Unintended exit on NJ 24

[Alps]

I saw a westbound SUV hit the shoulder and travel up this. It's marked Do Not Enter from the side street but unmarked from 24. So if it's unmarked, does that make it legal to exit there? It even seems that there's a median break if you wanted to turn left! NJ 24 is supposed to be a freeway...

[1995hoo]

I just might have used a spot like that to enter I-66 once.....though in that case there were (still are) signs at each end saying "Do Not Enter Except Authorized Vehicles," so there was no doubt it would have been illegal.

I might have done it because it would have been highly convenient to where I was. Having an engine with a lot of low-end torque coupled with a six-speed manual might help in accelerating on the shoulder. Not that I'd know for sure......

[NJRoadfan]

Heh, also semi-local to the above. This gate is usually a shortcut for some locals off of I-78, particularly when it backs up. Its almost never closed. http://goo.gl/maps/Cv5Lg

[dgolub]

I saw a westbound SUV hit the shoulder and travel up this. It's marked Do Not Enter from the side street but unmarked from 24. So if it's unmarked, does that make it legal to exit there? It even seems that there's a median break if you wanted to turn left! NJ 24 is supposed to be a freeway...

Interesting.  There's something similar on the Cross Island Parkway in Queens, where there's an entrance/exit from the parkway from a shopping center parking lot, but it's marked DO NOT ENTER from both sides.

[jeffandnicole]

I'm pretty sure there's enough laws regarding crossing solid lines, riding shoulders and traffic flow on a roadway to make this illegal, regardless if there's a sign there.

There was an emergency access gate (hardly ever shut) on the NJ Turnpike in Deptford, NJ that was used by a lot of people not wanting to take Exit 3 or Exit 2.  Occasionally, a state trooper greeted those people.  Not only were they illegally using an emergency access road, but they were toll avaders as well.  The access has since been upgraded to require card or remote access to open the gate (there's a camera there as well).

[Don'tKnowYet]

I know from experience in NJ unfortunately that cops have at thier discretion the choice to write a careless or reckless ticket when they do not have the tools at their disposal otherwise.  Just becasue the sign is missing, doesn't mean the cop can't write you something else.

I would argue that it is careless (or reckless) to enter a limited access freeway from a 90-degree stub access road and try to get up to speed.  This behavior fits the definition and now you find yourself in court fighting a 5 point ticket with a $500 fine or suspension instead of some 0 point ticket with a $50 fine as if the sign to not enter was there (or whatever it is).

I know in NJ cops like that ambiguous reckless and careless legal language behind that actual code and have no problem with signs missing on access points like these or openings between local and express lanes.

[roadman]

I know from experience in NJ unfortunately that cops have at thier discretion the choice to write a careless or reckless ticket when they do not have the tools at their disposal otherwise.  Just becasue the sign is missing, doesn't mean the cop can't write you something else.

I would argue that it is careless (or reckless) to enter a limited access freeway from a 90-degree stub access road and try to get up to speed.  This behavior fits the definition and now you find yourself in court fighting a 5 point ticket with a $500 fine or suspension instead of some 0 point ticket with a $50 fine as if the sign to not enter was there (or whatever it is).

I know in NJ cops like that ambiguous reckless and careless legal language behind that actual code and have no problem with signs missing on access points like these or openings between local and express lanes.

As I understand it, police in Massachusetts also have wide discretion to add "driving to endanger" if you're pulled over for almost any moving violation.  Whcih can be a real PIA if you're hit with it, because driving to endanger is a criminal charge, whereas other moving violations are civil charges only.

And for the record, I'm not speaking from personal experience.

[Brandon]

I saw a westbound SUV hit the shoulder and travel up this. It's marked Do Not Enter from the side street but unmarked from 24. So if it's unmarked, does that make it legal to exit there? It even seems that there's a median break if you wanted to turn left! NJ 24 is supposed to be a freeway...

Most of the areas like this I've seen are for emergency access only.  They're not always marked.  I don't know the circumstances, but could the SUV be a state, county, or municipal vehicle using the access for some reason (patrol, engineering, survey, etc)?

[formulanone]

I always find these "reckless driving" charges to be utter nonsense, when officers are also likely to make an impromptu U-turn or weave at higher-than-averaged traffic flow speeds just to catch a speeder or HOV violator.

You want to hit me for breaking a posted law, fine...that's part of the game. Bringing in a vague interpretation of a law, with a virtually uncontestable fine...suddenly justice sounds more like a cash register.

[jeffandnicole]

I know from experience in NJ unfortunately that cops have at thier discretion the choice to write a careless or reckless ticket when they do not have the tools at their disposal otherwise.  Just becasue the sign is missing, doesn't mean the cop can't write you something else.

I would argue that it is careless (or reckless) to enter a limited access freeway from a 90-degree stub access road and try to get up to speed.  This behavior fits the definition and now you find yourself in court fighting a 5 point ticket with a $500 fine or suspension instead of some 0 point ticket with a $50 fine as if the sign to not enter was there (or whatever it is).

I know in NJ cops like that ambiguous reckless and careless legal language behind that actual code and have no problem with signs missing on access points like these or openings between local and express lanes.

In NJ, Careless Driving is the catch-all offense for everything.  It actually benefits the driver as well - it's only a 2 point offense, typically with a $85 or so fine (although the fine can be increased up to $200).  Many of the other offenses one can be charged with are much higher.

Reckless Driving is actually a very tough sell in NJ traditionally - you might as well run someone over high and drunk to be convicted with this offense.  Sure, cops may charge you with it, but if you go to court (which is probably mandatory) chances are the offense will be downgraded.  It's also much higher in points (5 points) and the fine is high as well.  Cutting across a highway with traffic speeding by to get to an emergency exit for non-emergency purposes may seem reckless, but it's not the violation NJ would use to convict someone.

In this particular example, one would be charged with NJ State Statute 39:4-90.1: "Limited access highways, driving onto or from". "No person shall drive a vehicle onto or from any limited-access highway except at such entrances and exits as are established by public authority."

It's going to be pretty hard to claim that this example is a proper entrance or exit, due to the lack of signage stating it's an exit, striping, etc.

Here's NJ's point schedule, btw: http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Violations/penalties_pointSchedule.htm 

[kphoger]

In this particular example, one would be charged with NJ State Statute 39:4-90.1: "Limited access highways, driving onto or from". "No person shall drive a vehicle onto or from any limited-access highway except at such entrances and exits as are established by public authority."

It's going to be pretty hard to claim that this example is a proper entrance or exit, due to the lack of signage stating it's an exit, striping, etc.

It would, I think, be hard to claim it's not an exit as established by public authority.  It is a road that is not identified as private property or prohibited to vehicles.  When the highway was built, its intersection was not blocked off; whenever the highway is maintained, its intersection is not blocked off.  What more definition than that does one need for a public way?  I also notice there's not a "No Left Turn" sign on the other side of the highway either.

[agentsteel53]

there is a sign that says NO TURNS serving the direction which has the mystery ramp to the right. 

does not seem to be any signage for the other direction.  that said, the NO TURNS is only visible from particular angles so there are multiple runs of the google car at work here... I would not be surprised if NO TURNS, in both directions, are a late addition to the intersection.

[Alps]

there is a sign that says NO TURNS serving the direction which has the mystery ramp to the right. 

does not seem to be any signage for the other direction.  that said, the NO TURNS is only visible from particular angles so there are multiple runs of the google car at work here... I would not be surprised if NO TURNS, in both directions, are a late addition to the intersection.

Did not notice any such sign when I drove by, but I go that way often enough that I'll keep my eyes peeled.

[jeffandnicole]

In this particular example, one would be charged with NJ State Statute 39:4-90.1: "Limited access highways, driving onto or from". "No person shall drive a vehicle onto or from any limited-access highway except at such entrances and exits as are established by public authority."

It's going to be pretty hard to claim that this example is a proper entrance or exit, due to the lack of signage stating it's an exit, striping, etc.

It would, I think, be hard to claim it's not an exit as established by public authority.  It is a road that is not identified as private property or prohibited to vehicles.  When the highway was built, its intersection was not blocked off; whenever the highway is maintained, its intersection is not blocked off.  What more definition than that does one need for a public way?  I also notice there's not a "No Left Turn" sign on the other side of the highway either.

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...

[vdeane]

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

[cpzilliacus]

I just might have used a spot like that to enter I-66 once.....though in that case there were (still are) signs at each end saying "Do Not Enter Except Authorized Vehicles," so there was no doubt it would have been illegal.

I might have done it because it would have been highly convenient to where I was. Having an engine with a lot of low-end torque coupled with a six-speed manual might help in accelerating on the shoulder. Not that I'd know for sure......

Hoo, I presume you  speak of the "ramps" from both  sides of I-66 to Virginia Lane in the Falls Church area of Fairfax County here, right.

They are mostly used by VSP trooper cars to make "U" turns, since the presence of the WMATA Orange Line in the median of I-66 precludes a turn over the tracks with third rail.

There are similar "ramps" along the JFK Highway section of I-95 near Kingsville, Maryland to allow fire and rescue access to I-95 from Bradshaw Road (here).  Like the example by Steve, there is nothing to prevent a driver from using these "ramps," though they are not marked.

South of there (also on the JFK Highway), MdTA built similar ramps to allow access to and from Chesaco Avenue in the Overlea section of Baltimore County, but these are gated to deter unauthorized use (here - northbound GSV here and southbound here).

Md. 200 also has a set of gated ramps at Md. 115 (Muncaster Mill Road) here.

[cpzilliacus]

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?

[D-Dey65]

Interesting.  There's something similar on the Cross Island Parkway in Queens, where there's an entrance/exit from the parkway from a shopping center parking lot, but it's marked DO NOT ENTER from both sides.

Shopping center? Where?

[vdeane]

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?

Probably northeast convention.  Since we tend to prohibit general use of median crossovers etc. it's probably assumed that drivers would get the message (the other access point from the side street is marked do not enter though).

[_Simon]

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

[Alps]

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?

Probably northeast convention.  Since we tend to prohibit general use of median crossovers etc. it's probably assumed that drivers would get the message (the other access point from the side street is marked do not enter though).

Spied on it today. Median is marked "NO TURNS", but no signage prohibiting a right turn from WB.

[1995hoo]

Hoo, I presume you  speak of the "ramps" from both  sides of I-66 to Virginia Lane in the Falls Church area of Fairfax County here, right.

....

Correct. There are gates on those "ramps," but I've never seen them closed. There are "Do Not Enter (Except Authorized Vehicles)" signs as well.

[cpzilliacus]

Hoo, I presume you  speak of the "ramps" from both  sides of I-66 to Virginia Lane in the Falls Church area of Fairfax County here, right.

....

Correct. There are gates on those "ramps," but I've never seen them closed. There are "Do Not Enter (Except Authorized Vehicles)" signs as well.

I have never seen them secured either.  I have noticed them closed or partly closed, but never locked.   

May be because the patrol area for the VSP Area 45 Office ends there (I-66 from I-495 to the Prince William County/Fairfax County line is Area 9), and it provides a convenient place to make that "U" turn.

[Roadgeek2500]

I saw a westbound SUV hit the shoulder and travel up this. It's marked Do Not Enter from the side street but unmarked from 24. So if it's unmarked, does that make it legal to exit there? It even seems that there's a median break if you wanted to turn left! NJ 24 is supposed to be a freeway...

And Strangely it looks like they were planning for more:  http://goo.gl/maps/aDUFw 

[NE2]

And Strangely it looks like they were planning for more:  http://goo.gl/maps/aDUFw 

More what? That looks like a utility ROW.