUTCD definition of red arrow almost verbatim...

2. Vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow, and unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication permitting the movement indicated by such red arrow is shown except as provided in subsection (c)3

(emphasis added)

The key difference though appears to be that the UVC would still allow a left turn on red arrow from one way into one way, which doesn't appear to be accommodated in the MUTCD.

[Ned Weasel]

Except that the Uniform Vehicle Code, on which many states' codes are based, contradicts the MUTCD section you cited.  The Kansas code referenced above, in fact, is nearly identical to the UVC.  Moreover, the UVC goes so far as to permit left turn on red left arrow after stop.

Drat!

Except that the MUTCD is not "law", but rather a national policy on the application of traffic control devices (which itself can be modified or supplemented by state versions). So the actual vehicular statutes of the state is what applies.

It is and it isn't.  It a set of regulations governing the design of traffic control devices, but it also includes a mechanism by which exceptions can be made.

For what it's worth, it's all too easy to forget Section 1A.09, Paragraph 02: "This Manual describes the application of traffic control devices, but shall not be a legal requirement for their installation."  So, that at least arguably overrides "...and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed" (emphasis added), because it overrides the requirement for any traffic control device permitting the movement.

Frankly, though, with all these rules contradicting each other, I'm starting to think we all live in Alanland.

[jeffandnicole]

The signage isn't always there.  CA state law requires NTO red arrow, but the sign isn't always present.  State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.

This is an unfortunate side effect of allowing each state to determine their own laws.  Keeping Right Except to Pass is another similar law in some states but not all.  Even signaling to switch lanes can vary between states I believe.

State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.

Except for that handy-dandy MUTCD, which is free and available for anyone to read 24/7 online.

Except that the MUTCD is not "law", but rather a national policy on the application of traffic control devices (which itself can be modified or supplemented by state versions). So the actual vehicular statutes of the state is what applies.

For example, Nevada has no definition of a steady red arrow in Nevada Revised Statutes, so RTOR arrow is technically legal here. However, it is extremely rare in Nevada to find a red right arrow signal that isn't also accompanied by a "No turn on red" sign (I only know of one example statewide), as NDOT and the various agencies require using sign to achieve the MUTCD-intended effect.

Exactly.  Many people forget what the M in the MUTCD stands for.

And to show how it really is a manual and not law, NJ doesn't have any statutes restricting a right turn on red *signal* (in other words, it doesn't differentiate between an orb or arrow), unless there's a "NTOR" sign present.  If you want to try to claim that the MUTCD is gospel and it states that right turns on red arrows can't be made, then I'll quickly point out that the MUTCD also states that left on red can be made from a one way to a one way.  NJ law states that only a right turn on red can be made at a red light, unless there's a "NTOR" sign present.   MUTCD as gospel would mean this statute isn't necessary.

[kphoger]

You omitted the text of subsection 2...the part that agrees with the MUTCD definition of red arrow almost verbatim...

I should have cited subsection 2 instead of subsection 1, actually.  But it doesn't change anything anyway.  Put together, it still doesn't agree with the MUTCD.

* UVC 11-202(c)(1) = Stop at a red ball, don't go again until it turns green, except as allowed in Subsection 3.

* UVC 11-202(c)(2) = Stop at a red arrow, don't go again until it turns green, except as allowed in Subsection 3.

* UVC 11-202(c)(3) = RTOR or one-way-to-one-way LTOR is permitted at any signal unless prohibited by signage to the contrary.

Pertinent portions shown below:

1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop ... and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subsection (c)3.

2. Vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow, and ... shall stop ... except as provided in subsection (c)3.

3. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subsection (c) 1 or subsection (c)2. [...]

[Ned Weasel]

I'll tell you what, if I was designing a traffic signal assembly with a red right arrow, I would always include either a "NO TURN ON RED" sign, or a "RIGHT TURN ON RED ARROW AFTER STOP" sign, depending on whether or not the RTOR prohibition is warranted.

Wherever I drive, if I see a red arrow without a sign saying I can make a turn on red after stopping, I wait for it to turn green.  Since the laws vary state-by-state, I'd rather be safe than sorry.  Just like how (these days) I follow "Keep Right Except to Pass" (or except when approaching a left turn or left exit) everywhere I go, even though it isn't the law in every single jurisdiction.  I honestly think it's a bit too much to ask drivers to memorize all the differences in traffic laws between the lower 48 states, so it's just prudent to go with the most restrictive if you don't want to risk getting a ticket.

[mrsman]

State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.

There is a fix for it, but it would require changing about 10—15% of signals in the country. Right on red arrow would be prohibited if solid and allowed if flashing, no signs necessary.

Agreed.

This is an unfortunate side effect of allowing each state to determine their own laws.  Keeping Right Except to Pass is another similar law in some states but not all.  Even signaling to switch lanes can vary between states I believe.

Agreed.

As all of the above indicates it is not only confusing for states to have different interpretations on whether a right turn on red, after stop, is permitted on a steady right red arrow, the different rules are entirely unnecessary.

One set of rules on this and other basic driving rules should apply nationwide.

Two possibilities, if there is political will for a nationalized system.  (Perhaps the feds can force the states to adopt a uniform rule, they legally threatened to withhold highway money to force every state to have a minimum drinking age of 21.)

(1) RTOR permitted on steady right arrow.  This means:

Steady red right arrow is equivalent to steady red orb for right turn purposes.
Flashing red right arrow has no unique meaning so its unnecessary (except maybe for nighttime flash and/or stop signs)
If jurisdiction wants to prohibit right turns on red, they need to add a sign at the intersection.

(2) RTOR prohibited on steady right arrow.  This means:

No RTOR signs at intersections with steady right arrow are unnecessary.
Flashing red arrow can be used to indicate the equivalent of a red orb (make a full stop then proceed on turn).
A sign to permit right turn on red after stop can also be used, but should be discouraged

One of the above rules should be the uniform national rule.  Now, some states choose (1) and some states choose (2).

[jakeroot]

As with the last thread that we had on red arrows, I continue to be on the fence for several reasons:

(1) flashing red arrow would have no unique meaning if turns on red arrows are allowed, but flashing red arrows remain exceptionally rare apart from very unique situations, even in states that ban turns against a red arrow (CA for instance). I have no reason to believe these would be widely adopted if the national standard changed to banning turns on red arrow in all states (by punishment of withholding highway funds or something).

(2) WA and OR 'left turn from two way to one way' laws allow me turn left against a solid red arrow when clear; there's no chance these agencies would change their signal operations to FRA or put up a sign to continue permitting the turn. 'Turn on red' laws are taught in drivers ed, and many people would have to relearn what is permitted (and people who live in states where the maneuver is legal would have to relearn, to avoid "running" a red light).

(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws put most miles on their car in a single state (likely the state within which they reside). Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.

(4) states that use red arrows purely to indicate what the lane does (not my favorite but definitely a thing) would have to change hundreds or thousands of signal faces to allow RTOR, or install just as many "RTOR permitted" signs.

(5) any all-arrow signals that operate as an LPI would also then need either "LEFT/RIGHT TURN SIGNAL" signs (for those changed to a red orb) or "TURN ON RED OK AFTER STOP" signs (if right on red is to be allowed). States that allow turns on red arrows do not require any signage for this right now.

[1995hoo]

....

(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws. Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.

....

The clause in boldface seems implausible to me–I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state, other than perhaps people from Alaska or Hawaii or maybe a few of the very large states out west like Texas. (Maybe being from the East Coast, with its smaller states, and living six miles from a state line colors my perception, of course.) I do think, however, that most people assume that whatever the law is in their own state is also the law everywhere else, except with respect to obvious things like speed limits* and maybe some more esoteric things like Virginia not allowing radar detectors.

*Even with speed limits, there are still some clueless people: Last summer I worked with a guy who swore there is a 55-mph national speed limit and told me I was crazy when I disagreed with him. Nice guy in general, but talk about someone who doesn't get out much....

[hotdogPi]

I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state

I very rarely go more than 20 miles from my home. While this does cross a state line in my case, it is probably not the case for most of the population.

Just as an example: How often do you think the average person (not a roadgeek) from Hendersonville, TN drives to Kentucky, only 20 miles away? I would estimate once every two months on average. And that's one of the northern suburbs of Nashville, and there are many metros (Los Angeles, DFW, Atlanta, etc. farther from a state line.)

[jakeroot]

....

(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws. Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.

....

The clause in boldface seems implausible to me–I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state, other than perhaps people from Alaska or Hawaii or maybe a few of the very large states out west like Texas. (Maybe being from the East Coast, with its smaller states, and living six miles from a state line colors my perception, of course.) I do think, however, that most people assume that whatever the law is in their own state is also the law everywhere else, except with respect to obvious things like speed limits* and maybe some more esoteric things like Virginia not allowing radar detectors.

*Even with speed limits, there are still some clueless people: Last summer I worked with a guy who swore there is a 55-mph national speed limit and told me I was crazy when I disagreed with him. Nice guy in general, but talk about someone who doesn't get out much....

I reworded my post. I was trying to imply that most people spend most of their time (probably 99% of the year) in a single state, and have become accustomed to the laws of that state (the exceptions being metro areas that span multiple states, but even then, most non-commute driving is likely in their home state). Changing the law on red arrows in WA because the law in CA "makes more sense" doesn't make sense to me: CA drivers are used to waiting for green, WA drivers are not. Why does there need to be a single harmonious law? Neither state frequents the other more than occasionally at best. Even people who live in Northern Idaho (where turns on red arrows are banned) probably spend most of their time in Idaho, and not across the border in Spokane.

The only advantage I can see to banning turns on red arrows is so that you can reduce the number of "no turn on red" signs. But this fails to take into account how many new "turn on red arrow OK after stop" signs would need to be implemented around the country, where red arrows were installed without the intent of banning turns on red. These signals could be changed to flashing red arrows, but this requires more than just a simple code change, and would take decades to complete across an entire state. You'd be far more likely to see the red arrows removed than changed to flashing red, since you could just swap out the signal head.

One place where a natural "no turn on red arrow" law makes sense is along corridors with protected cycle paths. In WA, these corridors are largely protected by red arrows, and are (usually) accompanied by NTOR signage. But this situation is far less common than the typical red arrow in WA, which is basically just to tell people that the signal is for left or right turns. Given this, we must ask ourselves: is it worth changing the law so we can stop installing "no turn on red" signs along cycling corridors, or keep the law the same, and reserve turn-on-red bans for those situations where a sign can achieve the same result?

[Scott5114]

....

(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws. Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.

....

The clause in boldface seems implausible to me–I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state, other than perhaps people from Alaska or Hawaii or maybe a few of the very large states out west like Texas. (Maybe being from the East Coast, with its smaller states, and living six miles from a state line colors my perception, of course.)

Most people around here do the vast majority of driving in Oklahoma, since the OKC metro is at least a hundred miles from a state line in all directions. While yeah, most people do take occasional recreational trips down to Dallas for whatever, it's far enough away that going down there is definitely more of a special occasion.

When I was in high school, one of my classmates had never been outside of Oklahoma in his life. I think that's probably a rare extreme, but it's entirely possible for someone with no out-of-state relatives and no compelling reason to visit Dallas.

[1995hoo]

....

(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws. Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.

....

The clause in boldface seems implausible to me–I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state, other than perhaps people from Alaska or Hawaii or maybe a few of the very large states out west like Texas. (Maybe being from the East Coast, with its smaller states, and living six miles from a state line colors my perception, of course.) I do think, however, that most people assume that whatever the law is in their own state is also the law everywhere else, except with respect to obvious things like speed limits* and maybe some more esoteric things like Virginia not allowing radar detectors.

*Even with speed limits, there are still some clueless people: Last summer I worked with a guy who swore there is a 55-mph national speed limit and told me I was crazy when I disagreed with him. Nice guy in general, but talk about someone who doesn't get out much....

I reworded my post. I was trying to imply that most people spend most of their time (probably 99% of the year) in a single state, and have become accustomed to the laws of that state (the exceptions being metro areas that span multiple states, but even then, most non-commute driving is likely in their home state). ....

OK, I can certainly agree with that proposition. I had interpreted you to be suggesting that most people spend their entire lives in a given state and never leave it, and I found that implausible. If you'd said most Americans never leave the country, even in normal circumstances when the borders are open, I'd have agreed with that. The way you phrase your point here makes more sense and I certainly can't argue with it because areas like where I live, where it's routine for large numbers of people to commute across state lines, are certainly the exception rather than the norm (notwithstanding places like New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago).