We already have right on red after stop. I was thinking of straight on red after stop being legal if there is no street to the right (driveways of normal houses do not count as a street, but anything with a parking lot does).
This is similar to the existing right on red in several ways, and it would work for the same reasons that right on red works. (A T intersection would be no different from an intersection with three 120° angles regarding going through a red light).
Do you think it would be a good idea?
As it is lots of people don't stop before turning on red, and lots of people seem to think they're entitled to turn on red regardless of other traffic to whom they're supposed to have to yield. I think this sort of thing would just make the problem worse.
I believe this has been tried out in some location or another, or at least suggested and then nixed. Can't for the life of me remember where, though.
At that point, a red light basically becomes a stop sign with a red left arrow. I think you run the risk of diluting the authority of a red light to the point that even more people will disregard them than the rather alarming number who already do.
I'm gonna go with no. It seems topologically equivalent it really isn't. If I am proceeding straight through a green light, any car inching out looking like it's about to make a right on red will be directly in my field of vision and I can respond accordingly if need be. If I am turning left through a green light, I am going to be looking left since that's where I'm going. Any car trying to go straight on red from my right is going to have a good shot at blindsiding me since I'm looking completely the other way. Now, granted, this is in part because I don't expect anyone to be trying to go straight through the red light - if it were accepted practice I'd be on the lookout for it. But, the need to look right when turning left creates a hazard if done at normal speed and causes delays for side street traffic if people slow down for it.
It seems to me this problem would be solved simply by better signal actuation. If there's no one coming from the side street, turn their light red and give through traffic a green.
Why not just use a flashing red?
Because that would have a different meaning for left-turning traffic.
Why not accelerate the replacement of low-intensity intersections with roundabouts?
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2015, 10:12:00 AM
Because that would have a different meaning for left-turning traffic.
Use a signal per lane and
/or a physical barrier like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0897081,-89.3563114,3a,75y,57.59h,76.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK8f4EX5mpb_LxLXL4h5qmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0680925,-89.3847908,3a,75y,32.49h,87.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szF3cqRR4rzOp-MkbgtKVzg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DzF3cqRR4rzOp-MkbgtKVzg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D44.793015%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656).
Quote from: DaBigE on October 12, 2015, 10:19:56 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2015, 10:12:00 AM
Because that would have a different meaning for left-turning traffic.
Use a signal per lane and/or a physical barrier like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0897081,-89.3563114,3a,75y,57.59h,76.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK8f4EX5mpb_LxLXL4h5qmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0680925,-89.3847908,3a,75y,32.49h,87.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szF3cqRR4rzOp-MkbgtKVzg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DzF3cqRR4rzOp-MkbgtKVzg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D44.793015%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656).
This is a much better idea if it is required to have a barrier. Otherwise it is a horrible idea.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on October 12, 2015, 10:36:49 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 12, 2015, 10:19:56 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2015, 10:12:00 AM
Because that would have a different meaning for left-turning traffic.
Use a signal per lane and/or a physical barrier like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0897081,-89.3563114,3a,75y,57.59h,76.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK8f4EX5mpb_LxLXL4h5qmw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) or this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0680925,-89.3847908,3a,75y,32.49h,87.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szF3cqRR4rzOp-MkbgtKVzg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DzF3cqRR4rzOp-MkbgtKVzg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D44.793015%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656).
This is a much better idea if it is required to have a barrier. Otherwise it is a horrible idea.
Agreed. I meant to just say 'and' not 'and/or'. Without the barrier, I can easily see numerous sideswipes/T-bones between the left turn and thru traffic.
Northbound US-1 near Melbourne, Florida, has a continuous green for the two right lanes and no barrier for the left turns. Seems to work OK there, but I wouldn't want to see it tried in more urban areas without some sort of barrier because this design relies on the idea that people making lefts ONTO Route 1 will turn into the correct lane. That's not a premise on which I'd especially want to rely, given how often I see people turning into the wrong lanes in dual-turn situations and the like (even when there's a car in the adjacent lane).
Advance sign advising two right lanes have continuous green:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.091486,-80.608913,3a,66.8y,15.52h,82.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjuZDcuocgWHJczWkTcdcYA!2e0
Intersection itself:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.09317,-80.609807,3a,66.8y,352.88h,82.59t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1siymh4sBTnbCwdPpL00bGCw!2e0
Warning sign on the other street intended to make sure people turn into the correct lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.09344,-80.611085,3a,66.8y,97.5h,84.23t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sXhpp6kwCm2xd7fjhza2utQ!2e0
As a practical matter, there would seem to be little reason to want to go straight out of the one lane that doesn't get the continuous green, unless perhaps you know the light cycle so well that you know it won't turn before you get there.
Florida has been phasing out those right lane continuous green signals, especially on US 1 in Titusville some several miles to the north of Melbourne as these intersections cause last minute lane changes resulting in fender benders or side swipes.
Most drivers do not want to stop in that remaining lane for a light when they have that free flowing lanes next to them, so they have been making abrupt lane changes with some richards not looking over their shoulders or simply being careless.
In Orlando we had plenty of them that got replaced with standard signals in all lanes all because the mentality of many drivers these days, especially scared tourists on unfamiliar roads who do anything for fear of losing or missing their desired turn on a busy arterial.
I feel like some plastic bollards and preventing lane changes within a certain number of feet before until after the intersection would have solved that problem while continuing to allow non-stop traffic. I was very disappointed as Orlando phased them out, made some intersections much worse.
Here's one from Michigan that you speak of...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/25204143@N06/5544667150/in/faves-30862834@N02/
For what it's worth, Mexico is fond of semi-grade-separated interchanges for three-leg junctions. That is, only one half of a dual carriageway is elevated above the cross road. Under the overpass is a three-way stoplight intersection. Straight-ahead traffic is free-flowing on the grade-level carriageway, separated from left-turning exit and entrance traffic by what are basically Botts dots on steroids: yellow bumps that are easy enough to physically cross over but big enough that they very rarely ever are.
I've driven through a three-way intersection near the federal prison in East Saint Louis where straight-ahead traffic was separated from left-turning exit and enter traffic by a simple hard curb.
All that is to say, the physical barrier to eliminate the conflict need not be large, expensive, or unusual. I think this solution is preferable to a new straight-through-on-red rule.
NJ used to have something similar at Livingston Mall along CR 510 where the EB CR 510 did not have to stop at all as the traffic leaving the mall would have a nice long merge area to smoothly blend in with traffic.
This was, of course, before the office park opened across the street that now has traffic come to a full stop going EB to let WB motorists enter the office park as well as those leave the office park to go WB.
However, NJDOT and some of the counties still have those in many places still. I remember some along CR 549 (Brick Blvd.) in Brick Township, and US 22 E Bound at CR 614 in Branchburg, NJ where it is free flowing because no left turns from CR 614 to EB US 22 are allowed because of the nature of that intersection to be a wye. Motorists always made a U Turn to the west of it to compensate or use another roadway as CR 614 does parallel US 22 to the east of there.
We have an intersection here in Huntsville where the through-movement has a free-flow lane for people going straight:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.760715,-86.575517,3a,66.8y,21.33h,87.03t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sccoeD1zJEWidz-1Ybb_B1g!2e0
I've also noticed that most people going north through this intersection tend to get over into the free-flow lane.
Back to the original question, Indiana did try straight on red after stop. IIRC it was in the mid-70s. It didn't work well and was abandoned in a few months, I think.
It seems that many motorists just didn't understand the law at all. I saw some proceeding when the side street was to their right. I understood the law, but got some very odd looks from those who didn't when I proceeded through a red light.
This is an idea that's not coming back.