Eternal Green Lights

[jakeroot]

Here's a thought, I know that in the USA you have to treat any dark signals as an all-way stop. Does this apply to an 'eternal' green light that has burned out or lost power? If so it might be an argument to use a sign over a lamp.

Personally, that's an argument for a wide, raised median with clear separation from the adjoining turn lane. Drivers should be able to logically infer which signals belong to which movements. A turn arrow for an adjoining turn lane clearly doesn't belong to the through lanes. Yes, some drivers will look for a through signal, but upon noticing A) the hard median between said signal and their lane, and B) the lack of a through signal altogether, will more than likely just continue on with little fanfare.

In conclusion, proper channelization, on its own, should be able to dictate which lanes need not stop. The intersection posted by Roadfro up-thread is an example of a properly-built seagull intersection.

[jeffandnicole]

Here's a thought, I know that in the USA you have to treat any dark signals as an all-way stop. Does this apply to an 'eternal' green light that has burned out or lost power? If so it might be an argument to use a sign over a lamp.

It depends on the situation, and who uses the intersection.  If it's mostly local traffic, after a while motorists don't even 'see' the eternal green light, and would go thru it regardless if it's lit or not.  For the most part, eternal green lights don't have intersecting traffic where one would need to stop...or a stop line for traffic to stop at anyway...so the light shouldn't be much of an issue.

[empirestate]

Here's a thought, I know that in the USA you have to treat any dark signals as an all-way stop. Does this apply to an 'eternal' green light that has burned out or lost power? If so it might be an argument to use a sign over a lamp.

It depends on the situation, and who uses the intersection.  If it's mostly local traffic, after a while motorists don't even 'see' the eternal green light, and would go thru it regardless if it's lit or not.  For the most part, eternal green lights don't have intersecting traffic where one would need to stop...or a stop line for traffic to stop at anyway...so the light shouldn't be much of an issue.

Well, that's the whole idea, isn't it? It shouldn't be an issue at all, but if one were suddenly obliged to stop at a signal that has otherwise been green for its entire existence, would there suddenly be an issue where there should't be one?

On the other hand, is that actually the law in all states? Do some states word it as following the signal's most-restrictive indication, which in the case of an all-green signal would still be green?

[bzakharin]

Here's a thought, I know that in the USA you have to treat any dark signals as an all-way stop. Does this apply to an 'eternal' green light that has burned out or lost power? If so it might be an argument to use a sign over a lamp.

It depends on the situation, and who uses the intersection.  If it's mostly local traffic, after a while motorists don't even 'see' the eternal green light, and would go thru it regardless if it's lit or not.  For the most part, eternal green lights don't have intersecting traffic where one would need to stop...or a stop line for traffic to stop at anyway...so the light shouldn't be much of an issue.

Well, that's the whole idea, isn't it? It shouldn't be an issue at all, but if one were suddenly obliged to stop at a signal that has otherwise been green for its entire existence, would there suddenly be an issue where there should't be one?

On the other hand, is that actually the law in all states? Do some states word it as following the signal's most-restrictive indication, which in the case of an all-green signal would still be green?

A regular light's most restrictive indication is "stop and wait for green". I don't think that's what you are supposed to do at a dark signal.

Anyway, what NJ says is "When, by reason of a power failure or other malfunction, a traffic control signal at an intersection is not illuminated, the driver of a vehicle or street car shall, with respect to that intersection, observe the requirement for a stop intersection", which is interesting because it apparently leaves unspecified what you do when a signal is not illuminated for some other reason. Doesn't this make the law unenforceable: "I didn't know it was a malfunction. I thought this signal was just not operational yet"?

[jeffandnicole]

Here's a thought, I know that in the USA you have to treat any dark signals as an all-way stop. Does this apply to an 'eternal' green light that has burned out or lost power? If so it might be an argument to use a sign over a lamp.

It depends on the situation, and who uses the intersection.  If it's mostly local traffic, after a while motorists don't even 'see' the eternal green light, and would go thru it regardless if it's lit or not.  For the most part, eternal green lights don't have intersecting traffic where one would need to stop...or a stop line for traffic to stop at anyway...so the light shouldn't be much of an issue.

Well, that's the whole idea, isn't it? It shouldn't be an issue at all, but if one were suddenly obliged to stop at a signal that has otherwise been green for its entire existence, would there suddenly be an issue where there should't be one?

On the other hand, is that actually the law in all states? Do some states word it as following the signal's most-restrictive indication, which in the case of an all-green signal would still be green?

A regular light's most restrictive indication is "stop and wait for green". I don't think that's what you are supposed to do at a dark signal.

Anyway, what NJ says is "When, by reason of a power failure or other malfunction, a traffic control signal at an intersection is not illuminated, the driver of a vehicle or street car shall, with respect to that intersection, observe the requirement for a stop intersection", which is interesting because it apparently leaves unspecified what you do when a signal is not illuminated for some other reason. Doesn't this make the law unenforceable: "I didn't know it was a malfunction. I thought this signal was just not operational yet"?

"other malfunction" would include a burned out bulb.

That said, it's a reason why each direction of travel and each turn lane should have at least 2 signal heads.  If one bulb is burned out, or the traffic light pole is knocked over, there's a 2nd, redundant traffic light (and many times, a 3rd & 4th signal) to provide you guidance.  "I thought this signal was just not operational yet" isn't much of a defense, as most signals under construction are covered in bags, have Road Construction signage nearby, etc.  And even in the absence of all that, if you're approaching a signal that doesn't appear to be lit, slow down and use caution!

[bzakharin]

Yes, I know, but the letter of the law can be construed to require the motorist to know the reason the light is not operational (power/malfunction vs everything else) which is usually not the case (or cannot be proven anyway) before a penalty can be applied.

[Jet380]

Well, that's the whole idea, isn't it? It shouldn't be an issue at all, but if one were suddenly obliged to stop at a signal that has otherwise been green for its entire existence, would there suddenly be an issue where there should't be one?

On the other hand, is that actually the law in all states? Do some states word it as following the signal's most-restrictive indication, which in the case of an all-green signal would still be green?

If that was the rule in some place, you could argue that an unfamiliar motorist wouldn't know what colour the light is supposed to be (it's dark after all!), so for all they know it might be a flashing red beacon.

Anyway, what NJ says is "When, by reason of a power failure or other malfunction, a traffic control signal at an intersection is not illuminated, the driver of a vehicle or street car shall, with respect to that intersection, observe the requirement for a stop intersection", which is interesting because it apparently leaves unspecified what you do when a signal is not illuminated for some other reason. Doesn't this make the law unenforceable: "I didn't know it was a malfunction. I thought this signal was just not operational yet"?

I think 'at an intersection' is the important phrase here. Since the lanes covered by an 'eternal green' light are not crossing any other traffic by design, they probably do not meet the definition as being part of the intersection. Of couse what happens in practice might be something else 

Perhaps the law includes 'by way of a power failure or other malfunction' might be to stop drivers exploiting cases where the light is clearly not blacked out / broken. For example someone might be at fault when they were turning left at a FYA and say 'Oh well the light was dark for half a second so I treated the intersection as a stop sign' or some other nonsense (not that I think that would fly in any case).

I should probably stop armchair lawyering, given I don't even hold a driver's license in any US state!!!

[mrsman]

Almost... Poplar Tent Road at the quarry, west of I-85. Only turns red when trucks are coming out of the quarry...

Similar situation in many factories.  Light is only operational for side traffic at shift change times.  If it's really a long time, it's probably recommended that the signal operate in flash mode at times when side traffic is not operational.

[jeffandnicole]

Well, that's the whole idea, isn't it? It shouldn't be an issue at all, but if one were suddenly obliged to stop at a signal that has oFor example someone might be at fault when they were turning left at a FYA and say 'Oh well the light was dark for half a second so I treated the intersection as a stop sign' or some other nonsense (not that I think that would fly in any case).

Point taken...although that excuse wouldn't fly in NJ since we don't have any FYAs here.  I doubt most cops would even have a clue what they are!!

[CJResotko]

Found these three eternal green arrow beacons at the entrance to a shopping plaza in Grand Rapids, MI. Two of them are thru arrows, and the other is a right arrow.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9119977,-85.5412336,3a,33.8y,174.75h,94.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjzbk3Pbty25YIGFFmH8abQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[Big John]

Found these three eternal green arrow beacons at the entrance to a shopping plaza in Grand Rapids, MI. Two of them are thru arrows, and the other is a right arrow.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9119977,-85.5412336,3a,33.8y,174.75h,94.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjzbk3Pbty25YIGFFmH8abQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

The one on the left should also have a left arrow as left turns are allowed from that lane.

[Life in Paradise]

One in Evansville, IN (Eastbound Lloyd Expressway IN-66).  Westbound may get a red light for left turning traffic, but eastbound has no one crossing traffic (at least legally) so the light stays green on and on and on.

https://earth.google.com/web/search/East+Lloyd+Expressway+%26+South+Burkhardt+Road,+Evansville,+IN/@37.97656085,-87.48060222,120.66753387a,0d,60y,86.83078641h,83.76909278t,0r/data=CqcBGn0SdwolMHg4ODZlMmI2OTQwMWNjMTViOjB4MTAwNTBlODYwNDBjNTVjNhkeTfVk_vxCQCEyPPazWN5VwCo8RWFzdCBMbG95ZCBFeHByZXNzd2F5ICYgU291dGggQnVya2hhcmR0IFJvYWQsIEV2YW5zdmlsbGUsIElOGAEgASImCiQJoaLPZxLJR0ARaN7YQUjAR0AZgKIvigi7VsAhgFU9rt6-VsAiGgoWS0JaU3dBLVRxV0hheXRBZjgxUGxydxAC

[roadfro]

Found these three eternal green arrow beacons at the entrance to a shopping plaza in Grand Rapids, MI. Two of them are thru arrows, and the other is a right arrow.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9119977,-85.5412336,3a,33.8y,174.75h,94.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjzbk3Pbty25YIGFFmH8abQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

The one on the left should also have a left arrow as left turns are allowed from that lane.

These lights are eternally green and entirely unnecessary, especially when everything else at the "intersection" is stop controlled. Just post "do not stop" signs on the approach and be done with it.

[kphoger]

Just post "do not stop" signs on the approach and be done with it.

I'd never advocate for such a sign.  I can all too easily imagine someone, having hit another vehicle or pedestrian or whatever, using the "do not stop" sign in his defense.

[Big John]

I have a non MUTCD sign of "KEEP MOVING"

[roadfro]

Just post "do not stop" signs on the approach and be done with it.

I'd never advocate for such a sign.  I can all too easily imagine someone, having hit another vehicle or pedestrian or whatever, using the "do not stop" sign in his defense.

I wouldn't think that, but whatever...

Perhaps it could be something different, such as "keep moving" or "this lane does not stop", per a Reno, NV example entering Meadowood Mall (but not the erroneous FYG version at left). Or even no sign at all. But the main point is that evergreen signals are a waste here.

[US 89]

"Keep Moving" is pretty common in Georgia, mostly at freeway off-ramps with a free right that gets its own lane.

[jakeroot]

Just remove the sign altogether. I can think of an infinite number of examples of this exact type of setup with no signage at all. Maybe they work, maybe they don't, but I don't see anything unique about the Michigan example that screams "needs supplemental signage".

What I don't get is the stop sign for the opposing direction. I get having traffic entering mall not have a stop or yield condition, so traffic doesn't backup onto the arterial, but traffic leaving the mall doesn't really have the same issue. They probably did it so traffic turning left (towards the ALDI) can constantly keep going, but I doubt either direction has so many cars that it would really be worth the current setup.

[webny99]

Here's one on US 275 EB at the on-ramp to I-80 EB in Omaha, NE: https://maps.app.goo.gl/n4TLte2QtZahGyJo9

[fwydriver405]

I know of several in Massachusetts that have eternal green lights.

There are a few typical installations of eternal green lights around MA like these examples: Fully Protected (Canton), FYA (Shrewsbury), and 5-section (Doghouse) (Billerica)*...

...but then you have strange examples like this one on the Revere Beach Pkwy where a fully protected left turn signal and a single section thru green is combined into one, four section signal. There used to be another one farther west but that has been replaced with normal fully protected left turn signals.

There's also this one in Milton where SB Granite Ave splits - circular red on the top and a green right turn arrow.

* The Billerica example used to feature a 3 section signal with circular green, yellow arrow and green arrow before it was replaced with a typical 5-section doghouse.

They're not very common in New Hampshire and Maine - Nashua and Dover (opposing direction) in NH I can think of, and only one example in South Portland for Maine.