Why can't people get this intersection right?

[GaryV]

If there's a fine posted, people are less likely to do it. It's why you don't see people illegally parking in handicapped spaces.

Most handicapped parking signs I see don't have a fine on it.  Some do, but really very few.

I guess people speed because there's no fine attached to the speed limit sign?  (Notwithstanding those fine per speed boards on ON 401; as I recall they go up to $10k, but what's that in real dollars?)

[Plutonic Panda]

Please post the video when someone decides to get out of their car and beat the fuck out of you.

it is not legal to stop here, that's why they are changing the signs.

I understand that and I agree with you. But your reaction to people stopping is going to cause an unstable person one day to go berserk. It's because just laying on your horn pisses people off and doesn't seem to accomplish much. Give the horn a few taps but damn. Do what you gotta do. You've gotten lucky, IMO.

[Plutonic Panda]

Hasn't it been shown by the results of the "tough on crime" fad of the 80s and 90s that enforcing harsher penalties for crimes doesn't work to reduce crime, anyway? Even if the fine was ten billion dollars it wouldn't keep people from stopping.

There are signs at some intersections in Chicago that say "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION $500 FINE" and from what I've seen, people aren't blocking the intersection where those signs are posted.

We have those all over LA and people still block intersections.

[1995hoo]

I don't think we've been told what the new signs will say. Maybe they'll be red octagons.

[Scott5114]

Hasn't it been shown by the results of the "tough on crime" fad of the 80s and 90s that enforcing harsher penalties for crimes doesn't work to reduce crime, anyway? Even if the fine was ten billion dollars it wouldn't keep people from stopping.

There are signs at some intersections in Chicago that say "DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION $500 FINE" and from what I've seen, people aren't blocking the intersection where those signs are posted.

Did they block the intersection before those signs went up? Was there ever a standard "Do Not Block Intersection" sign that didn't mention a fine? If so, did they block the intersection then?

I've seen it blocked once before the fine was put up

Have you seen any data?

[Ned Weasel]

Why not one of these signs?  https://goo.gl/maps/vFV2r5usm5dyo6Ue9

[vdeane]

Why not one of these signs?  https://goo.gl/maps/vFV2r5usm5dyo6Ue9

Yeah, it seems like the main problem there is people who want to cut all the way to the left rather than treat it like a ramp with an acceleration lane.

[Ned Weasel]

Why not one of these signs?  https://goo.gl/maps/vFV2r5usm5dyo6Ue9

Yeah, it seems like the main problem there is people who want to cut all the way to the left rather than treat it like a ramp with an acceleration lane.

Double-solid line would be a regulatory solution for that (if enforced).

Sort-of relevant example, but not exactly: https://goo.gl/maps/4bXSG5fZYWARhMjs5

[1995hoo]

Why not one of these signs?  https://goo.gl/maps/vFV2r5usm5dyo6Ue9

I can think of LOADS of places where that sign would be useful!

[Plutonic Panda]

Some of his videos are featured here on this driving fail compilation video on YouTube. His videos start at 4:50 in.

As expected, there are a large amount of people commenting what a jackass this guy is and how unnecessary it is to lay on the horn as long as he does.

[1995hoo]

I still haven't seen anything proving it is "not legal to stop" there. Looking at it on Google Maps, I see two signs saying "Right Turn at All Times," but nothing saying "No Stopping." Is the argument that the green arrow is to be interpreted as a requirement to keep moving all the way throughout the entire turning movement? (Bearing in mind the OP claims it's illegal to cross the solid white line after turning, a claim that has been shown to be wrong.) One thing I've wondered is how many people come to a stop because they want to change two lanes over to the left immediately after turning right in order to make a left turn to go to the Wal-Mart at the next light. That's perfectly legitimate. While you could go straight at the light to get to Wal-Mart, you have to pass in front of PetsMart and go through a bunch of stop signs in a parking lot with pedestrians crossing.

So if someone wants to get over to the left-turn lane, depending on the amount of traffic that's not bad driving so much as it is less-than-optimal road design. I note the OP contends the left-turn lane only begins where the merge lane ends. While that appears to be true, you'd then have to change all the way across directly into the merge lane right at once instead of working your way across, and depending on how many people are lined up to turn left, you might effectively be trying to cut the line if the turn lane is full. (In some states–I don't know about Illinois–it is also illegal to change across multiple lanes in one fell swoop. Some states require you to hold a lane for at least one second before changing lanes again. I've seldom seen that enforced except when someone is overall being reckless, doing things like weaving in and out of traffic at high speed.)

I don't recall a Google Maps link being posted so far. Here's where it is. I've never been there, but it wasn't hard to find based on the OP's comments and clues in the video: https://goo.gl/maps/tS6ryp5k82enHpZi8

Some of his videos are featured here on this driving fail compilation video on YouTube. His videos start at 4:50 in.

....

As expected, there are a large amount of people commenting what a jackass this guy is and how unnecessary it is to lay on the horn as long as he does.

Heh, which of our forum members commented?




This other user sounds like the OP, but his videos don't match up:

[Ned Weasel]

I still haven't seen anything proving it is "not legal to stop" there. Looking at it on Google Maps, I see two signs saying "Right Turn at All Times," but nothing saying "No Stopping." Is the argument that the green arrow is to be interpreted as a requirement to keep moving all the way throughout the entire turning movement? (Bearing in mind the OP claims it's illegal to cross the solid white line after turning, a claim that has been shown to be wrong.) One thing I've wondered is how many people come to a stop because they want to change two lanes over to the left immediately after turning right in order to make a left turn to go to the Wal-Mart at the next light. That's perfectly legitimate. While you could go straight at the light to get to Wal-Mart, you have to pass in front of PetsMart and go through a bunch of stop signs in a parking lot with pedestrians crossing.

So if someone wants to get over to the left-turn lane, depending on the amount of traffic that's not bad driving so much as it is less-than-optimal road design. I note the OP contends the left-turn lane only begins where the merge lane ends. While that appears to be true, you'd then have to change all the way across directly into the merge lane right at once instead of working your way across, and depending on how many people are lined up to turn left, you might effectively be trying to cut the line if the turn lane is full. (In some states–I don't know about Illinois–it is also illegal to change across multiple lanes in one fell swoop. Some states require you to hold a lane for at least one second before changing lanes again. I've seldom seen that enforced except when someone is overall being reckless, doing things like weaving in and out of traffic at high speed.)

I don't recall a Google Maps link being posted so far. Here's where it is. I've never been there, but it wasn't hard to find based on the OP's comments and clues in the video: https://goo.gl/maps/tS6ryp5k82enHpZi8

As far as I know, the only way to make it explicitly illegal to change lanes across a line is to make it a double-solid, as both Texas and Missouri do.

There are two ways to solve the road design problem here:

(1) Acquire part of the U.S. Bank parking lot to build a jughandle, so everyone turning from SB IL 159 into the Walmart shopping center has to do so from the right lane.  If not for the U.S. Bank location, this would be ideal from a traffic flow standpoint, but the U.S. Bank compromises it pretty significantly, for two reasons.  One, it's generally unadvisable to have a building on the inside of any jughandle or ramp, although it's been known to happen.  Two, drivers coming out of the bank drive-through would have to stop at the jughandle, turn left onto it, and stop again at Jct. Dr. W., and it's also not a good idea to introduce a conflict point in the middle of a jughandle.

(2) Convert the right-turn slip ramp for the SB IL 159 through traffic into a double-right-turn bay, with a protected signal phase for right turns and perhaps a RTOR prohibition.  This would compromise traffic flow on SB IL 159 by introducing a point where traffic would have to stop at a red light, but I don't think this would be a big deal since NB IL 159 already has that situation at the left turn at that location.  It's actually fairly common to convert right-turn slip ramps into signalized turning bays.  It may seem like a step backwards, but it alleviates the problems encountered from people who want to make a left turn shortly after the right-turn movement, and if pedestrian facilities are eventually added, it makes them safer.  Close to home, this has already been done in both Olathe and Overland Park, KS, at these locations respectively: https://goo.gl/maps/ktvpBxcTLazasVSr9 , https://goo.gl/maps/YqWp5oKVVFLubPr97 .

[Plutonic Panda]

I still haven't seen anything proving it is "not legal to stop" there. Looking at it on Google Maps, I see two signs saying "Right Turn at All Times," but nothing saying "No Stopping." Is the argument that the green arrow is to be interpreted as a requirement to keep moving all the way throughout the entire turning movement? (Bearing in mind the OP claims it's illegal to cross the solid white line after turning, a claim that has been shown to be wrong.) One thing I've wondered is how many people come to a stop because they want to change two lanes over to the left immediately after turning right in order to make a left turn to go to the Wal-Mart at the next light. That's perfectly legitimate. While you could go straight at the light to get to Wal-Mart, you have to pass in front of PetsMart and go through a bunch of stop signs in a parking lot with pedestrians crossing.

So if someone wants to get over to the left-turn lane, depending on the amount of traffic that's not bad driving so much as it is less-than-optimal road design. I note the OP contends the left-turn lane only begins where the merge lane ends. While that appears to be true, you'd then have to change all the way across directly into the merge lane right at once instead of working your way across, and depending on how many people are lined up to turn left, you might effectively be trying to cut the line if the turn lane is full. (In some states–I don't know about Illinois–it is also illegal to change across multiple lanes in one fell swoop. Some states require you to hold a lane for at least one second before changing lanes again. I've seldom seen that enforced except when someone is overall being reckless, doing things like weaving in and out of traffic at high speed.)

I don't recall a Google Maps link being posted so far. Here's where it is. I've never been there, but it wasn't hard to find based on the OP's comments and clues in the video: https://goo.gl/maps/tS6ryp5k82enHpZi8

Some of his videos are featured here on this driving fail compilation video on YouTube. His videos start at 4:50 in.

....

As expected, there are a large amount of people commenting what a jackass this guy is and how unnecessary it is to lay on the horn as long as he does.

Heh, which of our forum members commented?




This other user sounds like the OP, but his videos don't match up:

Haha. That first comment is me. My real name is Campbell Sadeghy.

[Crash_It]

I still haven’t seen anything proving it is "not legal to stop" there.

The obedience to traffic control devices statute

(625 ILCS 5/11-305) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-305)
    Sec. 11-305. Obedience to and required traffic-control devices.
    (a) The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed or held in accordance with the provisions of this Act, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, subject to the exceptions granted the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle in this Act.

hints that it is illegal to stop there because 1) there is a green arrow , and 2) there is a right turn at all times sign which will soon be changed because I emailed IDOT and they even told me that the sign is a regulatory traffic control device sign. Furthermore, in the original of the first clip in the video, the cop himself also told me that it is illegal to be stopped there. here's the other statute that governs this

(625 ILCS 5/11-1303) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1303)
    Sec. 11-1303. Stopping, standing or parking prohibited in specified places.
    (a) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic-control device, no person shall:
        1. Stop, stand or park a vehicle:
  c. Within an intersection
   i. At any place where official signs prohibit stopping

Also Under this statute, the green arrow and the sign prohibits stopping in this location. So, theoretically one can receive two traffic citations for being stopped there.

Looking at it on Google Maps, I see two signs saying "Right Turn at All Times," but nothing saying "No Stopping." Is the argument that the green arrow is to be interpreted as a requirement to keep moving all the way throughout the entire turning movement? (Bearing in mind the OP claims it’s illegal to cross the solid white line after turning, a claim that has been shown to be wrong.) One thing I’ve wondered is how many people come to a stop because they want to change two lanes over to the left immediately after turning right in order to make a left turn to go to the Wal-Mart at the next light. That’s perfectly legitimate. While you could go straight at the light to get to Wal-Mart, you have to pass in front of PetsMart and go through a bunch of stop signs in a parking lot with pedestrians crossing.

So if someone wants to get over to the left-turn lane, depending on the amount of traffic that’s not bad driving so much as it is less-than-optimal road design. I note the OP contends the left-turn lane only begins where the merge lane ends. While that appears to be true, you’d then have to change all the way across directly into the merge lane right at once instead of working your way across, and depending on how many people are lined up to turn left, you might effectively be trying to cut the line if the turn lane is full. (In some states—I don’t know about Illinois—it is also illegal to change across multiple lanes in one fell swoop. Some states require you to hold a lane for at least one second before changing lanes again. I’ve seldom seen that enforced except when someone is overall being reckless, doing things like weaving in and out of traffic at high speed.)

I don’t recall a Google Maps link being posted so far. Here’s where it is. I’ve never been there, but it wasn’t hard to find based on the OP's comments and clues in the video: https://goo.gl/maps/tS6ryp5k82enHpZi8

For those who can't reach the turn lane in time there is another intersection from that point that leads to a frontage road which grants access to walmart and all the other businesses in that area. While it is an extra step, at least this way you are not holding up, or endangering fellow motorists and also avoiding receiving two citations. The comments on that video as well as the original of the first clip in that video are in support of me. Here is a transcript of the email I received from IDOT

Dear Mr. ........:

Thank you for your email concerning signing modifications to the existing “RIGHT TURN AT ALL TIMES” signs at the intersection of Troy Road and Illinois Route 159 in Glen Carbon.  This is a common concern, not just at the subject location but throughout the State as well.  The Department utilizes the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) when determining the type and location of signs.  The photo you have provided from Geneva shows a MUTCD compliant sign; however, the orientation of the sign is not consistent with the MUTCD.  Further, the sign assembly is only an advanced warning and is not regulatory.  This could present problems with enforcement.

We have configured a new sign design within the parameters of the MUTCD that we will install at the subject intersection in an effort to bring more attention and clear direction to the motorists.  These signs are currently being fabricated at our Central Sign Shop and we will install them upon receipt.

Thanks again for your email and please let me know if you have any questions.

[1995hoo]

But does a green light require that you must keep moving? I'm not sure it necessarily does.

When you see the new signs, please post a follow-up because it'll be interesting to see what they do.

[jeffandnicole]

I still haven't seen anything proving it is "not legal to stop" there. Looking at it on Google Maps, I see two signs saying "Right Turn at All Times," but nothing saying "No Stopping." Is the argument that the green arrow is to be interpreted as a requirement to keep moving all the way throughout the entire turning movement? (Bearing in mind the OP claims it's illegal to cross the solid white line after turning, a claim that has been shown to be wrong.) One thing I've wondered is how many people come to a stop because they want to change two lanes over to the left immediately after turning right in order to make a left turn to go to the Wal-Mart at the next light. That's perfectly legitimate. While you could go straight at the light to get to Wal-Mart, you have to pass in front of PetsMart and go through a bunch of stop signs in a parking lot with pedestrians crossing.

So if someone wants to get over to the left-turn lane, depending on the amount of traffic that's not bad driving so much as it is less-than-optimal road design. I note the OP contends the left-turn lane only begins where the merge lane ends. While that appears to be true, you'd then have to change all the way across directly into the merge lane right at once instead of working your way across, and depending on how many people are lined up to turn left, you might effectively be trying to cut the line if the turn lane is full. (In some states–I don't know about Illinois–it is also illegal to change across multiple lanes in one fell swoop. Some states require you to hold a lane for at least one second before changing lanes again. I've seldom seen that enforced except when someone is overall being reckless, doing things like weaving in and out of traffic at high speed.)

But does a green light require that you must keep moving? I'm not sure it necessarily does.

When you see the new signs, please post a follow-up because it'll be interesting to see what they do.

Yes the green arrow acts like any other green arrow...you are supposed to keep moving and there shouldn't be any other conflicts, which is why the lane exists just like an acceleration lane on a highway. The problem with these lanes though is that when there are other movements nearby, people do have a tendency to stop in them.

The problem with Crash_It's issue isn't necessarily the lane or people stopping, but rather his non-relenting use of the horn, which makes things worse, not better, as the stopped person may be looking around for another danger and continues to remain stopped.

As far as loving across multiple lanes at one time, that's an issue where sometimes the law and road planning often conflict with each other.

[kalvado]

I still haven't seen anything proving it is "not legal to stop" there.

The obedience to traffic control devices statute

(625 ILCS 5/11-305) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-305)
    Sec. 11-305. Obedience to and required traffic-control devices.
    (a) The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto placed or held in accordance with the provisions of this Act, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, subject to the exceptions granted the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle in this Act.

hints that it is illegal to stop there because 1) there is a green arrow , and 2) there is a right turn at all times sign which will soon be changed because I emailed IDOT and they even told me that the sign is a regulatory traffic control device sign. Furthermore, in the original of the first clip in the video, the cop himself also told me that it is illegal to be stopped there. here's the other statute that governs this

(625 ILCS 5/11-1303) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1303)
    Sec. 11-1303. Stopping, standing or parking prohibited in specified places.
    (a) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic-control device, no person shall:
        1. Stop, stand or park a vehicle:
  c. Within an intersection
   i. At any place where official signs prohibit stopping

Also Under this statute, the green arrow and the sign prohibits stopping in this location. So, theoretically one can receive two traffic citations for being stopped there.

Looking at it on Google Maps, I see two signs saying "Right Turn at All Times," but nothing saying "No Stopping." Is the argument that the green arrow is to be interpreted as a requirement to keep moving all the way throughout the entire turning movement? (Bearing in mind the OP claims it's illegal to cross the solid white line after turning, a claim that has been shown to be wrong.) One thing I've wondered is how many people come to a stop because they want to change two lanes over to the left immediately after turning right in order to make a left turn to go to the Wal-Mart at the next light. That's perfectly legitimate. While you could go straight at the light to get to Wal-Mart, you have to pass in front of PetsMart and go through a bunch of stop signs in a parking lot with pedestrians crossing.

So if someone wants to get over to the left-turn lane, depending on the amount of traffic that's not bad driving so much as it is less-than-optimal road design. I note the OP contends the left-turn lane only begins where the merge lane ends. While that appears to be true, you'd then have to change all the way across directly into the merge lane right at once instead of working your way across, and depending on how many people are lined up to turn left, you might effectively be trying to cut the line if the turn lane is full. (In some states–I don't know about Illinois–it is also illegal to change across multiple lanes in one fell swoop. Some states require you to hold a lane for at least one second before changing lanes again. I've seldom seen that enforced except when someone is overall being reckless, doing things like weaving in and out of traffic at high speed.)

I don't recall a Google Maps link being posted so far. Here's where it is. I've never been there, but it wasn't hard to find based on the OP's comments and clues in the video: https://goo.gl/maps/tS6ryp5k82enHpZi8

For those who can't reach the turn lane in time there is another intersection from that point that leads to a frontage road which grants access to walmart and all the other businesses in that area. While it is an extra step, at least this way you are not holding up, or endangering fellow motorists and also avoiding receiving two citations. The comments on that video as well as the original of the first clip in that video are in support of me. Here is a transcript of the email I received from IDOT

Dear Mr. ........:

Thank you for your email concerning signing modifications to the existing "RIGHT TURN AT ALL TIMES"  signs at the intersection of Troy Road and Illinois Route 159 in Glen Carbon.  This is a common concern, not just at the subject location but throughout the State as well.  The Department utilizes the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) when determining the type and location of signs.  The photo you have provided from Geneva shows a MUTCD compliant sign; however, the orientation of the sign is not consistent with the MUTCD.  Further, the sign assembly is only an advanced warning and is not regulatory.  This could present problems with enforcement.

We have configured a new sign design within the parameters of the MUTCD that we will install at the subject intersection in an effort to bring more attention and clear direction to the motorists.  These signs are currently being fabricated at our Central Sign Shop and we will install them upon receipt.

Thanks again for your email and please let me know if you have any questions.

Is there such a thing as "illegal stopping" to begin with? Stopping is the very basic defensive driving technique and is the default response to many emergency,  or potential emergency situations. You absolutely must stop if moving forward may create an issue - such as collision with a person, object, animal, car. Saying "I thought the failure to stop may result in an accident" should be a valid defense in any situation.
I am not talking about "no stopping" signs, as they imply a different definition of stopping to begin with.

[1995hoo]

One other point–consistent with your third sentence–is that even if the vehicle in front of you wrongly stops, you still have to avoid running into that vehicle, which may mean that you must stop.

[jeffandnicole]

Is there such a thing as "illegal stopping" to begin with?

Sure there is. Obstructing of traffic. You can't just stop on a road in a travel lane for no reason.  Stopped at a green light is how many an intoxicated person are found because they passed out at a red light!

[kalvado]

Is there such a thing as "illegal stopping" to begin with?

Sure there is. Obstructing of traffic. You can't just stop on a road in a travel lane for no reason.  Stopped at a green light is how many an intoxicated person are found because they passed out at a red light!

question is about duration and reason. Passing out drunk is one thing, uncertainty about exact traffic pattern is the other. I would be surprised if the second one can be called "illegal".
I wonder what would the charge be for a drunk stop - DWI or illegal stop? I suspect stop would be presented as an indication of something being wrong, hence a probable cause.

[jeffandnicole]

Is there such a thing as "illegal stopping" to begin with?

Sure there is. Obstructing of traffic. You can't just stop on a road in a travel lane for no reason.  Stopped at a green light is how many an intoxicated person are found because they passed out at a red light!

question is about duration and reason. Passing out drunk is one thing, uncertainty about exact traffic pattern is the other. I would be surprised if the second one can be called "illegal".
I wonder what would the charge be for a drunk stop - DWI or illegal stop? I suspect stop would be presented as an indication of something being wrong, hence a probable cause.

Actually, your question and entire statement never mentioned either two.

At this particular type intersection, many drivers treat it as a yield. There's no time limit. I would suspect that someone stopping for traffic to clear so they can merge over would be fine, regardless of the length of time.

For DUIs, the guilty driver is usually charged for numerous violations, which include the first thing the police noticed

[mrsman]

I still haven't seen anything proving it is "not legal to stop" there. Looking at it on Google Maps, I see two signs saying "Right Turn at All Times," but nothing saying "No Stopping." Is the argument that the green arrow is to be interpreted as a requirement to keep moving all the way throughout the entire turning movement? (Bearing in mind the OP claims it's illegal to cross the solid white line after turning, a claim that has been shown to be wrong.) One thing I've wondered is how many people come to a stop because they want to change two lanes over to the left immediately after turning right in order to make a left turn to go to the Wal-Mart at the next light. That's perfectly legitimate. While you could go straight at the light to get to Wal-Mart, you have to pass in front of PetsMart and go through a bunch of stop signs in a parking lot with pedestrians crossing.

So if someone wants to get over to the left-turn lane, depending on the amount of traffic that's not bad driving so much as it is less-than-optimal road design. I note the OP contends the left-turn lane only begins where the merge lane ends. While that appears to be true, you'd then have to change all the way across directly into the merge lane right at once instead of working your way across, and depending on how many people are lined up to turn left, you might effectively be trying to cut the line if the turn lane is full. (In some states–I don't know about Illinois–it is also illegal to change across multiple lanes in one fell swoop. Some states require you to hold a lane for at least one second before changing lanes again. I've seldom seen that enforced except when someone is overall being reckless, doing things like weaving in and out of traffic at high speed.)

I don't recall a Google Maps link being posted so far. Here's where it is. I've never been there, but it wasn't hard to find based on the OP's comments and clues in the video: https://goo.gl/maps/tS6ryp5k82enHpZi8

As far as I know, the only way to make it explicitly illegal to change lanes across a line is to make it a double-solid, as both Texas and Missouri do.

There are two ways to solve the road design problem here:

(1) Acquire part of the U.S. Bank parking lot to build a jughandle, so everyone turning from SB IL 159 into the Walmart shopping center has to do so from the right lane.  If not for the U.S. Bank location, this would be ideal from a traffic flow standpoint, but the U.S. Bank compromises it pretty significantly, for two reasons.  One, it's generally unadvisable to have a building on the inside of any jughandle or ramp, although it's been known to happen.  Two, drivers coming out of the bank drive-through would have to stop at the jughandle, turn left onto it, and stop again at Jct. Dr. W., and it's also not a good idea to introduce a conflict point in the middle of a jughandle.

(2) Convert the right-turn slip ramp for the SB IL 159 through traffic into a double-right-turn bay, with a protected signal phase for right turns and perhaps a RTOR prohibition.  This would compromise traffic flow on SB IL 159 by introducing a point where traffic would have to stop at a red light, but I don't think this would be a big deal since NB IL 159 already has that situation at the left turn at that location.  It's actually fairly common to convert right-turn slip ramps into signalized turning bays.  It may seem like a step backwards, but it alleviates the problems encountered from people who want to make a left turn shortly after the right-turn movement, and if pedestrian facilities are eventually added, it makes them safer.  Close to home, this has already been done in both Olathe and Overland Park, KS, at these locations respectively: https://goo.gl/maps/ktvpBxcTLazasVSr9 , https://goo.gl/maps/YqWp5oKVVFLubPr97 .

Just to add to the last point stridentweasel mentioned.  There is definitely movement of changing slip lanes to right turn lanes in the name of pedestrian safety.  Pedestrian advocates in many cities advocate for this, since they feel that cars do accelerate through slip lanes.

An intersection near me, adjacent to a bike trail, was converted from right slip lane to right turn lane.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0076501,-77.0202353,3a,75y,287.15h,84.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazyL8pet6XJ8D75iRG9oMA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0076795,-77.0202649,3a,75y,287.15h,84.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKsPb5IttPsJoeNoKFV1u4Q!2e0!5s20190601T000000!7i16384!8i8192


If there is room at the Glen Carbon intersection to turn the slip ramp into a double right turn lane, this may resolve a lot of the problems.  People wanting to go to the shopping center will be in the left of the two right turn lanes and the others will be in the right most lane.  To the extent that this is even controlled, you could have a situation where RTOR is only permitted in the far right lane.  That traffic can go, while those who need to make an immediate left after turning will just simply wait for the green light.

At times, you can even allow both a right turn lane and a slip ramp.  [I recall an intersection in WA that was posted on another thread allowing for this.]  Here is an example in DC near the washington hospital center.  A free right turn for traffic to Irving Street using the slip ramp, but a right turn at the traffic signal if you want to turn right and then turn left to continue onto First street or to reach the entrance to the hospitals.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9319529,-77.008106,3a,75y,210.93h,86.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swL0RPue6KmE_OSEAf0PE-Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwL0RPue6KmE_OSEAf0PE-Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D278.1883%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

[paulthemapguy]

I just realized...Looking at the GSV for the intersection in the OP, there isn't a right turn arrow on the mast arm, which is surely the first place drivers will look for guidance on what they're allowed to do.  The signal installed by IDOT fails IDOT's minimum requirements for signal indications: every movement represented must have at least two indications pointed at the approach from which the movement originates.  Perhaps we should default to considering whether the traffic infrastructure is faulty before chastising drivers?  The signal does a poor job of communicating what to do.  The signage is nice, but people coming to a signal are going to look to the signal first and the signage second, when determining who has the right of way.

Look at this!  Only one right arrow, and it's on the near right corner of the intersection?  That's definitely not adequate in Illinois.  Every other example of a permanent green right arrow I've seen in Illinois has at least two.  To fix this blunder easily, make the rightmost signal head on the mast arm a 4-section head with a green right arrow that's always on (or add a 4-section head to the right of the three installed).
https://goo.gl/maps/mraFaYf1wEgL5H4u8

[fwydriver405]

I just realized...Looking at the GSV for the intersection in the OP, there isn't a right turn arrow on the mast arm, which is surely the first place drivers will look for guidance on what they're allowed to do.  The signal installed by IDOT fails IDOT's minimum requirements for signal indications: every movement represented must have at least two indications pointed at the approach from which the movement originates.  Perhaps we should default to considering whether the traffic infrastructure is faulty before chastising drivers?  The signal does a poor job of communicating what to do.  The signage is nice, but people coming to a signal are going to look to the signal first and the signage second, when determining who has the right of way.

Look at this!  Only one right arrow, and it's on the near right corner of the intersection?  That's definitely not adequate in Illinois.  Every other example of a permanent green right arrow I've seen in Illinois has at least two.  To fix this blunder easily, make the rightmost signal head on the mast arm a 4-section head with a green right arrow that's always on (or add a 4-section head to the right of the three installed).
https://goo.gl/maps/mraFaYf1wEgL5H4u8

Going to add to this... looking through GSV in previous years it appears the 4-section R-Y-G-GA(/YA?) signal head was added sometime in 2017, at the same time the yellow reflective tape was added onto the signal on the mast arm. Just out of curiosity, was there a problem with drivers stopping when that signal was just a R-Y-G head pre-2017?

I would also like to know if this intersection closer to home in South Portland ME also suffers from the same design flaw as mentioned in reply #147. If there's a YIELD sign at the end of the ramp, then what is the purpose of the right turn signal at this location? Which traffic control device has priority, the signal or YIELD sign? The stopping issue like the intersection in IL isn't prevalent here and there's no marked stop line for such signal for the right turn (unless you want to count the end of the slip lane the theoretical stop line).

[jeffandnicole]

I just realized...Looking at the GSV for the intersection in the OP, there isn't a right turn arrow on the mast arm, which is surely the first place drivers will look for guidance on what they're allowed to do.  The signal installed by IDOT fails IDOT's minimum requirements for signal indications: every movement represented must have at least two indications pointed at the approach from which the movement originates.  Perhaps we should default to considering whether the traffic infrastructure is faulty before chastising drivers?  The signal does a poor job of communicating what to do.  The signage is nice, but people coming to a signal are going to look to the signal first and the signage second, when determining who has the right of way.

Look at this!  Only one right arrow, and it's on the near right corner of the intersection?  That's definitely not adequate in Illinois.  Every other example of a permanent green right arrow I've seen in Illinois has at least two.  To fix this blunder easily, make the rightmost signal head on the mast arm a 4-section head with a green right arrow that's always on (or add a 4-section head to the right of the three installed).
https://goo.gl/maps/mraFaYf1wEgL5H4u8

I don't see how that helps in this case.  That right arrow would be over a straight-only lane, which wouldn't make sense there and would be out of the line of sight for those making a right turn in the right lane.

The reality is no signals are really needed for the right turn movement. The single arrow provided is just to help with guidance to keep traffic moving in that lane.  Most motorists are stopping because they want to immediately merge over to the left; not because they're confused with if they have the right of way.