What is the point of having a channelized right turn if you're going to have a stoplight that coincides with the mainline stoplight? It turns green when the thru lanes turns green.
CT doesn't do channelizing right turns a lot but when they do they do it this way. It's like they just can't let go of a traditional blah intersection.
Btw: when the light is red people treat it as a right turn on red type deal anyway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.319522,-73.084875,3a,75y,162.86h,75.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUFTDdAjkykrm0AoxjM3YXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Philadelphia does it right:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.912352,-75.150429,3a,52.2y,227.53h,83.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl3JsV8KSJRlM0PuxIXgxuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Almost all of New Jersey does too, thanks to jughandles.
Illinois tends to use the signal:
https://goo.gl/maps/NHBGj
https://goo.gl/maps/ia6vE
Here's an incredibly annoying example (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7439046,-83.716365,105m/data=!3m1!1e3) (that I traverse pretty much every day). Note the stop line doesn't actually extend into the right turn lane, but the signalized pedestrian crossing does. So do I have to stop when there's a red light? Who knows... I guess I'll find out when I inevitably get a ticket someday.
This is the ideal way in my opinion:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FZnAW0pKl.png&hash=f6eb6f47c91f80fd6e78a56af43dc9184d7a8420)
(https://www.google.com/maps/@43.586481,-116.544558,3a,75y,67.73h,82.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s10VdngFo-xeoW4qiRKNp-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Extra room to merge/accelerate and a yield sign (no signal or stop sign).
This one in Bend always bugged me:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fow9B7orl.png&hash=8ecec8cfd649692e3469649d4481ad8a9d7f17c0)
(https://www.google.com/maps/@44.028789,-121.31293,3a,75y,121.67h,89.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6G4P1ZUM9noDoRik6UAbMw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D6G4P1ZUM9noDoRik6UAbMw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D76.393326%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656)
Technically, you're supposed to stop while turning right even on a green light. People don't really do it though (though I rarely turned right here to notice; if I wanted to access businesses down here I'd usually be coming from Pinebrook Blvd not Powers).
Bend is definitely capable of better. Example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkQuqlfc.png&hash=b8b2f2f1116ddfd5c3cdd6e7a98f602f5e0b6eb8) (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.055131,-121.263936,3a,75y,194.65h,85.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIboNSJpLL5c6I6z9_LqX4g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Quote from: doorknob60 on June 23, 2015, 04:23:16 PMThis one in Bend always bugged me:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fow9B7orl.png&hash=8ecec8cfd649692e3469649d4481ad8a9d7f17c0)
(https://www.google.com/maps/@44.028789,-121.31293,3a,75y,121.67h,89.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6G4P1ZUM9noDoRik6UAbMw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D6G4P1ZUM9noDoRik6UAbMw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D76.393326%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656)
Technically, you're supposed to stop while turning right even on a green light. People don't really do it though (though I rarely turned right here to notice; if I wanted to access businesses down here I'd usually be coming from Pinebrook Blvd not Powers).
For exactly the reason you mention, I think this is a far worse fail than the OP. In the OP, you have to stop before turning right on a red light. Here you have to stop before turning... no matter what???
Quote from: Zeffy on June 23, 2015, 01:12:40 PM
Almost all of New Jersey does too, thanks to jughandles.
I may be misinterpreting this, but if you're counting jughandles as channelized right turns, then no, not according to my recollection. This was the second one I looked at (https://goo.gl/maps/W9Zs5), with a stop sign for right turns like above. Little to no reason for right-turning traffic to stop if thru traffic on Ryan/Symmes has a red.
Very simple reason why channelized turns would be used if signals are still used: truck turning radius. Channelized turns can allow a truck to turn without blocking adjacent lanes.
Quote from: cl94 on June 23, 2015, 08:31:24 PM
Very simple reason why channelized turns would be used if signals are still used: truck turning radius. Channelized turns can allow a truck to turn without blocking adjacent lanes.
But the question is really the other way around: If a channelized right turn is used, why use a signal to control it?
A truck can still not block adjacent lanes when a yield sign is used instead of a signal (of course it depends on the design of the channelized turn, but this applies regardless of the traffic control used for said turn).
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 22, 2015, 11:43:59 PM
What is the point of having a channelized right turn if you're going to have a stoplight that coincides with the mainline stoplight? It turns green when the thru lanes turns green.
CT doesn't do channelizing right turns a lot but when they do they do it this way. It's like they just can't let go of a traditional blah intersection.
Btw: when the light is red people treat it as a right turn on red type deal anyway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.319522,-73.084875,3a,75y,162.86h,75.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUFTDdAjkykrm0AoxjM3YXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
In fact I would also think in reality you're not supposed to go through the RED at all when making a chanelized right turn. I've seen someone get a ticket for stopping and then going through the red light.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 23, 2015, 10:12:31 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 22, 2015, 11:43:59 PM
What is the point of having a channelized right turn if you're going to have a stoplight that coincides with the mainline stoplight? It turns green when the thru lanes turns green.
CT doesn't do channelizing right turns a lot but when they do they do it this way. It's like they just can't let go of a traditional blah intersection.
Btw: when the light is red people treat it as a right turn on red type deal anyway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.319522,-73.084875,3a,75y,162.86h,75.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUFTDdAjkykrm0AoxjM3YXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
In fact I would also think in reality you're not supposed to go through the RED at all when making a chanelized right turn. I've seen someone get a ticket for stopping and then going through the red light.
I would say that unless a sign or local law prohibits a right turn on red, it should be perfectly acceptable in a channelized right turn with traffic signal control, to come to a complete stop and then safely make the turn on red.
This intersection in Penfield, NY has a channelized right turn with a traffic signal which I always thought was silly. Then again there are ped signals for the crosswalk in the turn lane which is also unusual. The channelized right turn lane is needed here because of the angle of the intersection.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.153667,-77.50647,3a,75y,138.48h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJIvJFU1nlaCOVyZ18zkJmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Quote from: roadfro on June 24, 2015, 10:46:29 AM
I would say that unless a sign or local law prohibits a right turn on red, it should be perfectly acceptable in a channelized right turn with traffic signal control, to come to a complete stop and then safely make the turn on red.
Does it make a difference if the channelized right turn has its own separate signal head with a different aspect sequence than the main assembly?
Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?
Quote from: steviep24 on June 24, 2015, 06:27:54 PM
This intersection in Penfield, NY has a channelized right turn with a traffic signal which I always thought was silly. Then again there are ped signals for the crosswalk in the turn lane which is also unusual. The channelized right turn lane is needed here because of the angle of the intersection.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.153667,-77.50647,3a,75y,138.48h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJIvJFU1nlaCOVyZ18zkJmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
The funny thing is that the ped signals for the crosswalk in the turn lane go to a sidewalk apron that leads no where
Quote from: doorknob60 on June 23, 2015, 04:23:16 PM
This is the ideal way in my opinion:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FZnAW0pKl.png&hash=f6eb6f47c91f80fd6e78a56af43dc9184d7a8420)
(https://www.google.com/maps/@43.586481,-116.544558,3a,75y,67.73h,82.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s10VdngFo-xeoW4qiRKNp-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This method has actually fallen out of favor because it encourages drivers to make the turn at high speeds and mow down pedestrians. Tighter turns with truck aprons are the preferred method now; the best example I can think of is on the local SPUI (which does have signals due to high traffic and pedestrian signals): https://goo.gl/maps/AykO8
Quote from: NYhwyfan on June 24, 2015, 08:23:01 PM
Quote from: steviep24 on June 24, 2015, 06:27:54 PM
This intersection in Penfield, NY has a channelized right turn with a traffic signal which I always thought was silly. Then again there are ped signals for the crosswalk in the turn lane which is also unusual. The channelized right turn lane is needed here because of the angle of the intersection.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.153667,-77.50647,3a,75y,138.48h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJIvJFU1nlaCOVyZ18zkJmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
The funny thing is that the ped signals for the crosswalk in the turn lane go to a sidewalk apron that leads no where
Well, if Region 4 ever wants to add sidewalks, they have the crosswalk. Had the crosswalk not been built and they wanted to add sidewalk on that side of the road, they would have had to do a near total rebuild of the porkchop island to meet ADA requirements.
Yeah, NYSDOT is taking out channelized turns when they rebuild intersections. The intersection of US 9 and NY 254 in my hometown of Queensbury had 4 channelized right turns until the intersection and surrounding area was widened to add double lefts. In the satellite view, you can still see where the wider turns were.
Problem with channelized turns is that people often take them too fast and believe they have the right of way, leading to accidents. They might seem good on paper, but drivers are quite stupid.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on June 22, 2015, 11:43:59 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.319522,-73.084875,3a,75y,162.86h,75.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUFTDdAjkykrm0AoxjM3YXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Definitely a fail, as it runs afoul of the national edition of the MUTCD. The MUTCD, per Item 1 of Paragraph 01 of Section 4D.14 requires 40 feet minimum between the stop bar and the signal head(s) for the movement - in this case, there should be a signal head located on the embankment between the ramp and the freeway.
Quote from: doorknob60 on June 23, 2015, 04:23:16 PM
This one in Bend always bugged me:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fow9B7orl.png&hash=8ecec8cfd649692e3469649d4481ad8a9d7f17c0)
(https://www.google.com/maps/@44.028789,-121.31293,3a,75y,121.67h,89.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6G4P1ZUM9noDoRik6UAbMw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D6G4P1ZUM9noDoRik6UAbMw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D76.393326%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656)
Wisconsin loves that design. Sometimes there is even a white sign below the stop sign with the text 'right Turn obey this sign' or something similar.
Quote from: vdeane on June 24, 2015, 08:33:30 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on June 23, 2015, 04:23:16 PM
This is the ideal way in my opinion:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FZnAW0pKl.png&hash=f6eb6f47c91f80fd6e78a56af43dc9184d7a8420)
(https://www.google.com/maps/@43.586481,-116.544558,3a,75y,67.73h,82.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s10VdngFo-xeoW4qiRKNp-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This method has actually fallen out of favor because it encourages drivers to make the turn at high speeds and mow down pedestrians. Tighter turns with truck aprons are the preferred method now; the best example I can think of is on the local SPUI (which does have signals due to high traffic and pedestrian signals): https://goo.gl/maps/AykO8
The larger radius design, if it does not have a decent acceleration lane, frequently has issues with rear end collisions. where the first car in line may start a turn but have to stop, and the second car, not paying enough attention, thinks the first car has completed its turn, starts to turn, and then smacks the bumper of the first car.
I quite like the idea of signalized slip lanes. Here's how I'd set them up:
- Signed with side-mounted signals, two near and one far
- The signal faces will show right-facing arrows, stacked as four in an FYA fashion
- Normal operation will be a flashing yellow arrow
- When a pedestrian comes, the arrow will turn to red, and the pedestrian will proceed
- When the countdown phase is complete, the light will return to flashing yellow
- Green arrow phase when perpendicular traffic has a green left arrow
- "No Turn on Red" signs would be posted for maximum pedestrian safety
The United Kingdom signalizes almost all of their slip lanes, and they work in a similar fashion (though the lights, AFAIK, go dark when there isn't a pedestrian -- someone with absolute certainty should follow up if that is incorrect).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FycPkadt.png&hash=3a7531a2da891f72402885d5720a65d1b9ad012d)
Quote from: cl94 on June 24, 2015, 08:42:46 PM
Problem with channelized turns is that people often take them too fast and believe they have the right of way, leading to accidents. They might seem good on paper, but drivers are quite stupid.
I think this is more of a New England problem, but regardless, I think if you signalized the right turns, it might help cut down on the people just flying through them (especially if you put in some FYAs).
Quote from: cl94 on June 24, 2015, 08:42:46 PM
Yeah, NYSDOT is taking out channelized turns when they rebuild intersections. The intersection of US 9 and NY 254 in my hometown of Queensbury had 4 channelized right turns until the intersection and surrounding area was widened to add double lefts. In the satellite view, you can still see where the wider turns were.
Problem with channelized turns is that people often take them too fast and believe they have the right of way, leading to accidents. They might seem good on paper, but drivers are quite stupid.
Not just NYSDOT. The new preference comes straight from the FHWA.
Here's an interesting example in Southern Illinois. Last time I went through this intersection I almost drove through the red light because it is not too clear whether right turns are controlled by the signal or not when approaching the intersection.
https://goo.gl/maps/jNuOm
How about this fun one, where the right turn channel (besides being only painted, not physical separated) is only signalized when the green arrow is lit. The rest of the time, it's controlled by the Yield sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/WtMF9
(In the reverse direction (https://goo.gl/maps/hx0lm), the weirdly-channelized left turn is signalized all the time.)
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2015, 07:43:53 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 24, 2015, 10:46:29 AM
I would say that unless a sign or local law prohibits a right turn on red, it should be perfectly acceptable in a channelized right turn with traffic signal control, to come to a complete stop and then safely make the turn on red.
Does it make a difference if the channelized right turn has its own separate signal head with a different aspect sequence than the main assembly?
Not to me. If the signal head controlling the right turn displays any red indication, normal right turn on red provisions should apply (unless overruled by a sign).
Quote
Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?
Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2015, 11:10:47 PM
(In the reverse direction (https://goo.gl/maps/hx0lm), the weirdly-channelized left turn is signalized all the time.)
Hmmm....two opposing directions separated by white lines....
https://goo.gl/M2RGo6
Quote from: roadfro on June 25, 2015, 01:15:56 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2015, 07:43:53 PM
Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?
Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.
You're referring to a situation like this, where those staying to the left have the thru movement, and those to the right are turning right, but have their own signal. If you zoomed in, you would see "No Turn On Red" signage. It also does have right arrows which specifically excludes turning right on red anyway, but as most drivers aren't aware of that little factoid supplemental 'No Turn On Red' signs are used as well.
I can't embed the picture from my phone, but I'm at the intersection of US 62 and Tuscarora Rd in Niagara Fall doing a count at this moment. Channelized right turn in the foreground. People are taking it at around 30. Not even 8:00 and we've had several near-misses.
https://flic.kr/p/uTcfwG
Quote from: roadfro on June 25, 2015, 01:15:56 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2015, 07:43:53 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 24, 2015, 10:46:29 AM
I would say that unless a sign or local law prohibits a right turn on red, it should be perfectly acceptable in a channelized right turn with traffic signal control, to come to a complete stop and then safely make the turn on red.
Does it make a difference if the channelized right turn has its own separate signal head with a different aspect sequence than the main assembly?
Not to me. If the signal head controlling the right turn displays any red indication, normal right turn on red provisions should apply (unless overruled by a sign).
That's probably a legally sound approach, although it starts to mirror the confusion surrounding red arrow indications. If, for example, the through movement has a green ball, and the right turn channel has a red ball, the implication might be that right turns are being expressly prohibited for the moment, just as might be the case at a non-channelized intersection where the signal shows a green ball with a red right arrow. Seeing either of these arrangements my first instinct would be that I may not turn right at all; it wouldn't be that, while all movements are allowed, right turns alone require a stop before proceeding.
QuoteQuote
Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?
Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.
And I've often seen that used, to clarify. As well, besides just the geometry of the roadway, the position of the signal itself might lead me to interpret its meaning differently: if the signal head is placed after the curve, as the right turn channel straightens out to join its target roadway, I would probably not assume that I could proceed through the red signal after stopping, whereas if it were placed at the entrance to the channel I very likely would.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 25, 2015, 06:31:45 AM
You're referring to a situation like this...
Can you specify "this"? (Missing link, perhaps?)
Quote from: jwags on June 24, 2015, 09:59:42 PM
Here's an interesting example in Southern Illinois. Last time I went through this intersection I almost drove through the red light because it is not too clear whether right turns are controlled by the signal or not when approaching the intersection.
https://goo.gl/maps/jNuOm
It's Illinois.
Always assume the right turn is controlled by the signal unless otherwise stated. IDOT does not typically do the right turn movement separate from the main intersection signal.
On a different note, that signal does not follow IDOT protocol. There are supposed to be two signals for the turning direction. Each direction needs another tower to meet the minimum (3 for through, 2 per turning direction).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 25, 2015, 06:31:45 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 25, 2015, 01:15:56 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2015, 07:43:53 PM
Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?
Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.
You're referring to a situation like this, where those staying to the left have the thru movement, and those to the right are turning right, but have their own signal. If you zoomed in, you would see "No Turn On Red" signage. It also does have right arrows which specifically excludes turning right on red anyway, but as most drivers aren't aware of that little factoid supplemental 'No Turn On Red' signs are used as well.
There's no link here...
Re: RTOR with red arrow. The MUTCD's intent for the use of a right red arrow is to prohibit RTOR. However, many state motor vehicle laws do not specifically prohibit right turns on a red arrow. For example, Nevada's law regarding traffic facing a traffic signal mentions what traffic may do when facing a steady circular green or steady green arrow, but only mentions steady red signals without reference to a shape--this is why nearly all applications of red turn arrows in Nevada (especially those with dual right turn lanes) are accompanied by a "no turn on red" sign.
Quote from: roadfro on June 25, 2015, 10:43:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 25, 2015, 06:31:45 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 25, 2015, 01:15:56 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2015, 07:43:53 PM
Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?
Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.
You're referring to a situation like this, where those staying to the left have the thru movement, and those to the right are turning right, but have their own signal. If you zoomed in, you would see "No Turn On Red" signage. It also does have right arrows which specifically excludes turning right on red anyway, but as most drivers aren't aware of that little factoid supplemental 'No Turn On Red' signs are used as well.
There's no link here...
Re: RTOR with red arrow. The MUTCD's intent for the use of a right red arrow is to prohibit RTOR. However, many state motor vehicle laws do not specifically prohibit right turns on a red arrow. For example, Nevada's law regarding traffic facing a traffic signal mentions what traffic may do when facing a steady circular green or steady green arrow, but only mentions steady red signals without reference to a shape--this is why nearly all applications of red turn arrows in Nevada (especially those with dual right turn lanes) are accompanied by a "no turn on red" sign.
Generally, here in Florida, they do seem to permit right turn on red from arrows, including dual right turn lanes. Many of them are accompanied by signs saying right turn on red right lane only, but there are a few that allow it from both lanes.
Quote from: UCFKnights on June 25, 2015, 11:41:55 PM
Generally, here in Florida, they do seem to permit right turn on red from arrows, including dual right turn lanes. Many of them are accompanied by signs saying right turn on red right lane only, but there are a few that allow it from both lanes.
I've never understood lane-specific prohibitions. You're going to have an awful lot more traffic in the lane that can go versus the one that cannot.
Quote from: roadfro on June 25, 2015, 10:43:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 25, 2015, 06:31:45 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 25, 2015, 01:15:56 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2015, 07:43:53 PM
Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?
Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.
You're referring to a situation like this, where those staying to the left have the thru movement, and those to the right are turning right, but have their own signal. If you zoomed in, you would see "No Turn On Red" signage. It also does have right arrows which specifically excludes turning right on red anyway, but as most drivers aren't aware of that little factoid supplemental 'No Turn On Red' signs are used as well.
There's no link here...
Do'h!
https://goo.gl/maps/lGrpe
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2015, 08:36:44 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 25, 2015, 01:15:56 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2015, 07:43:53 PM
Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?
Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.
You're referring to a situation like this, where those staying to the left have the thru movement, and those to the right are turning right, but have their own signal. If you zoomed in, you would see "No Turn On Red" signage. It also does have right arrows which specifically excludes turning right on red anyway, but as most drivers aren't aware of that little factoid supplemental 'No Turn On Red' signs are used as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/lGrpe
Yeah, that's exactly what I was envisioning. If I saw a setup like that, but with normal red signals (not arrows) and no other signage, I would assume I was not allowed to pass the red signal at all, because I'm not turning right from it, I'm really just going straight through it. Anybody see it differently?
Very similar setup here in Tacoma, Wash. Here's the intersection in question. The street view is facing towards the left side of the image:
For the west-to-north movement, is traffic allowed to stop, then proceed on red? Washington only prohibits right-on-red if there's a sign (arrows are irrelevant), but that doesn't necessarily matter because the movement in question does not have arrows. Technically, Steele Street continues north to south through the image, so the movement in question would seem to be a turn, but most maps indicate the through movements as between the right of the image to the top of the image.
The only thing that keeps me from proceeding on red is how far back the stop line is set, which makes creeping out kind of weird. Some people I know go on red, some don't. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on whether or not this is a turn or a through movement. The intersection in and of itself is odd (the optional turn lane is hilariously short, and causes backups for those going from north-to-south, plus there's absolutely no pedestrian facilities [actually there is, never bothered noticing] nor any stop line for the south-to-north movement [north-to-south has no signal]).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGuMblOH.png&hash=414583be979050da2072d75a6ff3bec8d72bcd0d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVwr1Nth.png&hash=e198132acefa068372eec0064b8b6ee5a263f10c)
Quote from: empirestate on June 26, 2015, 02:33:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2015, 08:36:44 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 25, 2015, 01:15:56 AM
Quote from: empirestate on June 24, 2015, 07:43:53 PM
Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?
Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.
You're referring to a situation like this, where those staying to the left have the thru movement, and those to the right are turning right, but have their own signal. If you zoomed in, you would see "No Turn On Red" signage. It also does have right arrows which specifically excludes turning right on red anyway, but as most drivers aren't aware of that little factoid supplemental 'No Turn On Red' signs are used as well.
https://goo.gl/maps/lGrpe
Yeah, that's exactly what I was envisioning. If I saw a setup like that, but with normal red signals (not arrows) and no other signage, I would assume I was not allowed to pass the red signal at all, because I'm not turning right from it, I'm really just going straight through it. Anybody see it differently?
Well, I wouldn't necessarily think that it's a straight through movement, as you described it. But I would have the same conclusion that you can't go on the red after stop. Mainly due to the signs and arrows that say so, but also because of the dual turn situation (every similar situation in Nevada prohibits RTOR).
Quote from: jakeroot on June 26, 2015, 02:52:24 PM
Very similar setup here in Tacoma, Wash. <snipped>
In this case, the geometry of the intersection suggests the westbound to northbound movement is a through movement. That, coupled with a double turn situation, would lead me to believe no turns on red should be allowed.
Quote from: roadfro on June 27, 2015, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 26, 2015, 02:52:24 PM
Very similar setup here in Tacoma, Wash. <snipped>
In this case, the geometry of the intersection suggests the westbound to northbound movement is a through movement. That, coupled with a double turn situation, would lead me to believe no turns on red should be allowed.
One more thing I spotted; in the top of the image, the two left lanes (going south) are separated by a solid line, which in Washington is used to separate turn lanes from themselves and through lanes (see below for example). Given this, I wonder if the city considers the through traffic to be north-to-south?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuSrKpWy.png&hash=99858fe92e0a7f1b89c69c96b5ed7f9598d93b12)
Quote from: roadfro on June 27, 2015, 11:00:36 AM
Well, I wouldn't necessarily think that it's a straight through movement, as you described it. But I would have the same conclusion that you can't go on the red after stop. Mainly due to the signs and arrows that say so, but also because of the dual turn situation (every similar situation in Nevada prohibits RTOR).
Right, but in my hypothetical example the signs and arrows aren't there. In that case, then, you'd consider it a right turn?
Quote from: empirestate on June 27, 2015, 03:38:42 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 27, 2015, 11:00:36 AM
Well, I wouldn't necessarily think that it's a straight through movement, as you described it. But I would have the same conclusion that you can't go on the red after stop. Mainly due to the signs and arrows that say so, but also because of the dual turn situation (every similar situation in Nevada prohibits RTOR).
Right, but in my hypothetical example the signs and arrows aren't there. In that case, then, you'd consider it a right turn?
For an example such as the GMaps link jeffandnicole posted? Yes, I would consider that a right turn.
The geometry of the overall intersection in that example makes it fairly obvious that the movement is a right turn, even though it's a channelized right turn with large radius, could be taken at a fairly speed (relatively speaking), and the end of the channelization is fairly tangent to the roadway and you come out of it heading straight from the light. The dual-lane situation, to me, would reinforce the no turn on red instinct, even if there weren't red arrows and NTOR signs. (One could argue that this particular example need not be a dual-lane turn and signalized...)
One cou
Quote from: roadfro on June 27, 2015, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 27, 2015, 03:38:42 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 27, 2015, 11:00:36 AM
Well, I wouldn't necessarily think that it's a straight through movement, as you described it. But I would have the same conclusion that you can't go on the red after stop. Mainly due to the signs and arrows that say so, but also because of the dual turn situation (every similar situation in Nevada prohibits RTOR).
Right, but in my hypothetical example the signs and arrows aren't there. In that case, then, you'd consider it a right turn?
For an example such as the GMaps link jeffandnicole posted? Yes, I would consider that a right turn.
The geometry of the overall intersection in that example makes it fairly obvious that the movement is a right turn, even though it's a channelized right turn with large radius, could be taken at a fairly speed (relatively speaking), and the end of the channelization is fairly tangent to the roadway and you come out of it heading straight from the light. The dual-lane situation, to me, would reinforce the no turn on red instinct, even if there weren't red arrows and NTOR signs. (One could argue that this particular example need not be a dual-lane turn and signalized...)
This right turn lanes can get large amounts of usage as they lead you to another nearby intersection with a traffic light, an on ramp to the Rt 42 Freeway, and to the Deptford Mall. That mall you may recall was in the news this week for an overturned vehicle, car windows blown out and building damage caused by a disastrous line of thunderstorms producing 70mph+ straight line winds. The damage was unusual and widespread: the storm's winds (which occurred Tuesday evening) were only about 15 minutes in length, but an area approximately 400 square miles large (yes, that's about 20x20 miles) incurred uprooted trees and downed power lines. 5 days later, a widespread area is still without power, including my parent's development. Many side streets are still blocked with large trees blocking the road.
Anyway (sorry for the tangent), dual right turn lanes don't automatically prohibit turning right on red, and since traffic gong this way is leaving Rt. 41 for Rt. 544, it would definitely qualify as a right turn.
The biggest issue is the timing of the light: The light turns red with traffic from Rt 41 turning left will cross the path of traffic here. When that left turning traffic gets the red arrow, after the normal all-red phase, the light turns green. The problem is that traffic hasn't usually cleared this area yet, and now is conflicting with the right turning traffic.