Unintended exit on NJ 24

[Interstatefan78]

Well now that you mention it, my favorite exit on I-78 is the real "last exit before PA" -- exit 2:  https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.650737,-75.158015&spn=0.00213,0.003661&t=h&z=19

And I've entered the highway here once right alongside a state trooper, who did not seem to mind.

EDIT:  See also:  Exit 44A:  http://goo.gl/maps/uPVKn

Locals seem to know this one and there is a sign that says no outlet on the access ramp to this state trooper hiding spot on Springtown rd (CR-519)

[jeffandnicole]

It seems pretty clear to me that this is a service road, not intended or legal for the general public to use.

I agree.  Though why is not not signed "Official Use Only" or DO NOT ENTER by NJDOT?

The signs could've been there at one point, but went missing (run over, stolen, etc) and never replaced. 

[_Simon]

Locals seem to know this one and there is a sign that says no outlet on the access ramp to this state trooper hiding spot on Springtown rd (CR-519)

There might not be any electrical outlets, but you can certainly enter onto I-78 WB here .  I for one have no problem wedging my car anyplace it fits not protected by do not enter signs.  I once drove my car all the way up to here while shooting video:  http://goo.gl/maps/cdXFk  (Despite the arrows and "street" names, everything here is usually closed to vehicular traffic during the normal season except the Perimeter Rd and occasionally Ave of Commerce)

[kphoger]

Per the NJ Administrative Code, http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/rules/documents/AppB4-2012.pdf , all of Route 24 is deemed 'Fully Controlled Access'. 

And adding to that, Route 24 is clearly a limited access roadway.  While we are looking at Steve's picture of an aerial shot, traffic on Rt. 24 would barely see this access road when passing by.  By state law, vehicles are prohibited from crossing the median.  There are no lane markings to indicate there is an intersection.  There is a rumble strip thru the intersection. There is no signage - cross road, t-intersection, Stop Sign, One Way sign, or other - to indicate it's a valid roadway.  In other words, there is nothing to indicate the access road is a valid entrance/exit off a freeway in NJ (which is defined as well).

The absense of signage does not make it a public road as well.  If that was the case, then we would need signage all over the place indicating every law.  There would need to be a sign at every intersection that one must use a turn signage when turning, not to mention the entire length of a highway when changing lanes. We would need signage after every side street to indicate a speed limit. We would need signage to indicate the .08 BAL.  And so on...

By legal definition, then, one is not allowed to cross the median on this highway.  But that still leaves the issue of it being an apparent RIRO.  Is there anything in the NJ definition of a freeway entrance/exit (to which your refer above) which makes it clear the intersection in question is not one?

FWIW, I would argue that a lack of signage does make a road a public way (as long as it's not on private property), which has nothing at all to do with your strawmen signs of turn signaling and legal BAC.  A road on public land that is not blockaded or signed for no entry is a public way.  It's the reason I had no problem entering US-65 from this public way when the gate was open (view from the other side here).

[_Simon]

http://goo.gl/maps/vG8BG
I added it to Google maps as a private one way, at least until some signage indicates otherwise.

[jeffandnicole]

Per the NJ Administrative Code, http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/rules/documents/AppB4-2012.pdf , all of Route 24 is deemed 'Fully Controlled Access'. 

And adding to that, Route 24 is clearly a limited access roadway.  While we are looking at Steve's picture of an aerial shot, traffic on Rt. 24 would barely see this access road when passing by.  By state law, vehicles are prohibited from crossing the median.  There are no lane markings to indicate there is an intersection.  There is a rumble strip thru the intersection. There is no signage - cross road, t-intersection, Stop Sign, One Way sign, or other - to indicate it's a valid roadway.  In other words, there is nothing to indicate the access road is a valid entrance/exit off a freeway in NJ (which is defined as well).

The absense of signage does not make it a public road as well.  If that was the case, then we would need signage all over the place indicating every law.  There would need to be a sign at every intersection that one must use a turn signage when turning, not to mention the entire length of a highway when changing lanes. We would need signage after every side street to indicate a speed limit. We would need signage to indicate the .08 BAL.  And so on...

By legal definition, then, one is not allowed to cross the median on this highway.  But that still leaves the issue of it being an apparent RIRO.  Is there anything in the NJ definition of a freeway entrance/exit (to which your refer above) which makes it clear the intersection in question is not one?

I think it's perfectly clear that with a solid white line, a rumble strip, no street signs, no advanced exit signs, and no advisory signs that this is not a legal street.

Again, a lack of signage does not open up pavement to be a legal street.  I don't recall seeing any signs on this road about not having a beer while driving.  But if anyone wants to see what happens when you use that excuse, go right ahead.

[_Simon]

kphoger:  We all know damn well it's not intended to be used as a public thoroughfare.  I don't think anyone is saying that this street was ever intended to be a real exit;  and yes, if a police officer wanted to fuck your day up, he could charge you with careless driving, or one of a million other vague charges that could apply anywhere and to anything that a cop doesn't want you doing. It's just that due to circumstance, it has been left open, happens to exit to someplace useful where no exit does currently, and happens by pure chance to not have any signage prohibiting its use; which, while obviously not an exit, is ambigious enough in the fact that no signage prevents its use, to the point where some people, like myself (and the person Steve originally saw), would be willing to take the risk of using it. </longest run on sentence ever>  Best case scenario, you shave 5-10 minutes off your trip (or emergency);  worst case scenario, you shave 5-10 minutes off your trip at a cost of $58, a visit to the njmcdirect website, and possibly 2 points if you couldn't get your way out of it.  Like I've said, I've used these "access points" on interstates while state troopers were sitting in them, without any apparent penalty for driving past the cop and entering the highway.  Your milage may vary.  If it's that big a of a deal to someone, they can erect a sign or gate.  That's my opinion anyway.

[kphoger]

kphoger:  We all know damn well it's not intended to be used as a public thoroughfare.  I don't think anyone is saying that this street was ever intended to be a real exit...

Yes, it's obvious that it wasn't intended to be used as a traffic route (or, at the very least, it's been a long time since it was).  But that's not what makes it illegal or not to use a road.  When did America stop being the land of the free?  Is it not common sense that we're allowed to go where we please unless there's a law in force preventing us from doing so?  My question is whether there's actually any law on the books that would prevent me from using the road in question as a public way.  If not, then....this land was made for you and me.

worst case scenario, you shave 5-10 minutes off your trip at a cost of $58, a visit to the njmcdirect website, and possibly 2 points if you couldn't get your way out of it.

That's the case with any law.  If a police officer wrongfully accuses you of breaking a law, it's still on you to get your way out of it, with the possibility of not being able to get your way out of it.  But that doesn't mean you were actually in the wrong.  It's neither here nor there as to the legality of whatever it is you did.  As an example:  if a police officer tickets you for turning left from the second lane at a red light, from a one-way street to another one-way street, in a state where it isn't prohibited to do so (example here)–you would still be responsible for whatever rigmarole comes with the ticket.  But that doesn't it mean it was actually illegal to make the turn.

I think it's perfectly clear that with a solid white line, a rumble strip, no street signs, no advanced exit signs, and no advisory signs that this is not a legal street.

You may think it's clear, but what you or I think doesn't carry the weight of law.  So again I ask:  is there any law on the books that would prevent a person from making a right turn into or out of that intersection?  For example, is it prohibited to turn right across a solid white line or onto streets without street signs?  I can think of examples in other locations where an obviously legal turn can only be made by crossing both a solid white line and a rumble strip onto an unnamed road (one example here, though this one includes a couple of regulatory signs).

Again, a lack of signage does not open up pavement to be a legal street.  I don't recall seeing any signs on this road about not having a beer while driving.  But if anyone wants to see what happens when you use that excuse, go right ahead.

Again with the strawmen.  On one level, I agree that a lack of signage does not open up pavement to be a legal street.  But, in the absence of anything else restricting access (e.g. vehicle codes), then what makes it not a legal street?  To use your strawman as an example, what makes having a beer while driving illegal, even in the absence of signage, is that there's an actual law on the books.  Having an apple juice while driving, in contradistinction, is perfectly legal, even though there are no signs specifically allowing it.  Same deal for not signalling when changing lanes and exceeding a certain BAC:  there are laws on the books that cover these actions.  Not starting to signal two miles in advance of your lane change is perfectly acceptable; having a drink but staying under a certain BAC is perfectly acceptable.