AARoads Forum

What traffic laws have you heard about that are stupid (dumb), archaic (outdated) or just plain weird (strange)?

I've start off with two from Tennessee that I've also mentioned elsewhere.

(Stupid) A law require all county seats in Tennessee to have a four lane divided highway (expressway) to them.  Why do towns of under 5,000 need a four lane road just because they're a county seat?

(Weird/Stupid) Several years ago a law was passed to make it legal to pick up "road kill" and take it home and eat it!  (And people wonder why the rest of the world thinks the South is backward.  :pan:)

Quote from: mightyace on June 24, 2009, 03:09:13 PM
What traffic laws have you heard about that are stupid (dumb), archaic (outdated) or just plain weird (strange)?

I've start off with two from Tennessee that I've also mentioned elsewhere.

(Stupid) A law require all county seats in Tennessee to have a four lane divided highway (expressway) to them.  Why do towns of under 5,000 need a four lane road just because they're a county seat?

(Weird/Stupid) Several years ago a law was passed to make it legal to pick up "road kill" and take it home and eat it!  (And people wonder why the rest of the world thinks the South is backward.  :pan:)

You mean to tell me that for all these years these redneck, hillbillies have been illegally eating roadkill?

Quote from: Terry Shea on June 24, 2009, 05:42:46 PM
You mean to tell me that for all these years these redneck, hillbillies have been illegally eating roadkill?

Yep, and many of them, still, wash it down with illegal "Moonshine."

I thought you were allowed to distill your own shine in personal quantities - like under 5 liters a year or something - too... or is that Finland? 

I heard this years ago, if it is BS, Froggie will probably correct me.

But, the story goes, when Minnesota was building it's freeway system, the state constitution only allowed for "Farm to Market" roads. Because of this, MNDOT built farmers markets in various locations, such as under I-94 near downtown Minneapolis, so that they could meet the letter of the law.

It's also the reason that MN-62 and US-169 freeways were originally built as county roads, as suburb-to-suburb highways they didn't qualify under the "Farm to Market" provision.

Yep...that's BS.  Article 14 (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/Article14.htm) of the state Constitution covers public roads, and there is no such requirement.

The urban counties have always had their fair share of county state-aid highways (CSAH).  In fact, Hennepin County's route system is almost exclusively CSAH.  And it was that state-aid that allowed them to build what is now MN 62 and US 169.

In Youngstown, it's illegal to run out of gas!

Quote from: Hellfighter on June 25, 2009, 03:55:56 PM
In Youngstown, it's illegal to run out of gas!

Most of Youngstown is so run down, I wouldn't want to run out of gas!  :-o :wow:

Quote from: mightyace on June 25, 2009, 04:00:15 PM

Quote from: Hellfighter on June 25, 2009, 03:55:56 PM
In Youngstown, it's illegal to run out of gas!

Most of Youngstown is so run down, I wouldn't want to run out of gas!  :-o :wow:

Yeah, you could get stuck for a while!  :pan:

Well, there was a guy driving naked down a Florida road like a week ago and all the cops told him to do was put his clothes back on. He got pulled over for speeding (or something) and when the cop approached the car he observed that the male driver had no clothes on. It was revealed that it is not illegal for a driver in Florida to drive in the nude. Of course driving around naked would be difficult if you were sitting in a leather seat, especially if its roasting outside and you are sweating... :-o

My pet peeve is the stupid California pedestrian crosswalk law. If a pedestrian is standing at the entrance to a crosswalk, I have to bring my 3,000 pound vehicle to a screeching halt to allow them to cross. It's idiotic.

Where I work, there is a crosswalk across a very busy 4 lane street. In the 3 years I have been there, I have seen 2 peds hit and 3 rear end collisions where unattentive drivers plowed into the back of vehicles stopped for that crosswalk.

When I cross that street, I wait for a break, and jaywalk. I'm not going to hang myself out to dry in that crosswalk. What if I'm crossing in front of someone who's stopped and that vehicle gets rearended? What's going to happen to me then?

This is one of the stupidest laws I've ever heard of. I've actually had motorists come to a grinding halt when I'm standing on the sidewalk waiting for a break. I don't cross a street in front of running automoblies, nor do I cross a 4 lane street where 3 lanes of traffic are stopped, and the 4th lane could be occupied by some blithering fool yakking on a cell phone who won't see me crossing because the traffic stopped in the other lanes blocks his view.

It's not only California that has such a law - I bet you could not name a state that has it.

Many of them are pedestrian friendly in that one must yield the right-of-way to a ped in a crosswalk (Jaywalkers - you're on your own :P)

It might be stupid - but it is necessary - since otherwise I would bet that drivers wouldn't even give a hoot and keep going.

Here in Rochester, NY they don't even give a hoot and keep going even if the pedestrian is in a crosswalk.  You need a red light to get them to stop (even a stop sign is not sufficient).

I know in VA according to state law if there is a pedestrian entering a crosswalk you MUST yield to them. And VDOT isn't shy about posting signs proclaiming that fact either. Does it mean that people always will? No, but at least people aren't stupid enough to just walk out and hope they don't get hit, they at least wait to make sure that you stop, so not many people get hit (from what I've seen anyway) because of it.

Quote from: donutbandit on June 26, 2009, 10:08:06 AM
My pet peeve is the stupid California pedestrian crosswalk law. If a pedestrian is standing at the entrance to a crosswalk, I have to bring my 3,000 pound vehicle to a screeching halt to allow them to cross. It's idiotic.

Where I work, there is a crosswalk across a very busy 4 lane street. In the 3 years I have been there, I have seen 2 peds hit and 3 rear end collisions where unattentive drivers plowed into the back of vehicles stopped for that crosswalk.

When I cross that street, I wait for a break, and jaywalk. I'm not going to hang myself out to dry in that crosswalk. What if I'm crossing in front of someone who's stopped and that vehicle gets rearended? What's going to happen to me then?

This is one of the stupidest laws I've ever heard of. I've actually had motorists come to a grinding halt when I'm standing on the sidewalk waiting for a break. I don't cross a street in front of running automoblies, nor do I cross a 4 lane street where 3 lanes of traffic are stopped, and the 4th lane could be occupied by some blithering fool yakking on a cell phone who won't see me crossing because the traffic stopped in the other lanes blocks his view.

That's not a stupid law, that's stupid, selfish, inconsiderate drivers, most of whom shouldn't be on the road if their driving skills and level of observance are so poor.  And yeah, that's pretty much a universal law there, not just a California anomaly.

Crosswalk discussion moved to "Crosswalks" in https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1220.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1220.0)

The big stupid/archaic one here in Oregon: 55mph maximum speed limit on non-Interstates.  It's absolutely disgusting that we've still got NMSL holdover here.

-Alex (Tarkus)

Quote from: Tarkus on June 27, 2009, 07:12:54 PM
The big stupid/archaic one here in Oregon: 55mph maximum speed limit on non-Interstates.  It's absolutely disgusting that we've still got NMSL holdover here.

-Alex (Tarkus)

It's also annoying for parts of US 30 and US 34 in western Iowa that seem to have been designed to be posted at 65.

Other nominations:

* State highway mileage cap laws - Been discussed elsewhere, but I think it is extremely bad to have them in areas where the population is growing and new facilities expected.

* Speed limit laws that place more emphasis on the highway designation than the design of the road - A well designed former alignment of US 77 between Ceresco and Wahoo in Nebraska likely had the speed limit drop from 60 to 55 when US 77 received a new four lane alignment and the old road removed from the state system.  Then there's Iowa where only interstates can be 70 but an otherwise identical freeway can only be posted at 65 - though some sections like US 20 probably deserve an interstate number anyway.

* Basing speed limits on the urban/rural distinction - Like above, this is a case where the design of the facility in question and actual traffic volumes should be the determining factors, not some politician hundreds of miles away in a capital.  A fictional example would be the Kansas Turnpike dropping from 70 to 60 just because it passes by the urban area of Topeka even though it has few exits there.

Re the original post about roadkills. In this country it's illegal for the person who killed the animal to take it home but anyone who spots a dead animal in the road is allowed to take it :-/

As for running out of fuel - it's perfectly legal here as you often see cars parked on the shoulder then a mile or so later you see someone walking with a fuel can :cool:

Quote from: Tarkus on June 27, 2009, 07:12:54 PM
The big stupid/archaic one here in Oregon: 55mph maximum speed limit on non-Interstates.  It's absolutely disgusting that we've still got NMSL holdover here.

-Alex (Tarkus)

And then there are the drivers who can't even drive that fast on these roads holding everyone else up, and there's enough opposing traffic to disallow passing... but that's not directly a stupid law problem.

Quote from: Bickendan on June 28, 2009, 04:56:05 PM
And then there are the drivers who can't even drive that fast on these roads holding everyone else up, and there's enough opposing traffic to disallow passing... but that's not directly a stupid law problem.

*cough* OR-99W *cough*.  I know the stretch between Junction City and McMinnville probably better than the back of my own hand.  It's well-built, has wide shoulders, and you can comfortably travel 65mph on it.  But 50% of the time, you'll run into some yahoos who don't know how to drive on a rural 2-lane road, who proceed to drive 50mph while straddling the white line.  Annoying as heck.

And speaking of Oregon's arcane speed limit laws, I've just started a "75mph or bust" group on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=98959432565), for those who are interested.

-Alex (Tarkus)

This one made me laugh so hard, especially for NJ

QuoteAll motorists must honk before passing another car, bicyclist, skater, and even a skateboarder.

That explains why everyone honks on the GWB, to tell other people they're trying to get around someone! :wow: ;-)

Quote from: njroadhorse on July 01, 2009, 06:32:22 PM
This one made me laugh so hard, especially for NJ

QuoteAll motorists must honk before passing another car, bicyclist, skater, and even a skateboarder.

That explains why everyone honks on the GWB, to tell other people they're trying to get around someone! :wow: ;-)

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

I guess in Kentucky and Michigan you're car insurance pays for your car only. That means if you have liability only insurance and you're involved in an accident that is someone else's fault, you're screwed. What's the point of even having car insurance in those states?

Quote from: mightyace on June 24, 2009, 03:09:13 PM... A law require all county seats in Tennessee to have a four lane divided highway (expressway) to them.  Why do towns of under 5,000 need a four lane road just because they're a county seat?

Lynchburg is the seat of metropolitan Moore County, home of the Jack Daniel's distillery.  I do not recall a four-lane highway or expressway of any type leading into Lynchburg.

In PA...for some reason you can turn right on red, but not left?

Can you turn left on red anywhere?

Lots of places.  One way streets are involved.

Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 30, 2015, 12:41:29 PM
Can you turn left on red anywhere?

As vdeane notes, it's quite common for it to be allowed from a one-way street to another one-way street, but that law isn't universal. The District of Columbia and North Carolina are two places that for whatever reason do not permit it, even though both allow right turns on red. When you consider the scenario, it's clear enough why left on red is typically allowed between one-way streets, as you don't have to cross traffic going in the opposite direction from you on either street.

Off the top of my head I can readily cite to one intersection that has a "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign to restrict lefts on red that would otherwise be allowed. In practice it doesn't much matter–I find that VERY few other drivers know left on red is ever legal. Fairfax City once even had a sign posted at an intersection where lefts on red were allowed advising people that such turns were permitted, but even then I found a lot of people wouldn't do it even when the way was clear. (The sign is long gone now because the roads were reconfigured and the left on red is no longer an option.)

Quote from: vdeane on December 30, 2015, 12:51:25 PM
Lots of places.  One way streets are involved.

Some places even involve a two-way street, as in a left on red from a two-way to a one-way street.

Quote from: Katavia on December 30, 2015, 07:00:07 AM

Quote from: njroadhorse on July 01, 2009, 06:32:22 PM
This one made me laugh so hard, especially for NJ

QuoteAll motorists must honk before passing another car, bicyclist, skater, and even a skateboarder.

That explains why everyone honks on the GWB, to tell other people they're trying to get around someone! :wow: ;-)

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

In the 6½-year interim between the last post and your random bump, the honk-before-passing law was repealed. http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/let_your_ram_run_free_christie_signs_nj_bill_to_remove_outdated_laws.html

I don't know how true this is, but I've been told that the reason horses are banned from many freeways in NJ is that there is a law giving horses the right of way over motorized vehicles

Quote from: US 41 on December 30, 2015, 09:04:05 AM
I guess in Kentucky and Michigan you're car insurance pays for your car only. That means if you have liability only insurance and you're involved in an accident that is someone else's fault, you're screwed. What's the point of even having car insurance in those states?

I don't understand.

Your liability insurance covers what you do to others.  Their liability insurance covers what they do to you.  So why would you be screwed unless hit by an uninsured driver? 

And isn't optional collision insurance what's supposed to handle otherwise-uncovered damage to your vehicle?

Quote from: noelbotevera on December 30, 2015, 12:34:46 PM
In PA...for some reason you can turn right on red, but not left?

I think you're mistaken.  PA does allow left on red when both intersecting roadways are one-way streets.  At least that's what I read it when I changed my driver's license from Massachusetts over to Pennsylvania 25 years ago.

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2015, 05:25:56 PM
PA does allow left on red when both intersecting roadways are one-way streets.

Yup.
Unless, of course, it is signed that you are not allowed at that particular intersection.

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2015, 05:25:56 PM

Quote from: noelbotevera on December 30, 2015, 12:34:46 PM
In PA...for some reason you can turn right on red, but not left?

I think you're mistaken.  PA does allow left on red when both intersecting roadways are one-way streets.  At least that's what I read it when I changed my driver's license from Massachusetts over to Pennsylvania 25 years ago.

To my knowledge, Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Dakota, and the cities of New York and Washington DC prohibit left turns on red.

Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allow left turns on red from one- and two-way streets into one-way streets, with Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allowing these turns to be made even on red arrows (Idaho prohibits turns on arrows; I'm not sure about Alaska).

The rest allow left turns on red but it must be from a one-way street into another one-way street.

Quote from: US 41 on December 30, 2015, 09:04:05 AM
I guess in Kentucky and Michigan you're car insurance pays for your car only. That means if you have liability only insurance and you're involved in an accident that is someone else's fault, you're screwed. What's the point of even having car insurance in those states?

So you don't get sued into bankruptcy and/or so you can pay your own medical bills and replace your car when you're in an accident that's determined to be at least partially your fault? (And because it's the law, although you can substitute a surety bond in some states.)

You get uninsured motorist insurance to cover the event that you're in an accident that isn't your fault and the responsible party/ies can't be identified (hit & run), lack insurance, or are underinsured compared to the accident costs (which also avoids you needing to track down the other party/ies and suing them into bankruptcy on your own). But even that usually isn't offered except if you pay for liability insurance for yourself and usually no more generous than your own liability limits.

Michigan has no-fault insurance which basically covers costs due to injuries:  https://www.michigan.gov/documents/cis_ofis_ip202_25083_7.pdf  Also see https://www.michigan.gov/documents/cis_ofis_noflt_gd_25094_7.pdf

You have to buy an additional rider if you want your car repairs to be covered.  You also can buy coverage in case you are hit by an uninsured motorist.

Quote from: Truvelo on June 28, 2009, 03:57:37 PM
Re the original post about roadkills. In this country it's illegal for the person who killed the animal to take it home but anyone who spots a dead animal in the road is allowed to take it :-/

Ha! Apparently someone thought they had a problem with folks "hunting" with their cars...

In Wisconsin the driver of the vehicle that road kills large game animals, those that require a special tag or permit to hunt, (Whitetail Deer, Black Bear, Turkey, etc) has first dibs on the corpse.  After that, it goes to who ever claims it first.  I think there's a free tag obtained from the local DNR office and once that is issued then the carcass can be salvaged.  That way if you totaled your car, at least you can get some nice back-strap and inner tenderloin for your troubles.  (the other cuts are usually too beat up to be any good.)
The DNR roadkill tag probably serves the same function as the UK law; a check against rednecks purposefully ramming deer with their old beater truck/sedan. 

Of course that's a really inefficient way to poach deer in rural areas.  The unethical hunters out there are much more likely just to go out and shoot them out of season.

Quote from: GaryV on December 30, 2015, 07:28:50 PM
Michigan has no-fault insurance which basically covers costs due to injuries:  https://www.michigan.gov/documents/cis_ofis_ip202_25083_7.pdf  Also see https://www.michigan.gov/documents/cis_ofis_noflt_gd_25094_7.pdf

You have to buy an additional rider if you want your car repairs to be covered.  You also can buy coverage in case you are hit by an uninsured motorist.

Florida has PIP insurance.. Your policy is primary for you injuries, even if you are a passenger in another person's car

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 30, 2015, 01:04:49 PM

Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 30, 2015, 12:41:29 PM
Can you turn left on red anywhere?

As vdeane notes, it's quite common for it to be allowed from a one-way street to another one-way street, but that law isn't universal. The District of Columbia and North Carolina are two places that for whatever reason do not permit it, even though both allow right turns on red. When you consider the scenario, it's clear enough why left on red is typically allowed between one-way streets, as you don't have to cross traffic going in the opposite direction from you on either street.

Off the top of my head I can readily cite to one intersection that has a "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present" sign to restrict lefts on red that would otherwise be allowed. In practice it doesn't much matter–I find that VERY few other drivers know left on red is ever legal. Fairfax City once even had a sign posted at an intersection where lefts on red were allowed advising people that such turns were permitted, but even then I found a lot of people wouldn't do it even when the way was clear. (The sign is long gone now because the roads were reconfigured and the left on red is no longer an option.)

I learned how to drive in North Carolina so I imagine that's why left on red is still a "WHAAAAT?" for me.

Regarding roadkill, I read somewhere–and I'm skeptical of this but have not bothered to research the issue–that West Virginia's statute recognizing the motorist's right to  consume roadkill contains an exception disallowing the right when the roadkill is human. I'm not sure which seems more absurd: the need for a law allowing you to eat roadkill or the need (real or imagined) for a specific provision involving human meat.

Quote from: Ace10 on December 30, 2015, 07:06:10 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2015, 05:25:56 PM

Quote from: noelbotevera on December 30, 2015, 12:34:46 PM
In PA...for some reason you can turn right on red, but not left?

I think you're mistaken.  PA does allow left on red when both intersecting roadways are one-way streets.  At least that's what I read it when I changed my driver's license from Massachusetts over to Pennsylvania 25 years ago.

To my knowledge, Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota, and the cities of New York and Washington DC prohibit left turns on red. Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allow left turns on red from one- and two-way streets into one-way streets, with Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allowing these turns to be made even on red arrows (Idaho prohibits turns on arrows; I'm not sure about Alaska). The rest allow left turns on red but it must be from a one-way street into another one-way street.

NJ does not allow any kind of left turn on red

NYC not signing all their intersections with NO TURN ON RED while everywhere else in the USA does.  Oh wait, the 8 million people law in New York State which makes that part of our nation much different then the rest of us.

Good thing some of us road geeks know that NYC uses double guy mast arms for signals so we know we are in NYC along the Nassau and Westchester Borders areas to avoid getting a ticket from NYPD.  However, how is a non road geek or someone who does not know where the city limits are supposed to know they are in NYC to stay put at a red light when turning right?

There used to be signs (big black on white signs for expressways) when crossing the city line indicating the turns on red were prohibited in the City of New York unless signed to allow it.  The 'red' word was also its own color.

I saw the signs on Staten Island where turns can be made, and its in RED colored red too.

Yes, some entry points have them like from the Holland Tunnel used to have them or may still have them when exiting into the circle there.

They used to broadcast a message including this (among other, more widespread laws like drunk driving) on all AM stations in the Lincoln and Holland tunnels Don't know if they still do.

Any state that still restricts logo signs to rural areas despite the 2000 MUTCD adding provisions to allow them in urban areas.  The benefits of logo signs in urban areas are just as good (if not better) in urban areas as they are in rural areas, and if the state's logo sign program generates revenue, the states that continue to restrict them to rural areas are missing out on a lot of additional revenue that can command premium prices since there is a lot more competition in urban areas.

Quote from: lordsutch on December 30, 2015, 07:10:56 PM

Quote from: US 41 on December 30, 2015, 09:04:05 AM
I guess in Kentucky and Michigan you're car insurance pays for your car only. That means if you have liability only insurance and you're involved in an accident that is someone else's fault, you're screwed. What's the point of even having car insurance in those states?

So you don't get sued into bankruptcy and/or so you can pay your own medical bills and replace your car when you're in an accident that's determined to be at least partially your fault? (And because it's the law, although you can substitute a surety bond in some states.)

You get uninsured motorist insurance to cover the event that you're in an accident that isn't your fault and the responsible party/ies can't be identified (hit & run), lack insurance, or are underinsured compared to the accident costs (which also avoids you needing to track down the other party/ies and suing them into bankruptcy on your own). But even that usually isn't offered except if you pay for liability insurance for yourself and usually no more generous than your own liability limits.

In Indiana if someone rams their car into me I can get my car fixed at no cost to me because the other driver's insurance pays. If they don't have car insurance I just simply sue them. In Michigan I'd have to pay for it all out of my pocket.

Quote from: bzakharin on December 31, 2015, 09:23:25 AMNJ does not allow any kind of left turn on red.

Given that many left turn movements in NJ are handled via right-turn jughandles; I'm not surprised.

Quote from: bzakharin on December 31, 2015, 09:23:25 AM

Quote from: Ace10 on December 30, 2015, 07:06:10 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2015, 05:25:56 PM

Quote from: noelbotevera on December 30, 2015, 12:34:46 PM
In PA...for some reason you can turn right on red, but not left?

I think you're mistaken.  PA does allow left on red when both intersecting roadways are one-way streets.  At least that's what I read it when I changed my driver's license from Massachusetts over to Pennsylvania 25 years ago.

To my knowledge, Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota, and the cities of New York and Washington DC prohibit left turns on red. Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allow left turns on red from one- and two-way streets into one-way streets, with Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allowing these turns to be made even on red arrows (Idaho prohibits turns on arrows; I'm not sure about Alaska). The rest allow left turns on red but it must be from a one-way street into another one-way street.

NJ does not allow any kind of left turn on red

You're right! I edited my original post. The appropriate law (NJSA 39:4-115, "Making right or left turn") looks like it was amended in 2009. It allows right turns on red, but makes absolutely no mention of left turns on red. I wonder if the maneuver was allowed previously and just changed recently. A few websites reference a 2003 pamphlet issued by AAA that list the states that prohibit the turn on red, and New Jersey isn't listed on it, which leads me to believe the law changed sometime after the pamphlet was issued. Anyone have more knowledge on this?

School busses, busses, hazmat loads must stop at all railroad crossings, even if they are signalized. Stupidest law ever, causes way more accidents than it prevents.

Headlights don't have to be turned on until 30 min after sunset. Must have been written in the wagon days when headlights were lanterns and nobody traveled over 10 mph.

Quote from: US 41 on December 31, 2015, 02:18:47 PM

Quote from: lordsutch on December 30, 2015, 07:10:56 PM

Quote from: US 41 on December 30, 2015, 09:04:05 AM
I guess in Kentucky and Michigan you're car insurance pays for your car only. That means if you have liability only insurance and you're involved in an accident that is someone else's fault, you're screwed. What's the point of even having car insurance in those states?

So you don't get sued into bankruptcy and/or so you can pay your own medical bills and replace your car when you're in an accident that's determined to be at least partially your fault? (And because it's the law, although you can substitute a surety bond in some states.)

You get uninsured motorist insurance to cover the event that you're in an accident that isn't your fault and the responsible party/ies can't be identified (hit & run), lack insurance, or are underinsured compared to the accident costs (which also avoids you needing to track down the other party/ies and suing them into bankruptcy on your own). But even that usually isn't offered except if you pay for liability insurance for yourself and usually no more generous than your own liability limits.

In Indiana if someone rams their car into me I can get my car fixed at no cost to me because the other driver's insurance pays. If they don't have car insurance I just simply sue them. In Michigan I'd have to pay for it all out of my pocket.

So you're telling us drivers in Michigan are not liable for damage they cause?

Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 31, 2015, 02:07:47 PM
Any state that still restricts logo signs to rural areas despite the 2000 MUTCD adding provisions to allow them in urban areas.  The benefits of logo signs in urban areas are just as good (if not better) in urban areas as they are in rural areas, and if the state's logo sign program generates revenue, the states that continue to restrict them to rural areas are missing out on a lot of additional revenue that can command premium prices since there is a lot more competition in urban areas.

I'll take it that you are familiar with the layout of urban highways in the Northeast, and are aware of the fact that exits are frequently at intervals of one mile or less, quite often elevated or in trenches.  I'm sure you realize also that there are already many signs in that one mile, and that placing these new logo signs, spaced properly, can be problematic both in terms of visual clutter and proper advance notice for exiting drivers. 

This is to say nothing of the fact that with the multitude of available options at many exits, narrowing them down simply by charging a steeper price only tips the scale in favor of chains with large marketing budgets.

It is evident that you are a huge aficionado of highway logo signs, but they do not address all the valid concerns of all highway stakeholders everywhere.

Quote from: Brian556 on December 31, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
School busses, busses, hazmat loads must stop at all railroad crossings, even if they are signalized. Stupidest law ever, causes way more accidents than it prevents.

Are they allowed, or required, to stop on the shoulder rather than the travel lanes? IIRC, Missouri DOT built pullouts just before RR crossings, for that purpose.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 31, 2015, 05:02:47 PM

Quote from: US 41 on December 31, 2015, 02:18:47 PM

Quote from: lordsutch on December 30, 2015, 07:10:56 PM

Quote from: US 41 on December 30, 2015, 09:04:05 AM
I guess in Kentucky and Michigan you're car insurance pays for your car only. That means if you have liability only insurance and you're involved in an accident that is someone else's fault, you're screwed. What's the point of even having car insurance in those states?

So you don't get sued into bankruptcy and/or so you can pay your own medical bills and replace your car when you're in an accident that's determined to be at least partially your fault? (And because it's the law, although you can substitute a surety bond in some states.)

You get uninsured motorist insurance to cover the event that you're in an accident that isn't your fault and the responsible party/ies can't be identified (hit & run), lack insurance, or are underinsured compared to the accident costs (which also avoids you needing to track down the other party/ies and suing them into bankruptcy on your own). But even that usually isn't offered except if you pay for liability insurance for yourself and usually no more generous than your own liability limits.

In Indiana if someone rams their car into me I can get my car fixed at no cost to me because the other driver's insurance pays. If they don't have car insurance I just simply sue them. In Michigan I'd have to pay for it all out of my pocket.

So you're telling us drivers in Michigan are not liable for damage they cause?

That's true, under the Michigan No-Fault law: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/cis_ofis_ip202_25083_7.pdf (https://www.michigan.gov/documents/cis_ofis_ip202_25083_7.pdf)

QuoteCollision and Comprehensive Insurance
Your no-fault insurance DOES NOT pay for repairs to your car if it is damaged in an accident. If your car is properly parked and hit by another car, the other driver's no-fault coverage will pay for the damage to your car. Except for this one situation, the only kinds of auto insurance that will pay for repairs to your car are collision and comprehensive coverage.
A. Collision coverage pays for repairs to your car when it is damaged in a crash. There are three basic kinds of collision insurance to choose from - limited, standard and broad form. The chart on the next page describes each type and what it covers. The deductible mentioned in the chart is the amount of money you agree to pay toward the cost of repairs before the insurance company steps in and pays the remainder. The larger the deductible, the lower the cost of your collision insurance.
B. Comprehensive insurance pays for your car if it is stolen or for repairs if it is hit by a falling object, collides with an animal, or is damaged in a fire, flood or by vandals.
If you have an older car, you may not want collision and comprehensive coverage. If your car is financed, the company that loans you the money may require that you buy collision and comprehensive coverage.

If you fail to buy collision coverage because you are certain that you will never have an accident that is your fault, don't drive in Michigan. I'm not sure who would be so confident in their driving ability that they wouldn't buy collision insurance, but it's not me.

Of course the idea behind no-fault is to avoid costly litigation over who is at fault, but in practice there is just about as much litigation. The injured parties are just suing their own insurance companies, instead of the company that insures the other guy.

Can you successfully bring a civil suit against someone who damages your property?  This all turns my idea of personal responsibility on its head.  The notion that someone can, through their negligence, destroy tens of thousands of dollars of your property and not be held liable is just plain crazy to me.  Does your collision insurance premium go up if somebody rams into your car when you are doing nothing negligent?

Quote from: Ace10 on December 31, 2015, 02:55:26 PM

Quote from: bzakharin on December 31, 2015, 09:23:25 AM

Quote from: Ace10 on December 30, 2015, 07:06:10 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 30, 2015, 05:25:56 PM

Quote from: noelbotevera on December 30, 2015, 12:34:46 PM
In PA...for some reason you can turn right on red, but not left?

I think you're mistaken.  PA does allow left on red when both intersecting roadways are one-way streets.  At least that's what I read it when I changed my driver's license from Massachusetts over to Pennsylvania 25 years ago.

To my knowledge, Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota, and the cities of New York and Washington DC prohibit left turns on red. Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allow left turns on red from one- and two-way streets into one-way streets, with Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allowing these turns to be made even on red arrows (Idaho prohibits turns on arrows; I'm not sure about Alaska). The rest allow left turns on red but it must be from a one-way street into another one-way street.

NJ does not allow any kind of left turn on red

You're right! I edited my original post. The appropriate law (NJSA 39:4-115, "Making right or left turn") looks like it was amended in 2009. It allows right turns on red, but makes absolutely no mention of left turns on red. I wonder if the maneuver was allowed previously and just changed recently. A few websites reference a 2003 pamphlet issued by AAA that list the states that prohibit the turn on red, and New Jersey isn't listed on it, which leads me to believe the law changed sometime after the pamphlet was issued. Anyone have more knowledge on this?

NJ has never allowed Left Turns on Red.  NJ has always allowed Right Turns on Red (well, ever since the national rules were changed permitting it).   What websites are you looking at regarding AAA?

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 31, 2015, 02:34:24 PM

Quote from: bzakharin on December 31, 2015, 09:23:25 AMNJ does not allow any kind of left turn on red.

Given that many left turn movements in NJ are handled via right-turn jughandles; I'm not surprised.

In most states, left turns on red are permitted from one-way roads to one-way roads, which are commonly found in urban and city-gridded areas.  There wouldn't be any reason to have a jughandle at such an intersection.  And the overwhelming majority of intersections allow left turns.  Jughandles are mostly found on roadways with some sort of medians, which while those roads carry a fair amount of traffic, really doesn't account for a large percentage of intersections.

Quote from: Brian556 on December 31, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
School busses, busses, hazmat loads must stop at all railroad crossings, even if they are signalized. Stupidest law ever, causes way more accidents than it prevents.

That's a national rule.  How many accidents has it caused?

Quote from: US 41 on December 31, 2015, 02:18:47 PM
In Indiana if someone rams their car into me I can get my car fixed at no cost to me because the other driver's insurance pays. If they don't have car insurance I just simply sue them.

Well, suing anyone for anything is simple.  But usually lawsuits take months to resolve.  And it doesn't mean the other party is just going to hand over the money if found guilty.  Many times, they don't have the means to pay, or can only pay very little per month.  If you're facing a $6,000 repair bill, the other party paying $25 a month isn't going to help you out very much.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 31, 2015, 05:35:21 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 31, 2015, 02:07:47 PM
Any state that still restricts logo signs to rural areas despite the 2000 MUTCD adding provisions to allow them in urban areas.  The benefits of logo signs in urban areas are just as good (if not better) in urban areas as they are in rural areas, and if the state's logo sign program generates revenue, the states that continue to restrict them to rural areas are missing out on a lot of additional revenue that can command premium prices since there is a lot more competition in urban areas.

I'll take it that you are familiar with the layout of urban highways in the Northeast, and are aware of the fact that exits are frequently at intervals of one mile or less, quite often elevated or in trenches.  I'm sure you realize also that there are already many signs in that one mile, and that placing these new logo signs, spaced properly, can be problematic both in terms of visual clutter and proper advance notice for exiting drivers. 

This is to say nothing of the fact that with the multitude of available options at many exits, narrowing them down simply by charging a steeper price only tips the scale in favor of chains with large marketing budgets.

It is evident that you are a huge aficionado of highway logo signs, but they do not address all the valid concerns of all highway stakeholders everywhere.

I don't see how Northeastern cities are all that different from other major cities.  Logo signs have been very popular in other major cities such as Atlanta, Phoenix, Orlando, Denver, Hampton Roads, Richmond, Northern Virginia, Las Vegas, the Seattle suburbs, and most major cities in Texas and North Carolina.  And it is very typical for urban installations to command premium prices over rural installations, and I still see several family-owned restaurants on logo signs even in urban areas.  Sure, much of these urban areas with logo signs are Sun Belt cities, but I would think that there is probably ample space for logo signs in most urban areas except in the vicinity of downtown areas.

Popular, and still a lousy idea.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 31, 2015, 08:48:30 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 31, 2015, 05:35:21 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 31, 2015, 02:07:47 PM
Any state that still restricts logo signs to rural areas despite the 2000 MUTCD adding provisions to allow them in urban areas.  The benefits of logo signs in urban areas are just as good (if not better) in urban areas as they are in rural areas, and if the state's logo sign program generates revenue, the states that continue to restrict them to rural areas are missing out on a lot of additional revenue that can command premium prices since there is a lot more competition in urban areas.

I'll take it that you are familiar with the layout of urban highways in the Northeast, and are aware of the fact that exits are frequently at intervals of one mile or less, quite often elevated or in trenches.  I'm sure you realize also that there are already many signs in that one mile, and that placing these new logo signs, spaced properly, can be problematic both in terms of visual clutter and proper advance notice for exiting drivers. 

This is to say nothing of the fact that with the multitude of available options at many exits, narrowing them down simply by charging a steeper price only tips the scale in favor of chains with large marketing budgets.

It is evident that you are a huge aficionado of highway logo signs, but they do not address all the valid concerns of all highway stakeholders everywhere.

I don't see how Northeastern cities are all that different from other major cities.  Logo signs have been very popular in other major cities such as Atlanta, Phoenix, Orlando, Denver, Hampton Roads, Richmond, Northern Virginia, Las Vegas, the Seattle suburbs, and most major cities in Texas and North Carolina.  And it is very typical for urban installations to command premium prices over rural installations, and I still see several family-owned restaurants on logo signs even in urban areas.  Sure, much of these urban areas with logo signs are Sun Belt cities, but I would think that there is probably ample space for logo signs in most urban areas except in the vicinity of downtown areas.

Simple, Northeastern cities are often older and were built up extensively before the freeway came through. Sun Belt cities tend to be newer and able to better accommodate a freeway being rammed into them. In some cases, they weren't really all that urban prior to the interstate highway system existing. In those cases, you're better able to plan exits and not cram them on top of each other. In the Northeast, you didn't really have that option since you had a pre-existing urban area.

Also, southern cities tend to be less densely populated than their northern counterparts. Take Boston vs. Charlotte, roughly the same population but Boston is more densely populated. I couldn't imagine a logo sign in Boston's city limits but Charlotte works just fine because it's more spread out.

Not a state law, but they tell me that there is a local ordinance still on the books from the beginning of the automobile days that in order to drive a motor vehicle in the City of New Bern one must have a person with a red flag stationed in front of the vehicle walking along ahead of it at all times. Obviously nobody does that (lol) but they do say that it has never been stricken from the record.
Not sure how true that is, I work for and live out in the county (my office is in the city though) so I have never taken the time to look it up.

From the Live Free or Die Department: NH does not require that you carry auto liability insurance

Columbus has logo signs. We're definitely not a sun belt city. They don't seem to be a problem.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 01, 2016, 02:44:46 AM
From the Live Free or Die Department: NH does not require that you carry auto liability insurance

Virginia doesn't either–you can pay the $500 "uninsured motorist fee" every year (sort of like a penalty fee, I guess) and drive without insurance. Anyone who does is an idiot other than people who are so poor that they're effectively judgment-proof.

Quote from: vtk on January 01, 2016, 04:39:09 AM
Columbus has logo signs. We're definitely not a sun belt city. They don't seem to be a problem.

Hampton Roads isn't a Sun Belt metro area either and most of their freeways have logo signs (exceptions include I-264 in Norfolk, I-64 from Norview Avenue to VA 134 in Norfolk and Hampton, I-464, and I-564; I-464 currently has an empty panel in the northbound direction for the Poindexter Street exit).  Even Northern Virginia (which is more and more becoming regarded as Northeastern) has logo signs on most of its freeways.  Some Midwestern states (such as Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, as well as Ohio as you mentioned) also have logo signs in urban areas as well.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 01, 2016, 06:30:27 PM

Quote from: vtk on January 01, 2016, 04:39:09 AM
Columbus has logo signs. We're definitely not a sun belt city. They don't seem to be a problem.

Hampton Roads isn't a Sun Belt metro area either and most of their freeways have logo signs (exceptions include I-264 in Norfolk, I-64 from Norview Avenue to VA 134 in Norfolk and Hampton, I-464, and I-564; I-464 currently has an empty panel in the northbound direction for the Poindexter Street exit).  Even Northern Virginia (which is more and more becoming regarded as Northeastern) has logo signs on most of its freeways.  Some Midwestern states (such as Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, as well as Ohio as you mentioned) also have logo signs in urban areas as well.

You're going out of your way now to miss the point.  Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia, as you must well know, are relatively newly "urban" places by Northeastern standards (the former qualifying as part of the Northeast only dubiously, and only based on a geographical stretch rather than historical or cultural ties).  They are outliers in a region where urban cores are predominantly places developed before automobiles, never mind Interstates.  You will note that if they are indeed in the region, they are at its extreme periphery, and thus follow different development pressures and patterns.  Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and the numerous smaller but still old and dense urban places in between are what I am talking about.

You can fish out all the sprawly examples you want and say they prove your point, but you're still not going to create more space between exits in the tight jumble of cities whose current basic form predates the Civil War and whose highways in many cases predate the Korean War.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 01, 2016, 10:03:43 AM
Virginia doesn't either–you can pay the $500 "uninsured motorist fee" every year (sort of like a penalty fee, I guess) and drive without insurance. Anyone who does is an idiot other than people who are so poor that they're effectively judgment-proof.

Or are so rich that they can comfortably cover any judgments except the ridiculously large ones that even the most generous coverage limits (with umbrella insurance for additional protection) won't cover.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 01, 2016, 06:57:23 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on January 01, 2016, 06:30:27 PM

Quote from: vtk on January 01, 2016, 04:39:09 AM
Columbus has logo signs. We're definitely not a sun belt city. They don't seem to be a problem.

Hampton Roads isn't a Sun Belt metro area either and most of their freeways have logo signs (exceptions include I-264 in Norfolk, I-64 from Norview Avenue to VA 134 in Norfolk and Hampton, I-464, and I-564; I-464 currently has an empty panel in the northbound direction for the Poindexter Street exit).  Even Northern Virginia (which is more and more becoming regarded as Northeastern) has logo signs on most of its freeways.  Some Midwestern states (such as Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, as well as Ohio as you mentioned) also have logo signs in urban areas as well.

You're going out of your way now to miss the point.  Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia, as you must well know, are relatively newly "urban" places by Northeastern standards (the former qualifying as part of the Northeast only dubiously, and only based on a geographical stretch rather than historical or cultural ties).  They are outliers in a region where urban cores are predominantly places developed before automobiles, never mind Interstates.  You will note that if they are indeed in the region, they are at its extreme periphery, and thus follow different development pressures and patterns.  Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and the numerous smaller but still old and dense urban places in between are what I am talking about.

You can fish out all the sprawly examples you want and say they prove your point, but you're still not going to create more space between exits in the tight jumble of cities whose current basic form predates the Civil War and whose highways in many cases predate the Korean War.

Exactly this.

A lot of cities in the Northeast still exist on street patterns that were laid out in the 18th and early 19th century. Northeastern cities don't sprawl like cities south of DC do. You're not going to find the urban density in Richmond or Raleigh or Charlotte or Atlanta that you're going to find in Baltimore or Philly or Boston or even DC.

In some ways, it's better city planning for the newer cities. Driving in Raleigh and Charlotte is substantially easier than ANY Northeastern metro. But Northeastern metros are constricted by the nature of their founding. No one in 1750 foresaw the automobiles ever existing and wanted to create compact cities so people could get from point A to point B. When automobiles were invented, they were stuck.

QuoteDriving in Raleigh and Charlotte is substantially easier than ANY Northeastern metro.

At the expense of just about every other mode, to be fair.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 01, 2016, 10:03:43 AM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on January 01, 2016, 02:44:46 AM
From the Live Free or Die Department: NH does not require that you carry auto liability insurance

Virginia doesn't either–you can pay the $500 "uninsured motorist fee" every year (sort of like a penalty fee, I guess) and drive without insurance. Anyone who does is an idiot other than people who are so poor that they're effectively judgment-proof.

I pay $1,200 a year for insurance on four vehicles -- full-coverage on two and liability only on two. Surely anyone who owns a vehicle in Virginia can afford liability insurance on it in lieu of paying that fee.

Quote from: froggie on January 01, 2016, 09:11:09 PM

QuoteDriving in Raleigh and Charlotte is substantially easier than ANY Northeastern metro.

At the expense of just about every other mode, to be fair.

I agree. I'm a huge advocate of a light rail system that connects Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill. For a city its size, Charlotte's public transit is just embarrassing.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2015, 06:03:18 PMNJ has never allowed Left Turns on Red.  NJ has always allowed Right Turns on Red (well, ever since the national rules were changed permitting it).   What websites are you looking at regarding AAA?

Here's a link to the page that references that AAA pamphlet: http://www.driversedguru.com/driving-articles/drivers-ed-extras/can-you-make-a-left-turn-on-red/ (http://www.driversedguru.com/driving-articles/drivers-ed-extras/can-you-make-a-left-turn-on-red/)

Quote
According to a 2003 pamphlet issued by AAA, the following locations prohibit a left turn on red:
1.Connecticut
2.Missouri
3.North Carolina
4.Rhode Island
5.Vermont
6.New York City

Obviously, if there is a red left-turn arrow, a left turn is expressly prohibited.

Of course the bit about red arrows expressly prohibiting the turn is not true for all 50 states; I've confirmed both Oregon and Washington allow the turn on a red arrow, and I believe Brandon (another user here) mentioned Michigan also makes no distinction between a circular signal and arrow signal when it comes to turns on red.

Many Sun Belt cities grew more through annexation rather than organic growth as well (hence the lower population densities, at least another reason for them).

Quote from: Ace10 on January 02, 2016, 12:34:25 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2015, 06:03:18 PMNJ has never allowed Left Turns on Red.  NJ has always allowed Right Turns on Red (well, ever since the national rules were changed permitting it).   What websites are you looking at regarding AAA?

Here's a link to the page that references that AAA pamphlet: http://www.driversedguru.com/driving-articles/drivers-ed-extras/can-you-make-a-left-turn-on-red/ (http://www.driversedguru.com/driving-articles/drivers-ed-extras/can-you-make-a-left-turn-on-red/)

Quote
According to a 2003 pamphlet issued by AAA, the following locations prohibit a left turn on red:
1.Connecticut
2.Missouri
3.North Carolina
4.Rhode Island
5.Vermont
6.New York City

Obviously, if there is a red left-turn arrow, a left turn is expressly prohibited.

Of course the bit about red arrows expressly prohibiting the turn is not true for all 50 states; I've confirmed both Oregon and Washington allow the turn on a red arrow, and I believe Brandon (another user here) mentioned Michigan also makes no distinction between a circular signal and arrow signal when it comes to turns on red.

This is nothing more than "a friend of a friend told me" crap. Heck, the first line contradicts itself: Can I make a left turn on red? First, it says "Simply put: Yes". Next sentence..."Well, it depends".  There's a big difference there. Doesn't matter anyway. NJ had never allowed it, regardless what some vague website that doesn't link to its supposed sources says.

Quote from: slorydn1 on January 01, 2016, 01:32:54 AM
Not a state law, but they tell me that there is a local ordinance still on the books from the beginning of the automobile days that in order to drive a motor vehicle in the City of New Bern one must have a person with a red flag stationed in front of the vehicle walking along ahead of it at all times. Obviously nobody does that (lol) but they do say that it has never been stricken from the record.
Not sure how true that is, I work for and live out in the county (my office is in the city though) so I have never taken the time to look it up.

In the time it took to write this, you could've looked it up.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2016, 12:52:36 AMThis is nothing more than "a friend of a friend told me" crap. Heck, the first line contradicts itself: Can I make a left turn on red? First, it says "Simply put: Yes". Next sentence..."Well, it depends".  There's a big difference there. Doesn't matter anyway. NJ had never allowed it, regardless what some vague website that doesn't link to its supposed sources says.

Yeah, it would have been much more helpful if the site actually linked to the source material it copied. A quick web search for the AAA pamphlet turned up nothing. I wasn't at all intending to claim that was a reputable source; to the contrary, the glaring flaw in generalizing what a red arrow means (absolute prohibition on turning) is enough to call the authenticity of all the information on that page into question.

This site (http://animatedtrafficlaw.org/cgi-bin/simstate.pl?qid=Q31&aid=2&state=New_Jersey) might be a little better. It answers various (il)legalities as far as vehicle law goes in each state. The link goes to a list of states and a map where left turn on red from one-way to one-way is either permitted or prohibited. Even better, clicking on the name of a state opens up a page that lists the statute or ordinance citation (e.g., Rhode Island's is 31-13-6(3)(i)), so at least the information on the site can be independently verified.

The Right turn on red (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_turn_on_red) article on Wikipedia also leaves out Rhode Island and New Jersey, and Alaska is wrong as well. Guess I'll take it upon myself to get that updated.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2016, 12:52:36 AM

Quote from: Ace10 on January 02, 2016, 12:34:25 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2015, 06:03:18 PMNJ has never allowed Left Turns on Red.  NJ has always allowed Right Turns on Red (well, ever since the national rules were changed permitting it).   What websites are you looking at regarding AAA?

Here's a link to the page that references that AAA pamphlet: http://www.driversedguru.com/driving-articles/drivers-ed-extras/can-you-make-a-left-turn-on-red/ (http://www.driversedguru.com/driving-articles/drivers-ed-extras/can-you-make-a-left-turn-on-red/)

Quote
According to a 2003 pamphlet issued by AAA, the following locations prohibit a left turn on red:
1.Connecticut
2.Missouri
3.North Carolina
4.Rhode Island
5.Vermont
6.New York City

Obviously, if there is a red left-turn arrow, a left turn is expressly prohibited.

Of course the bit about red arrows expressly prohibiting the turn is not true for all 50 states; I've confirmed both Oregon and Washington allow the turn on a red arrow, and I believe Brandon (another user here) mentioned Michigan also makes no distinction between a circular signal and arrow signal when it comes to turns on red.

This is nothing more than "a friend of a friend told me" crap. Heck, the first line contradicts itself: Can I make a left turn on red? First, it says "Simply put: Yes". Next sentence..."Well, it depends".  There's a big difference there. Doesn't matter anyway. NJ had never allowed it, regardless what some vague website that doesn't link to its supposed sources says.

In Massachusetts, the same turn-on-red rules apply to red arrows that apply to a regular red, left or right.

A friend told me, but that's because I'm friends with the driver's manual:

https://www.massrmv.com/rmv/mcmanual/18_TrafficSignals.pdf

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 02, 2016, 03:13:55 PM

In Massachusetts, the same turn-on-red rules apply to red arrows that apply to a regular red, left or right.

A friend told me, but that's because I'm friends with the driver's manual:

https://www.massrmv.com/rmv/mcmanual/18_TrafficSignals.pdf

At least that's a legit source.

I know in Minnesota, there's such a thing as a road kill game permit. I know because I hit a deer in high school and we actually did keep it. The sheriff's deputy wrote the permit, and we brought it home. It was a fresh kill, and it seemed better than letting it go to waste.

Our good friends hit a moose this fall (they were lucky to live). The DNR asked if they wanted it. They said no (because a moose is huge, and their car was totaled), so it was hauled away to be processed to give to local needy people.

Quote from: Brian556 on December 31, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
School busses, busses, hazmat loads must stop at all railroad crossings, even if they are signalized. Stupidest law ever, causes way more accidents than it prevents.

Agreed.  If it is a signalized crossing, why should a vehicle (especially a school bus) have to come to a complete stop, put their air-brake or emergency brake on, and do all the other checklist items before they can proceed?  At least label those crossings as EXEMPT -- meaning the law does not apply at that crossing. 

I know that the law goes back to the days when most RR crossings were not signalized.  I think in the last few decades, crossings without signals have become the minority -- even in the rural areas.  EXEMPTED crossings are still few and far between, but more crossings should be labeled as such -- for safety's sake.

Speaking of school buses, and laws, there should be a law and rule which states that SCHOOL bus stops must have minimum distances between them, unless the bus stop is for a handicapped person.   I knew of a few bus routes where the bus would stop at 3 driveways in-a-row all 3 within 50 feet of each other, dropping one kid off at each stop.  I will say that with most  school budgets the way they are nowadays, I believe most school districts have consolidated the stops into a select few intersections -- which now means instead of shorter 15 second dropoffs/pickups, you may now be stopped for 2-3 minutes while half the bus passes through the front door.

The most confusing school bus laws from state to state is how many lanes can a bus stop when their lights are on?  Obviously on a 2-lane road, everyone stops.  Add a 3rd lane or center-turn lane and it's still usually an all-stop.  But a road with more than 3-lanes or even a simple center divider and the laws get murky:  the state may still dictate an all-stop in both directions, or only a stop for traffic traveling in the same direction as the bus.

Quote from: thenetwork on January 04, 2016, 12:38:25 AM

Quote from: Brian556 on December 31, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
School busses, busses, hazmat loads must stop at all railroad crossings, even if they are signalized. Stupidest law ever, causes way more accidents than it prevents.

Agreed.  If it is a signalized crossing, why should a vehicle (especially a school bus) have to come to a complete stop, put their air-brake or emergency brake on, and do all the other checklist items before they can proceed?...

Huh? What checklist items?

The law is simply the vehicle must stop and the driver must look both ways prior to crossing.

Checklist items for CDL vehicles include measuring the distance between the dual axle rear tires, pumping the air brakes to make sure they are working correctly, checking all lights and windshield wipers, checking the exhaust, sounding the horn, and so on. These are to be done at the depot or when starting up the vehicle; not in the middle of the road at a railroad crossing and definitely not with a busload of kids.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2016, 12:52:36 AM
This is nothing more than "a friend of a friend told me" crap. Heck, the first line contradicts itself: Can I make a left turn on red? First, it says "Simply put: Yes". Next sentence..."Well, it depends".  There's a big difference there. Doesn't matter anyway. NJ had never allowed it, regardless what some vague website that doesn't link to its supposed sources says.

Washington RCW 46.61.055: (http://goo.gl/rucsNJ)

Quote from: RCW 46.61.055
Section (3)(C):
...the vehicle operators facing a steady red arrow indication may, after stopping proceed to make a...left turn from a one-way street or two-way street into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn...

Quote from: thenetwork on January 04, 2016, 12:38:25 AMThe most confusing school bus laws from state to state is how many lanes can a bus stop when their lights are on?  Obviously on a 2-lane road, everyone stops.  Add a 3rd lane or center-turn lane and it's still usually an all-stop.  But a road with more than 3-lanes or even a simple center divider and the laws get murky:  the state may still dictate an all-stop in both directions, or only a stop for traffic traveling in the same direction as the bus.

I was surprised to find out in Washington State that on a road with three or more marked traffic lanes, traffic proceeding in the opposite direction of a school bus is not required to stop when the school bus is loading or unloading. Traffic moving in the same direction, and all traffic on roads with two or fewer lanes, must stop when school buses load or unload. There is no stopping requirement either for traffic moving in the opposite direction on a divided highway.

Quote
RCW 46.61.370 - Overtaking or meeting school bus, exceptions–Duties of bus driver–Penalty–Safety cameras.

(1) The driver of a vehicle upon overtaking or meeting from either direction any school bus which has stopped on the roadway for the purpose of receiving or discharging any school children shall stop the vehicle before reaching such school bus when there is in operation on said school bus a visual signal as specified in RCW 46.37.190 and said driver shall not proceed until such school bus resumes motion or the visual signals are no longer activated.

(2) The driver of a vehicle upon a highway divided into separate roadways as provided in RCW 46.61.150 need not stop upon meeting a school bus which is proceeding in the opposite direction and is stopped for the purpose of receiving or discharging school children.

(3) The driver of a vehicle upon a highway with three or more marked traffic lanes need not stop upon meeting a school bus which is proceeding in the opposite direction and is stopped for the purpose of receiving or discharging school children.

(4) The driver of a school bus shall actuate the visual signals required by RCW 46.37.190 only when such bus is stopped on the roadway for the purpose of receiving or discharging school children.

The full text of the law seems to require traffic to stop when visual signals (the flashing red lights and stop sign) are activated, and the law also requires drivers of the school bus to actuate the visual signals when picking up or dropping off students, but (2) and (3) seem to contradict and nullify the stopping requirement in (1).

Quote from: Ace10 on January 04, 2016, 01:44:19 AM

Quote from: thenetwork on January 04, 2016, 12:38:25 AMThe most confusing school bus laws from state to state is how many lanes can a bus stop when their lights are on?  Obviously on a 2-lane road, everyone stops.  Add a 3rd lane or center-turn lane and it's still usually an all-stop.  But a road with more than 3-lanes or even a simple center divider and the laws get murky:  the state may still dictate an all-stop in both directions, or only a stop for traffic traveling in the same direction as the bus.

I was surprised to find out in Washington State that on a road with three or more marked traffic lanes, traffic proceeding in the opposite direction of a school bus is not required to stop when the school bus is loading or unloading. Traffic moving in the same direction, and all traffic on roads with two or fewer lanes, must stop when school buses load or unload. There is no stopping requirement either for traffic moving in the opposite direction on a divided highway.

As it happens, my grandfather is a school bus driver. I asked him about this, and he confirmed that school buses do not stop to pick-up/drop-off students when there is more than one lane between the bus and the edge of the road (where the student stops and waits). Basically, if you see a two-way center turn lane, you don't need to stop.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 04, 2016, 01:39:57 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2016, 12:52:36 AM
This is nothing more than "a friend of a friend told me" crap. Heck, the first line contradicts itself: Can I make a left turn on red? First, it says "Simply put: Yes". Next sentence..."Well, it depends".  There's a big difference there. Doesn't matter anyway. NJ had never allowed it, regardless what some vague website that doesn't link to its supposed sources says.

Washington RCW 46.61.055: (http://goo.gl/rucsNJ)

Quote from: RCW 46.61.055
Section (3)(C):
...the vehicle operators facing a steady red arrow indication may, after stopping proceed to make a...left turn from a one-way street or two-way street into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn...

Do most people in Washington State know the law, or do they just sit there when they could be turning left?

The argument was that the site wasn't displaying the law in NJ correctly, and the AAA pamphlet to which it was referring to is nowhere to be found.  Most states, including Washington, are pictured correctly.

Quote from: Ace10 on January 04, 2016, 01:44:19 AM
RCW 46.61.370 - Overtaking or meeting school bus, exceptions—Duties of bus driver—Penalty—Safety cameras.

(1) The driver of a vehicle upon overtaking or meeting from either direction any school bus which has stopped on the roadway for the purpose of receiving or discharging any school children shall stop the vehicle before reaching such school bus when there is in operation on said school bus a visual signal as specified in RCW 46.37.190 and said driver shall not proceed until such school bus resumes motion or the visual signals are no longer activated.

(2) The driver of a vehicle upon a highway divided into separate roadways as provided in RCW 46.61.150 need not stop upon meeting a school bus which is proceeding in the opposite direction and is stopped for the purpose of receiving or discharging school children.

(3) The driver of a vehicle upon a highway with three or more marked traffic lanes need not stop upon meeting a school bus which is proceeding in the opposite direction and is stopped for the purpose of receiving or discharging school children.

(4) The driver of a school bus shall actuate the visual signals required by RCW 46.37.190 only when such bus is stopped on the roadway for the purpose of receiving or discharging school children.

The full text of the law seems to require traffic to stop when visual signals (the flashing red lights and stop sign) are activated, and the law also requires drivers of the school bus to actuate the visual signals when picking up or dropping off students, but (2) and (3) seem to contradict and nullify the stopping requirement in (1).
[/quote]

Most laws are written like this, although usually (1) would have wording like "Except as referred to in (2) & (3)" or some wording to that effect.  Generally, laws are written with what one should do at all times, then list the various exceptions to the law.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 02, 2016, 03:13:55 PM

In Massachusetts, the same turn-on-red rules apply to red arrows that apply to a regular red, left or right.

A friend told me, but that's because I'm friends with the driver's manual:

https://www.massrmv.com/rmv/mcmanual/18_TrafficSignals.pdf

From MGL, Chapter 89, Section 8:

QuoteAt any intersection on ways, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, in which vehicular traffic is facing a steady red indication in a traffic control signal, the driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk or the near side of the intersections or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to such red or stop signal, may make either (1) a right turn or (2) if on a one-way street may make a left turn to another one-way street, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at said intersection, except that a city or town, subject to section two of chapter eighty-five, by rules, orders, ordinances, or by-laws, and the department of highways on state highways or on ways at their intersections with a state highway, may prohibit any such turns against a red or stop signal at any such intersection, and such prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof. Any person who violates the provisions of this paragraph shall be punished by a fine of not less than thirty-five dollars.

The operative word here is "indication" (i.e. red ball or red arrow).  And while this is in conflict with the UVC and the MUTCD (which states RTOR on red ball unless there is a sign, but RTOR on red arrow only if there is a sign), I believe this is a much more consistent and logical approach to RTOR - that is, RTOR at all times (regardless of ball vs arrow) unless there is a sign prohibiting it.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2016, 12:58:04 AM

Quote from: thenetwork on January 04, 2016, 12:38:25 AM

Quote from: Brian556 on December 31, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
School busses, busses, hazmat loads must stop at all railroad crossings, even if they are signalized. Stupidest law ever, causes way more accidents than it prevents.

Agreed.  If it is a signalized crossing, why should a vehicle (especially a school bus) have to come to a complete stop, put their air-brake or emergency brake on, and do all the other checklist items before they can proceed?...

Huh? What checklist items?

The law is simply the vehicle must stop and the driver must look both ways prior to crossing.

Checklist items for CDL vehicles include measuring the distance between the dual axle rear tires, pumping the air brakes to make sure they are working correctly, checking all lights and windshield wipers, checking the exhaust, sounding the horn, and so on. These are to be done at the depot or when starting up the vehicle; not in the middle of the road at a railroad crossing and definitely not with a busload of kids.

In Ohio:

Quote
(B) Railroad grade crossings

(1) General procedures

(a) The driver of any school bus, with or without passengers, shall come to a complete stop, set the parking brake, shift to neutral, turn off the warning lamp master switch if necessary, fully open the service door, and look and listen in both directions along the track or tracks for approaching engines, trains, or train cars.

Edit: I should clarify this is from the Ohio Administrative Code, not the revised code, so it's a rule not a law. In practice, however, I wouldn't want to be the driver not following it.

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 31, 2015, 02:34:24 PM

Quote from: bzakharin on December 31, 2015, 09:23:25 AMNJ does not allow any kind of left turn on red.

Given that many left turn movements in NJ are handled via right-turn jughandles; I'm not surprised.

Jughandles exist mostly on divided highways, or at least four lane roads. Left turns on red (in other states) involve one-way streets, so jughandles don't come into play.

Quote from: 6a on January 04, 2016, 10:24:38 AM
In Ohio:

Quote
(B) Railroad grade crossings

(1) General procedures

(a) The driver of any school bus, with or without passengers, shall come to a complete stop, set the parking brake, shift to neutral, turn off the warning lamp master switch if necessary, fully open the service door, order lunch, read the newspaper, purchase cabinets, run for President, and look and listen in both directions along the track or tracks for approaching engines, trains, or train cars.

Wow. 

Clearly, even without the stuff I added in, that's overkill.  After checking for trains, you don't want to be in a position where it takes unnecessary seconds to re-engage the vehicle, reducing the benefit of stopping in the first place.

Sorry, I see my jughandles comment was a repetition of someone else's post. Regarding stopping for school buses, I believe in NJ all traffic in both directions must stop unless there is a physical barrier (a median barrier, a barrier-separated left turn lane, etc) between you and the school bus.

Quote from: 6a on January 04, 2016, 10:24:38 AM
In Ohio:

Quote
(B) Railroad grade crossings

(1) General procedures

(a) The driver of any school bus, with or without passengers, shall come to a complete stop, set the parking brake, shift to neutral, turn off the warning lamp master switch if necessary, fully open the service door, and look and listen in both directions along the track or tracks for approaching engines, trains, or train cars.

Edit: I should clarify this is from the Ohio Administrative Code, not the revised code, so it's a rule not a law. In practice, however, I wouldn't want to be the driver not following it.

I believe NY is the same way, judging by how buses acted around rail crossings when I was in school.

Quote from: discochris on January 03, 2016, 11:36:09 PMI know in Minnesota, there's such a thing as a road kill game permit.

In the UK, road kill is fair game (pun intended) for picking up as long as it isn't your car that hit it: for the obvious reason of not wanting deliberate hitting of animals for their meat. I'm guessing a road kill game permit allows you to 'hunt with vehicles as weapons'?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2016, 12:58:04 AM

Quote from: thenetwork on January 04, 2016, 12:38:25 AM

Quote from: Brian556 on December 31, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
School busses, busses, hazmat loads must stop at all railroad crossings, even if they are signalized. Stupidest law ever, causes way more accidents than it prevents.

Agreed.  If it is a signalized crossing, why should a vehicle (especially a school bus) have to come to a complete stop, put their air-brake or emergency brake on, and do all the other checklist items before they can proceed?...

Huh? What checklist items?

The law is simply the vehicle must stop and the driver must look both ways prior to crossing.

Checklist items for CDL vehicles include measuring the distance between the dual axle rear tires, pumping the air brakes to make sure they are working correctly, checking all lights and windshield wipers, checking the exhaust, sounding the horn, and so on. These are to be done at the depot or when starting up the vehicle; not in the middle of the road at a railroad crossing and definitely not with a busload of kids.

I meant that a school bus vehicle turns on the flashers, slows to a stop, puts the airbrakes on, open the bus door, opens the driver's window, looks both ways, closes bus door, closes the driver's window, takes off the airbrake, turns off the flashers, then proceeds.

Never understood having to open up the bus door when there are windows on the door -- if you can't see a train through the smaller windows on the door or driver's window -- especially if the windows are clean -- then the train ain't gonna come out of nowhere.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2016, 12:58:04 AM

Quote from: thenetwork on January 04, 2016, 12:38:25 AM

Quote from: Brian556 on December 31, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
School busses, busses, hazmat loads must stop at all railroad crossings, even if they are signalized. Stupidest law ever, causes way more accidents than it prevents.

Agreed.  If it is a signalized crossing, why should a vehicle (especially a school bus) have to come to a complete stop, put their air-brake or emergency brake on, and do all the other checklist items before they can proceed?...

Huh? What checklist items?

The law is simply the vehicle must stop and the driver must look both ways prior to crossing.

Checklist items for CDL vehicles include measuring the distance between the dual axle rear tires, pumping the air brakes to make sure they are working correctly, checking all lights and windshield wipers, checking the exhaust, sounding the horn, and so on. These are to be done at the depot or when starting up the vehicle; not in the middle of the road at a railroad crossing and definitely not with a busload of kids.

I meant that a school bus vehicle turns on the flashers, slows to a stop, puts the airbrakes on, open the bus door, opens the driver's window, looks both ways, closes bus door, closes the driver's window, takes off the airbrake, turns off the flashers, then proceeds.

Never understood having to open up the bus door when there are windows on the door -- if you can't see a train through the smaller windows on the door or driver's window -- especially if the windows are clean -- then the train ain't nowhere close!!!  Opening them up is not gonna change things.

Opening the door is so that you can hear the train coming, in case there's a curve or hill in the track, or poor weather, or anything else that might affect visibility.

(Totally agree that it's an archaic law, just playing a tiny bit of devil's advocate.)

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2016, 10:37:57 AM

Quote from: 6a on January 04, 2016, 10:24:38 AM
In Ohio:

Quote
(B) Railroad grade crossings

(1) General procedures

(a) The driver of any school bus, with or without passengers, shall come to a complete stop, set the parking brake, shift to neutral, turn off the warning lamp master switch if necessary, fully open the service door, order lunch, read the newspaper, purchase cabinets, run for President, and look and listen in both directions along the track or tracks for approaching engines, trains, or train cars.

Wow. 

Clearly, even without the stuff I added in, that's overkill.  After checking for trains, you don't want to be in a position where it takes unnecessary seconds to re-engage the vehicle, reducing the benefit of stopping in the first place.

It would seem to be common sense that the stop occur a sufficient distance prior to the track that it will not place the bus in any danger so long as the train does not depart from the track.

And in the time it takes them to do all of that, the train gets closer... and closer... and CLOSER, sneaking up, ready to pounce on the bus and take the souls of the kids from this world!

In all seriousness, those Amtrak trains move pretty fast.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2016, 10:37:57 AM

Quote from: 6a on January 04, 2016, 10:24:38 AM
In Ohio:

Quote
(B) Railroad grade crossings

(1) General procedures

(a) The driver of any school bus, with or without passengers, shall come to a complete stop, set the parking brake, shift to neutral, turn off the warning lamp master switch if necessary, fully open the service door, order lunch, read the newspaper, purchase cabinets, run for President, and look and listen in both directions along the track or tracks for approaching engines, trains, or train cars.

Wow. 

Clearly, even without the stuff I added in, that's overkill.  After checking for trains, you don't want to be in a position where it takes unnecessary seconds to re-engage the vehicle, reducing the benefit of stopping in the first place.

Rules like that generally date back to early 20th-century tort cases in which the courts held, epitomized by the famous opinion written by Judge Learned Hand or Judge Cardozo (I forget which one), that a driver is negligent if he fails to "stop, look, and listen" at a railroad crossing. Even after signals and arms started to become normal, the courts were slow to move away from that rule, in part because they were reluctant to overrule such a respected judge and in part because signals and arms were by no means universal and so judges were reluctant to adopt a rule that didn't apply everywhere. Obviously, for cars the old rule gradually gave way over time. I suspect part of the issue with school buses is that they don't accelerate nor maneuver all that well and, given the "cargo," the authorities want them to err on the side of safety. It can be damn annoying, but on the other hand, there is no guarantee that the lights or gates might not malfunction and fail to give adequate warning. I guess the idea is that a bus full of passengers is considered a greater risk of loss than a single automobile.

My favorite school bus railroad crossing memory was on a Boy Scout trip to PEI in 1989. We were on a school bus going to one of the activities and we came to an at-grade railroad crossing where the road was on an uphill grade. The school bus had a manual transmission and the driver was decidedly unskilled with a clutch? We were stuck there for several minutes as most of the fathers, and the few of us Scouts who were old enough to drive, were yelling out loads of advice to the poor driver, none of which advice was likely of any help.

Quote from: vdeaneIn all seriousness, those Amtrak trains move pretty fast.

Default Amtrak speed, barring train traffic or track conditions otherwise, is 79 MPH.  There are some segments here and there (including the "racetrack" in your neck of the woods, between Albany and Schenectady roughly from the Northway to past 890) where speeds are up to 90 or even 110.  And this doesn't count the Northeast Corridor.

Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2016, 07:32:05 PMAnd in the time it takes them to do all of that, the train gets closer... and closer... and CLOSER, sneaking up, ready to pounce on the bus and take the souls of the kids from this world!

In all seriousness, those Amtrak trains move pretty fast.

I'm not sure about other Amtrak branches but its Northeast & Keystone corridors are all grade-separated.

Quote from: froggie on January 04, 2016, 09:58:52 PM

Quote from: vdeaneIn all seriousness, those Amtrak trains move pretty fast.

Default Amtrak speed, barring train traffic or track conditions otherwise, is 79 MPH.  There are some segments here and there (including the "racetrack" in your neck of the woods, between Albany and Schenectady roughly from the Northway to past 890) where speeds are up to 90 or even 110.  And this doesn't count the Northeast Corridor.

That would be where I first encountered an Amtrak train.  The time the gates were down before the train arrived (and after it left) was notably longer than the time it took the train to pass (which was practically none).  They moved fast enough that the ground shook and were quite loud - let's just say that you did NOT want to be out of the car when the Amtrak train arrived!

All the crossings on the Empire and New England lines have a "high speed trains" sign attached.

Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2016, 12:41:20 PM

Quote from: froggie on January 04, 2016, 09:58:52 PM

Quote from: vdeaneIn all seriousness, those Amtrak trains move pretty fast.

Default Amtrak speed, barring train traffic or track conditions otherwise, is 79 MPH.  There are some segments here and there (including the "racetrack" in your neck of the woods, between Albany and Schenectady roughly from the Northway to past 890) where speeds are up to 90 or even 110.  And this doesn't count the Northeast Corridor.

That would be where I first encountered an Amtrak train.  The time the gates were down before the train arrived (and after it left) was notably longer than the time it took the train to pass (which was practically none).  They moved fast enough that the ground shook and were quite loud - let's just say that you did NOT want to be out of the car when the Amtrak train arrived!

All the crossings on the Empire and New England lines have a "high speed trains" sign attached.

Most, maybe.  Not all.  I cross the Downeaster tracks quite a lot, and there's no sign other than the typical lights and gates.  One crossing does have a flagger that does not flag, but rather gets a union wage and a pension to sit in a booth, but that is because the crossing doesn't have room for the other safeguards needed for hornless running.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 05, 2016, 12:05:23 PM

Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2016, 07:32:05 PMAnd in the time it takes them to do all of that, the train gets closer... and closer... and CLOSER, sneaking up, ready to pounce on the bus and take the souls of the kids from this world!

In all seriousness, those Amtrak trains move pretty fast.

I'm not sure about other Amtrak branches but its Northeast & Keystone corridors are all grade-separated.

Note that outside the Northeast Corridor Amtrak generally doesn't own the tracks–the freight companies do–and there are a lot more at-grade crossings. Back in 2005 I was on a train that was late due to a car being stuck on the tracks in Jacksonville.

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2016, 01:41:47 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 05, 2016, 12:05:23 PM

Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2016, 07:32:05 PMAnd in the time it takes them to do all of that, the train gets closer... and closer... and CLOSER, sneaking up, ready to pounce on the bus and take the souls of the kids from this world!

In all seriousness, those Amtrak trains move pretty fast.

I'm not sure about other Amtrak branches but its Northeast & Keystone corridors are all grade-separated.

Note that outside the Northeast Corridor Amtrak generally doesn't own the tracks–the freight companies do–and there are a lot more at-grade crossings. Back in 2005 I was on a train that was late due to a car being stuck on the tracks in Jacksonville.

I've heard that the only profitable Amtrak line is between Albany and NYC (or down the corridor); that track is owned by CSX, I believe.

Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2016, 02:44:24 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2016, 01:41:47 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 05, 2016, 12:05:23 PM

Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2016, 07:32:05 PMAnd in the time it takes them to do all of that, the train gets closer... and closer... and CLOSER, sneaking up, ready to pounce on the bus and take the souls of the kids from this world!

In all seriousness, those Amtrak trains move pretty fast.

I'm not sure about other Amtrak branches but its Northeast & Keystone corridors are all grade-separated.

Note that outside the Northeast Corridor Amtrak generally doesn't own the tracks—the freight companies do—and there are a lot more at-grade crossings. Back in 2005 I was on a train that was late due to a car being stuck on the tracks in Jacksonville.

I've heard that the only profitable Amtrak line is between Albany and NYC (or down the corridor); that track is owned by CSX, I believe.

Not even close...in regards to Albany is concerned. 

The only profitable lines (as of 2013) are the Northeast Regional, including the Acela, Washington-Newport News & Washington-Norfolk.

The Empire - which is the NYC-Albany line, recovers only about 62% of expenses.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2016, 02:54:39 PM

Quote from: Rothman on January 05, 2016, 02:44:24 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on January 05, 2016, 01:41:47 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 05, 2016, 12:05:23 PM

Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2016, 07:32:05 PMAnd in the time it takes them to do all of that, the train gets closer... and closer... and CLOSER, sneaking up, ready to pounce on the bus and take the souls of the kids from this world!

In all seriousness, those Amtrak trains move pretty fast.

I'm not sure about other Amtrak branches but its Northeast & Keystone corridors are all grade-separated.

Note that outside the Northeast Corridor Amtrak generally doesn't own the tracks—the freight companies do—and there are a lot more at-grade crossings. Back in 2005 I was on a train that was late due to a car being stuck on the tracks in Jacksonville.

I've heard that the only profitable Amtrak line is between Albany and NYC (or down the corridor); that track is owned by CSX, I believe.

Not even close...in regards to Albany is concerned. 

The only profitable lines (as of 2013) are the Northeast Regional, including the Acela, Washington-Newport News & Washington-Norfolk.

The Empire - which is the NYC-Albany line, recovers only about 62% of expenses.

Yeah, that was the exclusive "or" I put in there. :D

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 05, 2016, 01:02:21 PM

Quote from: vdeane on January 05, 2016, 12:41:20 PM

Quote from: froggie on January 04, 2016, 09:58:52 PM

Quote from: vdeaneIn all seriousness, those Amtrak trains move pretty fast.

Default Amtrak speed, barring train traffic or track conditions otherwise, is 79 MPH.  There are some segments here and there (including the "racetrack" in your neck of the woods, between Albany and Schenectady roughly from the Northway to past 890) where speeds are up to 90 or even 110.  And this doesn't count the Northeast Corridor.

That would be where I first encountered an Amtrak train.  The time the gates were down before the train arrived (and after it left) was notably longer than the time it took the train to pass (which was practically none).  They moved fast enough that the ground shook and were quite loud - let's just say that you did NOT want to be out of the car when the Amtrak train arrived!

All the crossings on the Empire and New England lines have a "high speed trains" sign attached.

Most, maybe.  Not all.  I cross the Downeaster tracks quite a lot, and there's no sign other than the typical lights and gates.  One crossing does have a flagger that does not flag, but rather gets a union wage and a pension to sit in a booth, but that is because the crossing doesn't have room for the other safeguards needed for hornless running.

The ones in NY do.  Of course, the FRA's definition (which I'm aware of because I'm involved in the rail crossing inventory update) only has the New England high speed rail ID on the Albany-Boston line.

Quote from: PHLBOSI'm not sure about other Amtrak branches but its Northeast & Keystone corridors are all grade-separated.

They are, which helps, but those aren't the only fast corridors.  Empire Service along the New York-Albany corridor is fast enough that, even with its stops, it's competitive with driving the Thruway.