It wasn't legal in most of the US until 1978, but did most people do it anyways before that? Or was it completely unheard of?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 02:54:44 PM
It wasn't legal in most of the US until 1978, but did most people do it anyways before that? Or was it completely unheard of?
It was legal in most if not all states west of the Mississippi well before the 1970's.
^^ Yes. MD was the last state to legalize RTOR in 1978, with DC also legalizing it in 1978 after MD did so..
Is right on a red arrow legal? They added some right red arrows to the Terre Haute area and I'm not 100% sure if I can turn right on red legally or not. I've been just waiting until they turn green.
Quote from: US 41 on April 14, 2016, 04:19:44 PM
Is right on a red arrow legal? They added some right red arrows to the Terre Haute area and I'm not 100% sure if I can turn right on red legally or not. I've been just waiting until they turn green.
Depends on the state. In Illinois, a red right turn arrow is the same meaning as a red ball.
Massachusetts didn't adopt Right on Red until about 1978. When that law took effect; NO TURN ON RED signs started appearing like a rash.
Quote from: US 41 on April 14, 2016, 04:19:44 PM
Is right on a red arrow legal? They added some right red arrows to the Terre Haute area and I'm not 100% sure if I can turn right on red legally or not. I've been just waiting until they turn green.
Indiana's vehicle code indicates how drivers should heed green or yellow arrows, but not red arrows. So I'm not sure the answer to your question is even legally defined.
Quote from: Ind. Code § 9-21-3-7 : Indiana Code - Section 9-21-3-7: Signals exhibiting colored lights; requirements; explanation of colors(3) Steady red indication means the following:
(A) Except as provided in clause (B), vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. However, if there is no clearly marked stop line, vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. If there is no crosswalk, vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.
(B) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn described in this subdivision, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal, after coming to a complete stop, may cautiously enter the intersection to do the following:
(i) Make a right turn.
(ii) Make a left turn if turning from the left lane of a one-way street into another one-way street with the flow of traffic.
Vehicular traffic making a turn described in this subdivision shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic using the intersection.
(C) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal pedestrians facing a steady circular red signal alone may not enter the roadway.
Quote from: Brandon on April 14, 2016, 04:22:15 PM
Quote from: US 41 on April 14, 2016, 04:19:44 PM
Is right on a red arrow legal? They added some right red arrows to the Terre Haute area and I'm not 100% sure if I can turn right on red legally or not. I've been just waiting until they turn green.
Depends on the state. In Illinois, a red right turn arrow is the same meaning as a red ball.
This is also true for Texas.
Quote from: US 81 on April 14, 2016, 05:25:06 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 14, 2016, 04:22:15 PM
Quote from: US 41 on April 14, 2016, 04:19:44 PM
Is right on a red arrow legal? They added some right red arrows to the Terre Haute area and I'm not 100% sure if I can turn right on red legally or not. I've been just waiting until they turn green.
Depends on the state. In Illinois, a red right turn arrow is the same meaning as a red ball.
This is also true for Texas.
Not so in California. right turn on a red right arrow is not allowed.
From the California Driver Handbook...
No turn against a red arrow—You may not turn right or left against a red arrow.
They removed one in Wichita a little while ago shortly after it was installed. An intersection was widened to add a right turn only lane where a LOT of cars turn right. The new stoplight had a red right turn arrow, and apparently a lot of people decided they weren't allowed to turn right, even though that was the whole point of widening the intersection. It now uses a red ball for that signal head.
I found a map which supposedly shows which states permit right turns on red arrows (green) and which states do not (red). Can't be sure of it's accuracy; from this thread so far, I can determine that it perhaps lists Texas and Indiana as incorrect. The western seaboard is correct, but not sure about anything in between:
Disclaimer: the map is from 2008.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fanimatedtrafficlaw.org%2Fatlc%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F09%2Fright-on-red-arrow.png&hash=d5fffbbdd20ec8669d9b29f579adf13ac254668c)
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2016, 07:10:35 PM
I found a map which supposedly shows which states permit right turns on red arrows (green) and which states do not (red). Can't be sure of it's accuracy; from this thread so far, I can determine that it perhaps lists Texas and Indiana as incorrect. The western seaboard is correct, but not sure about anything in between:
Disclaimer: the map is from 2008.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fanimatedtrafficlaw.org%2Fatlc%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F09%2Fright-on-red-arrow.png&hash=d5fffbbdd20ec8669d9b29f579adf13ac254668c)
I do believe right on a red arrow is legal in CT, but we dont have many of them.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2016, 07:10:35 PM
I found a map which supposedly shows which states permit right turns on red arrows (green) and which states do not (red). Can't be sure of it's accuracy; from this thread so far, I can determine that it perhaps lists Texas and Indiana as incorrect. The western seaboard is correct, but not sure about anything in between:
Disclaimer: the map is from 2008.
Not that it's really relevant in the case of Pennsylvania because red arrows of any kind are rare and right red arrows ever rarer. (At least on PennDOT roads)
Typically, PennDOT would control a separate right turn with a doghouse-type signal with green and yellow arrows and a red ball atop. (Like this: https://goo.gl/maps/MNAeM2kvZuN2)
Quote from: briantroutman on April 14, 2016, 07:40:56 PM
Typically, PennDOT would control a separate right turn with a doghouse-type signal with green and yellow arrows and a red ball atop. (Like this: https://goo.gl/maps/MNAeM2kvZuN2)
I think four/five-section heads are more common for right turns where there's a straight movement, with three-section heads reserved for cases without straight movements. But I've seen both plenty of times.
Out of curiosity, why did PennDOT install a "RIGHT TURN SIGNAL" sign below that doghouse in your example? If it truly were a dedicated right turn signal, the green ball would, in theory, count as a protected right turn, just as much as the green arrow next to it.
IIRC, Ohio started allowing right turns on red on July 1, 1976, and may have been one of the first states (if not the first) to do so. At least one signal had a sign from before then, reading "Right turn on red after stop"; it was at a freeway on-ramp, and was taken down sometime after the new law took effect. Of course, the familiar square "No Turn On Red" signs started appearing all around, even in places where it was really not clear that it was needed.
I understand right-on-red in rural areas, but it's a scourge anywhere else.
It puts pedestrians at risk, because the person turning right-on-red is just looking to their left to size up a gap, and if the pedestrian is crossing with the signal, the driver won't see them. I know this, because I was hit in just such a situation.
You also have chronic violation of the rule that you're supposed to come to a
stop at the
stop bar, and then proceed right
if all of right-of-way traffic is clear. Yet, around here, you're lucky if people even yield.
I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.
Right-on-red should be banned in populated areas.
It was Woody Allen in
Annie Hall, discussing why he didn't want to move to California:
QuoteI don't want to move to a city where the only cultural advantage is being able to make a right turn on a red light.
As a personal rule, I stop for all right turn arrows that are red. To me, the arrow signifies the movement and it being red signifies that movement is stopped at the moment. Which might mean another direction gets a yellow left arrow or something. So, it's best to not count it. A flashing yellow right arrow, might be the way to go for the states that want right turn traffic to still go with caution.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2016, 07:47:55 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 14, 2016, 07:40:56 PM
Typically, PennDOT would control a separate right turn with a doghouse-type signal with green and yellow arrows and a red ball atop. (Like this: https://goo.gl/maps/MNAeM2kvZuN2)
I think four/five-section heads are more common for right turns where there's a straight movement, with three-section heads reserved for cases without straight movements. But I've seen both plenty of times.
Out of curiosity, why did PennDOT install a "RIGHT TURN SIGNAL" sign below that doghouse in your example? If it truly were a dedicated right turn signal, the green ball would, in theory, count as a protected right turn, just as much as the green arrow next to it.
It's been fairly standard PennDOT practice to place a "RIGHT TURN SIGNAL" (or "LEFT TURN SIGNAL" ) plate next to a doghouse assembly–I can only assume because of Pennsylvania's long history of not using red arrows and to avoid confusion as to the purpose of that signal assembly.
But I don't think I would take a green ball with a "RIGHT TURN SIGNAL" plate to mean that the move is protected. I'd treat it like any other green ball–just with the understanding that it applies to the right turn lane only.
I know I've seen signs at several intersections around Alabama (usually on old 4-way signals) that say either "STOP then turn right on red" or "Right Turn on Red after stop", so it's probably been legal here after a while. However, all of the right turn signals with red arrows I've seen here in Alabama have had a "Right Turn on Red Arrow after Stop", or something along the lines of that, so it seems to be illegal unless permitted here for red arrows.
Quote from: briantroutman on April 14, 2016, 08:37:37 PM
But I don't think I would take a green ball with a "RIGHT TURN SIGNAL" plate to mean that the move is protected. I'd treat it like any other green ball–just with the understanding that it applies to the right turn lane only.
I was only assuming this, because I was relating it to its left turn equivalent, which has been mostly phased out in this country: a left turn signal (with accompanying sign) with red, amber, and green orbs. When the green orb is lit, in this case, it means "protected left turn", even though a green orb is well understood to mean "yield in every direction except straight".
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.
So have I. I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.
PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.
Quote from: Super Mateo on April 14, 2016, 09:16:01 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.
So have I. I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.
Why not? Unless a sign specifically prohibits RTOR, no camera will be taking your photo, so long as you stop first. If it takes a photo, dispute it. No need to be paranoid about it.
I don't think the motorist is obliged to make a right-on-red, correct?
Virginia Code § 46.2-835
Quote
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where signs are placed prohibiting turns on steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal, after coming to a full stop, may cautiously enter the intersection and make a right turn.
Such turning traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic using the intersection.
Operative word is "may", as opposed to "shall".
We've had this discussion before, and I took the same position. Someone at that time pointed out that there are jurisdictions that word the law as 'shall' rather than 'may'. But most do not.
Quote from: kphoger on April 14, 2016, 11:06:27 PM
We've had this discussion before, and I took the same position. Someone at that time pointed out that there are jurisdictions that word the law as 'shall' rather than 'may'. But most do not.
My initial question was did people turn right on red even though it was illegal in in some states until the 70s?
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 14, 2016, 09:19:29 PM
PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.
By
"changed to" do you mean
"allowed"? I've lived in the Keystone State for nearly 26 years and RTOR has always been allowed unless signed to the contrary. I have a 1990-91 Driver's Manual at home and can verify.
As far as
states go; I believe that Massachusetts was one of the last (if not the last state) to adopt RTOR. The reasoning for implementing such was as a fuel saving measure (less idling = less gas used).
As far as allowing LTOR for 2 intersecting one-way streets; I'm not sure that all states allow for such. I know that PA and MA do.
I also know that New York
City does not allow RTOR unless signed otherwise.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2016, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 14, 2016, 09:19:29 PM
PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.
By "changed to" do you mean "allowed"? I've lived in the Keystone State for nearly 26 years and RTOR has always been allowed unless signed to the contrary. I have a 1990-91 Driver's Manual at home and can verify.
As far as states go; I believe that Massachusetts was one of the last (if not the last state) to adopt RTOR. The reasoning for implementing such was as a fuel saving measure (less idling = less gas used).
As far as allowing LTOR for 2 intersecting one-way streets; I'm not sure that all states allow for such. I know that PA and MA do.
Then there's Washington and Michigan which both allow LTOR from a two-way to a one-way street (or freeway entrance ramp).
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2016, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 14, 2016, 09:19:29 PM
PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.
By "changed to" do you mean "allowed"? I've lived in the Keystone State for nearly 26 years and RTOR has always been allowed unless signed to the contrary. I have a 1990-91 Driver's Manual at home and can verify.
As far as states go; I believe that Massachusetts was one of the last (if not the last state) to adopt RTOR. The reasoning for implementing such was as a fuel saving measure (less idling = less gas used).
As far as allowing LTOR for 2 intersecting one-way streets; I'm not sure that all states allow for such. I know that PA and MA do.
I also know that New York City does not allow RTOR unless signed otherwise.
CT's ROTR law didn't go into effect until June 1st of 1979. Now if they could only legalize left on red...
I believe then that NYC is the only place that does not allow RTOR. All because New York State made that disclosure that any municipality of 2 million or more in population is forbidden to allow such. Being NYC has over 12 thousand signalized intersection with Manhattan having over 3 million people within its 23 square miles at peak daytime hours, it would be a major task to install that many signs to say NO TURN ON RED.
However, thank goodness that NYC uses the double guy mast arm so that when along the Queens/ Nassau Border you can tell which side of the line you are on so you can make the turn or not. As the rest of NY uses span wire signals you can distinguish between the two areas.
I thought NJ prohibited right turns on red arrows, but not only can I not find anything regarding red arrows (at least looking quickly), I can't find anything regarding yellow arrows either. The state statutes appear to only address green arrows.
Regardless, it appears to be policy to post a "No Turn On Red" at intersections with red arrows. When turning right is permitted at red arrows, a sign stating "Right Turn On Red Permitted After Full Stop" or similar is posted, so there's generally no ambiguity.
Quote from: lepidopteran on April 14, 2016, 07:55:20 PM
IIRC, Ohio started allowing right turns on red on July 1, 1976, and may have been one of the first states (if not the first) to do so. At least one signal had a sign from before then, reading "Right turn on red after stop"; it was at a freeway on-ramp, and was taken down sometime after the new law took effect. Of course, the familiar square "No Turn On Red" signs started appearing all around, even in places where it was really not clear that it was needed.
If they enacted RTOR in 1976, they were one of the last states to do so, not the first. Again, most states west of the Mississippi allowed it well before the 1970's.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 10:11:51 PM
I don't think the motorist is obliged to make a right-on-red, correct?
NJ is a 'Shall' turn right on red: "39:4-115. The driver of a vehicle or the motorman of a streetcar: a. intending to turn to the right or left at an intersection where traffic is controlled by traffic control signals or by a traffic or police officer, shall proceed to make either turn with proper care to avoid accidents and, except as provided in b. below, only upon the "go" signal unless otherwise directed by a traffic or police officer, an official sign or special signal; or b. intending to turn right at an intersection where traffic is controlled by a traffic control signal shall, unless an official sign of the State, municipality, or county authority having jurisdiction over the intersection prohibits the same, proceed to make the turn upon a "stop" or "caution" signal with proper care to avoid accidents after coming to a full stop, observing traffic in all directions, yielding to other vehicular traffic traveling in a direction in which the turn will be made, and stopping and remaining stopped for pedestrians crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk, or at an unmarked crosswalk, into which the driver is turning. Both the approach for and the turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless such intersection is otherwise posted."
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 14, 2016, 09:19:29 PM
PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.
ALL states have allowed RTOR since 1978.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
I understand right-on-red in rural areas, but it's a scourge anywhere else.
It puts pedestrians at risk, because the person turning right-on-red is just looking to their left to size up a gap, and if the pedestrian is crossing with the signal, the driver won't see them. I know this, because I was hit in just such a situation.
You also have chronic violation of the rule that you're supposed to come to a stop at the stop bar, and then proceed right if all of right-of-way traffic is clear. Yet, around here, you're lucky if people even yield.
I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.
Right-on-red should be banned in populated areas.
It was Woody Allen in Annie Hall, discussing why he didn't want to move to California:
QuoteI don't want to move to a city where the only cultural advantage is being able to make a right turn on a red light.
If you strictly enforced the "stop at the stop bar", right turn on red would be de facto illegal because stop bars are put so far back that you can hardly see anything. And that's assuming that the guy in the other lane doesn't creep forward and block even more of your view!
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2016, 09:31:57 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on April 14, 2016, 09:16:01 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.
So have I. I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.
Why not? Unless a sign specifically prohibits RTOR, no camera will be taking your photo, so long as you stop first. If it takes a photo, dispute it. No need to be paranoid about it.
Red light cameras are notoriously unreliable. People HAVE gotten tickets for making rights on red before. Heck, people have even gotten tickets when they entered before the light turned red, just because they were moving faster than the camera expected and it assumed they wouldn't have made the light.
Quote from: Super Mateo on April 14, 2016, 09:16:01 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.
So have I. I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.
If there is a specific right turn lane, and the bozo behind me is not signalling a right turn, I don't go.
Tee hee.
Sux to not use blinkers don't it assbungwipelicker ??
:-D
Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 12:57:43 PM
If you strictly enforced the "stop at the stop bar", right turn on red would be de facto illegal because stop bars are put so far back that you can hardly see anything. And that's assuming that the guy in the other lane doesn't creep forward and block even more of your view!
So basically you're saying that other rules should be ignored simply so that RTOR can be preserved. With mindests like that, no wonder this country has a terrible safety record for automobile-caused fatalities.
I personally have no problem with banning RTOR due to intersection conditions. After all, state DOT engineers refuse to put in crosswalks on all sorts of busy roads on the basis that it would be "too difficult" for motorists to stop in time. If an intersection is fundamentally unsound for a RTOR after stopping at the stop bar, then ban RTOR until the intersection is modified.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
I understand right-on-red in rural areas, but it's a scourge anywhere else.
It puts pedestrians at risk, because the person turning right-on-red is just looking to their left to size up a gap, and if the pedestrian is crossing with the signal, the driver won't see them. I know this, because I was hit in just such a situation.
You also have chronic violation of the rule that you're supposed to come to a stop at the stop bar, and then proceed right if all of right-of-way traffic is clear. Yet, around here, you're lucky if people even yield.
I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.
Right-on-red should be banned in populated areas.
It was Woody Allen in Annie Hall, discussing why he didn't want to move to California:
QuoteI don't want to move to a city where the only cultural advantage is being able to make a right turn on a red light.
I agree with some of your concerns and I note the problem that people think they are entitled to turn on red regardless of what other traffic there may be. The key principle, IMO, is that you have a RED LIGHT. Turning on red is an exception to the rule that you have to wait for the green, and it should be strictly construed. You must yield to anyone else who's entitled to go, and that includes U-turners who have a green arrow (I'm thinking in particular of the intersection of Edsall and Van Dorn where the Mr. Wash and the McDonald's generate a lot of U-turns).
But I don't think banning it entirely is the way to go. I would first ban it during daytime hours. Fairfax County used to have a fair number of "no turn on red 7 AM to 7 PM" restrictions. That'd be a good starting point because there's less traffic outside those times. Or use light-up signs for part-time restrictions at particular lights where certain hours are problems, perhaps near schools or the like.
I am not sure if right turn on red right arrows are allowed in Wisconsin, because when they install 3 section right turn signals, they always have red ball indications.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 01:16:48 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 12:57:43 PM
If you strictly enforced the "stop at the stop bar", right turn on red would be de facto illegal because stop bars are put so far back that you can hardly see anything. And that's assuming that the guy in the other lane doesn't creep forward and block even more of your view!
So basically you're saying that other rules should be ignored simply so that RTOR can be preserved. With mindests like that, no wonder this country has a terrible safety record for automobile-caused fatalities.
I personally have no problem with banning RTOR due to intersection conditions. After all, state DOT engineers refuse to put in crosswalks on all sorts of busy roads on the basis that it would be "too difficult" for motorists to stop in time. If an intersection is fundamentally unsound for a RTOR after stopping at the stop bar, then ban RTOR until the intersection is modified.
If you strictly adhered to every single rule of the road, driving would be essentially impossible. One has to be flexible. As for "with mindsets like that, no wonder this country has a terrible safety record", I have NEVER been involved in an accident major enough to warrant calling police/insurance and I've never gotten a ticket. Perhaps if more people drove like me, we wouldn't have as many accidents. In any case, your anti-car attitude is showing.
I would MUCH rather we increase licensing standards rather than ban things to cater to the lowest common denominator. If someone isn't capable of exercising the judgement to make a right on red, they shouldn't be driving. If I had my way, a top-notch driver's ed course would be MANDATORY, the written test would be a lot harder (all questions would be short answer/essay, for example), and the road test would include things like accelerating on a freeway and driving in the middle of a blizzard (if that means you need to wait for a blizzard to take the test, so be it). People would be re-tested every time they renew their license, and if someone was at-fault for an accident that cause injuries/fatalities, they would be banned from operating a motor vehicle for LIFE (if the accident did not cause injuries/fatalities but created a backup on the road, then a temporary license suspension would occur) (also, being at-fault for an accident involving fatalities would result in mandatory jail time). Meanwhile, I would eliminate speed traps, camera enforcement, and checkpoints and remove many of the laws/issues put in place because so many drivers are bad (such as artificially low speed limits and the proliferation of speed bumps and all-way stops).
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
Right-on-red should be banned in populated areas.
It is, when necessary. That's what the "No Turn On Red" sign is for. If an agency deems it safe enough to turn, they don't post the sign.
When doing a blanket ban, you're bound to come across areas where there's no need to ban it.
The "shall" and "may" question is very interesting to me. If a law said, basically, that a person shall make a right turn after stopping and yielding the right-of-way when facing a red light, I would read that to mean that he shall not make that turn without stopping and yielding.
If you read the King James Version of the Bible or the US Constitution, you'll see very different uses of "shall," and many of them are only very subtly different. I don't know the technical terminology, but the word has what I call an "absolute future" tense.
The Constitution states: "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
That last "shall" is interesting. It isn't a command. It isn't prophecy, which the KJV uses the word a lot to refer to. It's more like an "if." It's kind of like a "conditional absolute future" sense of the word, saying that if a thing in the future does actually happen, that's when the rest of the sentence applies.
Due the very flexible nature of the word and some of the things it can mean, I think it's reasonable to conclude that "shall turn right after..." means "shall not turn right before..."
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 15, 2016, 02:17:14 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
Right-on-red should be banned in populated areas.
It is, when necessary. That's what the "No Turn On Red" sign is for. If an agency deems it safe enough to turn, they don't post the sign.
When doing a blanket ban, you're bound to come across areas where there's no need to ban it.
By that logic, there's no need for a blanket ban on DUI, right? After all, there's no need for it in rural areas and such.
Driving while impaired is dangerous no matter where one is driving. Doesn't matter if it's rural or not.
Quote from: kphoger on April 14, 2016, 04:36:28 PM
Quote from: US 41 on April 14, 2016, 04:19:44 PM
Is right on a red arrow legal? They added some right red arrows to the Terre Haute area and I'm not 100% sure if I can turn right on red legally or not. I've been just waiting until they turn green.
Indiana's vehicle code indicates how drivers should heed green or yellow arrows, but not red arrows. So I'm not sure the answer to your question is even legally defined.
Quote from: Ind. Code § 9-21-3-7 : Indiana Code - Section 9-21-3-7: Signals exhibiting colored lights; requirements; explanation of colors(3) Steady red indication means the following:
(A) Except as provided in clause (B), vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. However, if there is no clearly marked stop line, vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. If there is no crosswalk, vehicular traffic shall stop before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.
(B) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn described in this subdivision, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal, after coming to a complete stop, may cautiously enter the intersection to do the following:
(i) Make a right turn.
(ii) Make a left turn if turning from the left lane of a one-way street into another one-way street with the flow of traffic.
Vehicular traffic making a turn described in this subdivision shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic using the intersection.
(C) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal pedestrians facing a steady circular red signal alone may not enter the roadway.
I'd argue that "facing a steady red signal" in the part that authorizes a right turn includes a steady red arrow. This part is separate from the "steady circular red signal" above. The lack of a description of shape would mean that it applies to all steady red lights of any shape.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem to require the the complete stop when facing a red arrow occur before entering the crosswalk or intersection, as required when there's a circle.
On a third hand, there's an apparent conflict where it says "Except as provided in clause (B)" because that seems to link the red circle with the red signal of no particular shape. However, I don't think it is a conflict, because what it seems to mean is that turning right when facing a red circle is allowed as described in (B), but (B) also allows turning right when facing a red arrow.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:22:17 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 15, 2016, 02:17:14 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
Right-on-red should be banned in populated areas.
It is, when necessary. That's what the "No Turn On Red" sign is for. If an agency deems it safe enough to turn, they don't post the sign.
When doing a blanket ban, you're bound to come across areas where there's no need to ban it.
By that logic, there's no need for a blanket ban on DUI, right? After all, there's no need for it in rural areas and such.
Um, no, there absolutely no logical connection between permitting or prohibiting right on red at an intersection and comparing it with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 02:33:55 PM
Driving while impaired is dangerous no matter where one is driving. Doesn't matter if it's rural or not.
But you already established that rules should be flexible based on local conditions and such. If you're the only one on a dirt road, who are you harming by driving drunk?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:40:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 02:33:55 PM
Driving while impaired is dangerous no matter where one is driving. Doesn't matter if it's rural or not.
But you already established that rules should be flexible based on local conditions and such. If you're the only one on a dirt road, who are you harming by driving drunk?
Yourself. And anyone else walking along or near that dirt road. What if there's a house on that dirt road and people are outside, and the drunk flies off the road. Or what if the drunk flies off the road and hits the house?
Seat Belts work the same way. The only one I harm is myself. No dead person ever went to their governor crying that he/she should make everyone else wear seatbelts.
You do understand the rules for turning right on red haven't really changed for decades, right? The only people that really want blanket RTOR restrictions are the same ones that seem to enjoy bicycle lanes and other anti-car initiatives.
Let me put it another way.
Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 11:19:00 PM
My initial question was did people turn right on red even though it was illegal in in some states until the 70s?
Just bumping this, since I'd also be curious to know the answer.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:59:20 PM
Let me put it another way.
Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?
:rolleyes:
I'm just curious why RTOR is safe and LTOR isn't.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:59:20 PM
Let me put it another way.
Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?
The cyclists certainly seem to think they have that right and that pedestrians who have the "walk" sign are supposed to stay out of their way.....
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:59:20 PM
Let me put it another way.
Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?
The cyclists certainly seem to think they have that right and that pedestrians who have the "walk" sign are supposed to stay out of their way.....
I'm more interested in the legal justification behind allowing the motorist to exercise judgement when making a RTOR, but not to extend the same privileges for situations concerning LTOR or Straight-on-Red. What's the fundamental difference, after all?
Quote from: empirestate on April 15, 2016, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 11:19:00 PM
My initial question was did people turn right on red even though it was illegal in in some states until the 70s?
Just bumping this, since I'd also be curious to know the answer.
Since those people will now be in their mid-upper 50's at the youngest, I doubt we're going to hear from many.
I'm sure, like with anything, there were a few people that did the illegal maneuver.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 03:27:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:59:20 PM
Let me put it another way.
Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?
The cyclists certainly seem to think they have that right and that pedestrians who have the "walk" sign are supposed to stay out of their way.....
I'm more interested in the legal justification behind allowing the motorist to exercise judgement when making a RTOR, but not to extend the same privileges for situations concerning LTOR or Straight-on-Red. What's the fundamental difference, after all?
I'm assuming that, for the most part, LTOR is a situation that nobody in those states really though about to include in the vehicle code. If nobody thought to include it, then only RTOR would be specifically mentioned in the code.
The way I see if, if you can trust the motorist to properly judge when it is safe to execute a right turn on red, I don't know what's fundamentally different about allowing the motorist to decide to make the other maneuver (left on red, and straight on red).
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2016, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 14, 2016, 09:19:29 PM
PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.
By "changed to" do you mean "allowed"? I've lived in the Keystone State for nearly 26 years and RTOR has always been allowed unless signed to the contrary. I have a 1990-91 Driver's Manual at home and can verify.
Yes, I meant "allowed". Was the RTOR limited to the entire state or just the Philadelphia metro area only?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 04:11:04 PM
The way I see if, if you can trust the motorist to properly judge when it is safe to execute a right turn on red, I don't know what's fundamentally different about allowing the motorist to decide to make the other maneuver (left on red, and straight on red).
There may not be anything "fundamentally different", except perhaps other drivers' expectations due to unfamiliarity. But that's a separate issue from something being specifically spelled out in the vehicle code. Generally, only right turns on red are permitted, whereas left turns on red are a similar situation that most people never even really think about being similar. Therefore, a lot of vehicle codes don't address the situation–defaulting instead to other restrictions against turning left on red, which were actually intended to address normal red balls at two-way traffic situations.
In other words, does the law ever actually specifically prohibit left turn on red between one-way streets? I've never seen that. All I've seen in code is specifically permitting it or not specifically addressing it.
Apart from a junction of one-way streets, however–and I realize now this is what you're talking about–there
is a fundamental difference. RTOR at a junction of two-way streets only puts one traffic lane in jeopardy: the nearest lane on the cross-street (the one you're turning into). LTOR at a junction of two-way streets, however, puts at least three lanes in jeopardy: opposing traffic (which you're crossing), the nearest lane of the cross-street (which you're also crossing), and the nearest lane on the other side of the cross-street (the one you're turning into). That's a lot more dangerous.
I wish turning/straight on red was legal during overnight hours, except where otherwise posted. Waiting for "traffic" when it's 2 in the morning is a fool's errand.
Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2016, 04:30:16 PM
Apart from a junction of one-way streets, however–and I realize now this is what you're talking about–there is a fundamental difference. RTOR at a junction of two-way streets only puts one traffic lane in jeopardy: the nearest lane on the cross-street (the one you're turning into). LTOR at a junction of two-way streets, however, puts at least three lanes in jeopardy: opposing traffic (which you're crossing), the nearest lane of the cross-street (which you're also crossing), and the nearest lane on the other side of the cross-street (the one you're turning into). That's a lot more dangerous.
But pro-RTOR people have already concluded that drivers are competent at assessing when it is safe to go. If we've already established that people are capable of deciding when it is safe to RTOR, why make the other maneuvers any different?
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 15, 2016, 04:15:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 15, 2016, 09:27:28 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 14, 2016, 09:19:29 PM
PennDOT changed to RTOR in 2009/2010, because I still have a copy of the driver's manual of those years. However, I don't have manuals earlier than that. Also, if memory serves, neighboring states of NJ and NY also have RTOR, but I'll need to check when I go up towards that area sometime later.
By "changed to" do you mean "allowed"? I've lived in the Keystone State for nearly 26 years and RTOR has always been allowed unless signed to the contrary. I have a 1990-91 Driver's Manual at home and can verify.
Yes, I meant "allowed". Was the RTOR limited to the entire state or just the Philadelphia metro area only?
Is this a serious question? Again, since 1978. At minimum.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2016, 04:30:16 PM
Apart from a junction of one-way streets, however–and I realize now this is what you're talking about–there is a fundamental difference. RTOR at a junction of two-way streets only puts one traffic lane in jeopardy: the nearest lane on the cross-street (the one you're turning into). LTOR at a junction of two-way streets, however, puts at least three lanes in jeopardy: opposing traffic (which you're crossing), the nearest lane of the cross-street (which you're also crossing), and the nearest lane on the other side of the cross-street (the one you're turning into). That's a lot more dangerous.
But pro-RTOR people have already concluded that drivers are competent at assessing when it is safe to go. If we've already established that people are capable of deciding when it is safe to RTOR, why make the other maneuvers any different?
Pro-RTOR people have concluded that drivers are competent at assessing when it is safe to go
when there is only one lane of traffic about which they have to make that decision. Other maneuvers are not the same situation; you are comparing apples to oranges. As it is, RTOR functions basically the same as a slip with a Yield sign, except without the slip and requiring a full stop instead.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 03:20:41 PM
I'm just curious why RTOR is safe and LTOR isn't.
It is (when not crossing oncoming traffic), and some states *GASP* even allow it from a two-way to a one-way street or freeway entrance ramp.
Please, stop going all Godwin-esque on this stuff.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 11:19:00 PM
My initial question was did people turn right on red even though it was illegal in in some states until the 70s?
According to my grandfather, who is 76...
Quote from: iMessage
For the most part, I don't think they did but you know some people are just born law breakers. Lol
I'm not sure A) how good his memory is, nor B) how long Washington has permitted right turns on red (though its been since at least 1975:
http://goo.gl/WfhGGT --
note that this amendment added a whole section on red arrows, defining a left or right turn on a red arrow as legal for the first time). But I get the feeling that most people waited, with some apparently predicting the future, turning on red anyways.
To be honest, I'm not against the idea of being able to go straight or turn left on red
if there's no traffic around. Not as uncommon a situation and NE2 has previously suggested the last time I brought it up, by the way. I can think of two intersections (and one midblock pedestrian crossing where the light forces people to stop for far longer than the pedestrian would be anywhere near their vehicle) near home where I often have this situation (one of which is is
extremely rare to encounter another car; I suspect the light is there for speed control). Obviously such cases are much fewer in number than right on red, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and it's nothing that cyclists aren't already trying to get special privileges for.
As for the DUI comparison, even on an empty road, one could veer off the road and hit a pedestrian or damage someone's property. And who's to say that the road is empty? If the one time there's another car is the one time the drunk driver couldn't keep control of the vehicle, game over. My opposition to driving drunk isn't because it's illegal (though I believe that something being illegal
in and of itself is a rather stupid reason to be against something; whether something is bad or not depends on its intentional and unintentional consequences on others; the law, if implemented properly, is a guide as to what is generally right and what is generally wrong, and IMO common sense should always come first) - it's because it's dangerous to others (and not, I don't favor a "zero tolerance" limit of 0.00% for anyone, under 21 or not, though I'm open to lowering it to 0.05% as people are impaired, even if they don't know it, at that level; like I said before, though, I AM against checkpoint enforcement).
As for seatbelts, they do protect others. In the event of an accident, people not wearing seatbelts become projectiles that can severely injure or kill passengers or even people in other vehicles.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 03:27:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:59:20 PM
Let me put it another way.
Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?
The cyclists certainly seem to think they have that right and that pedestrians who have the "walk" sign are supposed to stay out of their way.....
I'm more interested in the legal justification behind allowing the motorist to exercise judgement when making a RTOR, but not to extend the same privileges for situations concerning LTOR or Straight-on-Red. What's the fundamental difference, after all?
And I'm interested in the fact that you ducked the question.
I kind of think something vdeane said earlier in the thread sums it up: Why should we cater to the lowest common denominator? What AlexandriaVA seems to consider to be horrible–a situation where the rule might seem at first blush to vary and where drivers are expected to know what to do and to do it–is rather similar to how it is in Europe, where there are a lot more yields (or "give-ways") and way fewer annoying stop signs and the like. I always find it very refreshing to drive there, though of course turns on red are generally prohibited. There's no reason other than stupid tradition and fear for the American resistance to more permissive signage. "You might have to stop sometime, so we'll require you to stop every time." A Russian of my acquaintance once commented to me that most Americans have no clue what to do unless there's a sign. He's right. It's sad.
BTW, left on red (from a one-way to another one-way) is legal in Virginia, and I can think of several places in Alexandria where it's available. I'm the only person I ever see doing it and I'd wager the other drivers all think I'm running the red lights when I do it.
(BTW, I say "seem at first blush to vary" because the give-way rule is almost always the same, except in France where roundabouts are exceptions to the normal priorité rule, but you just don't have the same ubiquity of all-way stops or the like that you do in the US, so to an American it may feel less predictable until you're used to it.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 07:49:52 PM
BTW, left on red (from a one-way to another one-way) is legal in Virginia, and I can think of several places in Alexandria where it's available. I'm the only person I ever see doing it and I'd wager the other drivers all think I'm running the red lights when I do it.
Gripping! I would have thought that left turns on red from one-way roads to other one-way roads would have been practiced more. Here in the Seattle area, there aren't a lot of one-way roads outside of the CBD, but LTOR is practiced often downtown. Interestingly (though not all that surprising), left turns on red from two-way to one-way roads is seldom practiced. In downtown areas, I've witnessed it occasionally. But I am 100% certain that I'm the only person to ever turn left on red at this light: https://goo.gl/sbVOSA
I think people here simply don't know it's legal. (Across the river in DC it isn't.)
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:40:14 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 02:33:55 PM
Driving while impaired is dangerous no matter where one is driving. Doesn't matter if it's rural or not.
But you already established that rules should be flexible based on local conditions and such. If you're the only one on a dirt road, who are you harming by driving drunk?
Even if rules are flexible based on local conditions, alcohol isn't. A driver can quite reasonably turn right on red and one signal and then be prohibited from doing so at the next, depending on the conditions at each intersection. But a driver who's drunk on a dirt road cannot suddenly stop being drunk when they turn off of it onto a more major road.
And if their entire trip is on a dirt road, well, probably not may cops patrolling it so their behavior in that case is de facto legal due to lack of enforcement.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 15, 2016, 04:39:24 PM
I wish turning/straight on red was legal during overnight hours, except where otherwise posted. Waiting for "traffic" when it's 2 in the morning is a fool's errand.
This is an artificial problem manufactured by boneheadded jurisdictions insisting on running their signals 24/7 rather than putting them in flash mode during hours when they are not needed.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2016, 04:30:16 PM
Apart from a junction of one-way streets, however–and I realize now this is what you're talking about–there is a fundamental difference. RTOR at a junction of two-way streets only puts one traffic lane in jeopardy: the nearest lane on the cross-street (the one you're turning into). LTOR at a junction of two-way streets, however, puts at least three lanes in jeopardy: opposing traffic (which you're crossing), the nearest lane of the cross-street (which you're also crossing), and the nearest lane on the other side of the cross-street (the one you're turning into). That's a lot more dangerous.
But pro-RTOR people have already concluded that drivers are competent at assessing when it is safe to go. If we've already established that people are capable of deciding when it is safe to RTOR, why make the other maneuvers any different?
Because it's not just that the other maneuvers are more dangerous, they are also much more difficult to asses the safety of on the fly.
If you were looking at me waiting for me to throw a rubber ball at you, you'd probably be pretty good at getting out of the way when I did. But if two people on opposite sides of you were simultaneously preparing to throw balls at you, how good would you be at successfully dodging both of them?
This is the same as the difference between right on red and straight or left on red (onto a two way street). One requires that you avoid crashing into traffic coming from one direction. The other requires that you simultaneously avoid crashing into traffic coming from two opposite directions.
On the other hand this is also why prohibiting right on red in places where there is a reasonable likelihood of pedestrians being present makes sense: needing to ensure that there is no traffic approaching from the left and no pedestrians in the crosswalk to the right creates a similar situation to why we don't allow straight on red, because you need to avoid conflicting movements from two opposite sides.
Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 07:34:11 PM
As for seatbelts, they do protect others. In the event of an accident, people not wearing seatbelts become projectiles that can severely injure or kill passengers or even people in other vehicles.
They also protect other drivers from liability. In the event of an accident, people not wearing seatbelts are more likely to die or get more severely injured, thus resulting in greater civil or even criminal penalties for the driver at fault.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 09:26:46 PM
I think people here simply don't know it's legal. (Across the river in DC it isn't.)
TIL. I thought LTOR from a one-way to a one-way was legal anywhere in the US. I've never driven in the District (if my work takes me there instead of the suburbs, I just take the metro and/or Uber) but that's good to know if I ever need to.
Quote from: realjd on April 15, 2016, 11:18:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 09:26:46 PM
I think people here simply don't know it's legal. (Across the river in DC it isn't.)
TIL. I thought LTOR from a one-way to a one-way was legal anywhere in the US. I've never driven in the District (if my work takes me there instead of the suburbs, I just take the metro and/or Uber) but that's good to know if I ever need to.
I'm sure we've probably had a thread on that before, but I know it's definitely not legal everywhere. Aside from DC, I know North Carolina prohibits it because that was the first thing I looked up in the law library 21 years ago when I started law school down there. I'd moved into my apartment about a week before classes started so I'd have time to explore the area and settle in and I quickly discovered all the one-way streets in downtown Durham, so I went over to the library to find out whether left on red was legal because I knew it wasn't in DC and I didn't know what North Carolina law was. I can't say as I remember any more what the other states are that prohibit it.
Quote from: vdeane on April 15, 2016, 07:34:11 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 03:27:44 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 15, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 15, 2016, 02:59:20 PM
Let me put it another way.
Since rules should be modified based on intersection conditions, do you support the right of motorists to proceed through red lights (not just RTOR, but also straight through, or left-hand-turn), if the motorist deems it to be safe?
The cyclists certainly seem to think they have that right and that pedestrians who have the "walk" sign are supposed to stay out of their way.....
I'm more interested in the legal justification behind allowing the motorist to exercise judgement when making a RTOR, but not to extend the same privileges for situations concerning LTOR or Straight-on-Red. What's the fundamental difference, after all?
And I'm interested in the fact that you ducked the question.
Part of what I find amusing about the issue I raised is that there are a lot of pedestrian and cycling advocates who feel they should have flexible rules that allow them to ignore the signs when it suits them to do so, yet they oppose the same principle for drivers of motor vehicles. In another thread in a different subforum he more or less told me I should jaywalk because it's faster. Certainly I can think of intersections where crossing against the light is not a big deal because it's easy to see, but I can also think of others where someone unfamiliar with the area would not know the odd traffic pattern and would take a serious risk jaywalking because he wouldn't realize people would be turning and wouldn't see them coming. I don't necessarily think that sort of thing is a reason to condemn all jaywalkers all the time, although I do see a lot of really stupid behavior out there and I come back to the point you made earlier in the thread about the American attitude of always wanting to protect the dumbest of the dumb.
I think in my mind the analysis of the turning-on-red situation comes down to the idea that yes, it is an exception to the rules, but it's one where the authorities have examined it and determined that the risk posed by that exception is relatively low. Where the risk is higher, they put up a sign restricting or banning the exception. An example of "restricting" is something that ought to be familiar to forum member "AlexandriaVA"–in the City of Alexandria, it's very common to see signs reading "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present." A bunch of lights near the Whole Foods on Duke Street have those, and they're specifically intended to address one of the concerns he's raised. I sometimes find those signs annoying because some drivers not used to them overlook the "when pedestrians are present" portion, but whatever. It seems to me it's not hard at all to think of
types of locations where you might be more likely to restrict turns on red–a light outside a subway station, for example, where lots of people are likely to be crossing the street, or perhaps adjacent to a hospital's ER entrance.
It seems to me the idea of allowing an exception deemed to pose a relatively low risk is not all that different in principle from the notion, advocated by many cyclists, of allowing bike riders to run stop signs if they slow and determine the other road is clear. You're trusting the cyclist to use sound judgment and to determine there is nobody coming to whom he would have to yield. Of course we all know in practice that would be taken to mean "I have the right to go and you have to let me," just like a lot of drivers wrongly think "I am entitled to turn right on red, so you have to watch out for me." That attitude is wrong. I don't think it's a reason to ban turning on red, but I do think it might be a reason to restrict it more often in urban and suburban areas, such as the example I gave earlier of not allowing it during daytime hours or near schools during the hours when the school speed limit is in effect.
(Before someone says "the cyclist doesn't pose a danger to other people and the motor vehicles do," I disagree. Certainly a car CAN be more dangerous, but I regularly see cyclists ignoring red lights and rocketing through crosswalks filled with people legally crossing the street. A cyclist plowing into a pedestrian is likely to cause far more injuries to both of them than a very slowly-moving car turning right on red at the same intersection.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 16, 2016, 08:50:22 AM
Part of what I find amusing about the issue I raised is that there are a lot of pedestrian and cycling advocates who feel they should have flexible rules that allow them to ignore the signs when it suits them to do so, yet they oppose the same principle for drivers of motor vehicles. In another thread in a different subforum he more or less told me I should jaywalk because it's faster. Certainly I can think of intersections where crossing against the light is not a big deal because it's easy to see, but I can also think of others where someone unfamiliar with the area would not know the odd traffic pattern and would take a serious risk jaywalking because he wouldn't realize people would be turning and wouldn't see them coming. I don't necessarily think that sort of thing is a reason to condemn all jaywalkers all the time, although I do see a lot of really stupid behavior out there and I come back to the point you made earlier in the thread about the American attitude of always wanting to protect the dumbest of the dumb.
* * *
It seems to me the idea of allowing an exception deemed to pose a relatively low risk is not all that different in principle from the notion, advocated by many cyclists, of allowing bike riders to run stop signs if they slow and determine the other road is clear. You're trusting the cyclist to use sound judgment and to determine there is nobody coming to whom he would have to yield. Of course we all know in practice that would be taken to mean "I have the right to go and you have to let me," just like a lot of drivers wrongly think "I am entitled to turn right on red, so you have to watch out for me." That attitude is wrong. I don't think it's a reason to ban turning on red, but I do think it might be a reason to restrict it more often in urban and suburban areas, such as the example I gave earlier of not allowing it during daytime hours or near schools during the hours when the school speed limit is in effect.
(Before someone says "the cyclist doesn't pose a danger to other people and the motor vehicles do," I disagree. Certainly a car CAN be more dangerous, but I regularly see cyclists ignoring red lights and rocketing through crosswalks filled with people legally crossing the street. A cyclist plowing into a pedestrian is likely to cause far more injuries to both of them than a very slowly-moving car turning right on red at the same intersection.)
Now that you've pre-countered my argument... I do maintain that the risk in a car turning right on red is greater than a cyclist blowing through an intersection. The damage done by another vehicle crashing into the right-turn offender definitely has greater potential for injury than the bicycling offender. A bicycle going 15 mph hitting a couple of pedestrians going 3 mph is a far cry from a motor vehicle going 35 mph hitting another motor vehicle at any speed.
(For the record, I've been hit by a car both as a pedestrian and as a cyclist, and the latter more than once. One of the times I was hit as a cyclist, it was my fault for blowing through the intersection; as a pedestrian, it was the driver's fault for not yielding before turning right.)
^^ This was the only thing I liked about Spain better than here in America. In Spain pedestrians yield for cars rather than cars yielding for pedestrians. In fact all the lights would be red to allow people to get across the street. There's nothing more annoying than sitting at a green light waiting for pedestrians to get across the street. In my home town of Terre Haute, Indiana, the "Spain" rule typically applies, but I've noticed that people have no problem walking out in front of you in places like Bloomington and downtown Indianapolis. IMO yield to pedestrians is poorly phrased. Yes you don't want to hit people, but a lot of people find it totally acceptable to just walk out in front you anymore. The "yield to traffic" phrase should be what people learn.
Indeed I think some people walk out and essentially dare you to hit them.
Regarding kphoger's point (I won't quote, too hard to edit down the quote on my phone), I admit I wasn't really thinking about vehicle-on-vehicle crashes and in that respect you make a valid point. I was thinking more about the guy turning on red not looking for pedestrians because that scenario is what AlexandriaVA mentioned.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 16, 2016, 12:26:53 PM
Indeed I think some people walk out and essentially dare you to hit them.
For every pedestrian that walks out and essentially dares you to hit him, there are a thousand drivers who keep going and dare you to walk in front of them.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 16, 2016, 08:50:22 AM
An example of "restricting" is something that ought to be familiar to forum member "AlexandriaVA"–in the City of Alexandria, it's very common to see signs reading "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present." A bunch of lights near the Whole Foods on Duke Street have those, and they're specifically intended to address one of the concerns he's raised. I sometimes find those signs annoying because some drivers not used to them overlook the "when pedestrians are present" portion, but whatever.
I've encountered similar signage in Long Island. I am not a fan of it due to the highly ambiguous meaning of "when pedestrians are present". Does that mean no turn on red when there are pedestrians in or waiting to enter the crosswalk? No turn on red when there are pedestrians near the crosswalk, even if they're walking away from the intersection? No turn on red when there are any pedestrians in sight at all?
This sort of sign smells to me like an opportunity for easy revenue enhancement, and I'm sure some of the drivers declining to turn on red at them are doing so because they smell the same thing.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 02:54:44 PM
It wasn't legal in most of the US until 1978, but did most people do it anyways before that? Or was it completely unheard of?
Pardon me for actually answering the question that started this thread. I got my license in 1973, in Maryland. At that time, it never occurred to me, or anybody else whose car I was in, to turn right at a red light. It's a red light. Red meant stop. I believe it still does.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2016, 09:31:57 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on April 14, 2016, 09:16:01 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.
So have I. I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.
Why not? Unless a sign specifically prohibits RTOR, no camera will be taking your photo, so long as you stop first. If it takes a photo, dispute it. No need to be paranoid about it.
That's not true. The cameras in the Chicago suburbs photograph any car that crosses the stop bar on red. It's common knowledge around here that those tickets are impossible to fight, as well. There are many people that are doing that now, too. You can't take any chances around here. Those things exist only to take money away from us. If you have ever driven in Chicago or it's suburbs, you'll understand.
Quote from: Super Mateo on April 16, 2016, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2016, 09:31:57 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on April 14, 2016, 09:16:01 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.
So have I. I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.
Why not? Unless a sign specifically prohibits RTOR, no camera will be taking your photo, so long as you stop first. If it takes a photo, dispute it. No need to be paranoid about it.
That's not true. The cameras in the Chicago suburbs photograph any car that crosses the stop bar on red. It's common knowledge around here that those tickets are impossible to fight, as well. There are many people that are doing that now, too. You can't take any chances around here. Those things exist only to take money away from us. If you have ever driven in Chicago or it's suburbs, you'll understand.
You should have said that in your original comment, then ("
I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections in Chicago). Because, to me, you're describing a preposterous situation, where a camera is ticketing you for performing a legal maneuver.
Also, why are they impossible to fight? Just tell them you weren't the driver. Or at very least, show them the video where you stopped first. They're the easiest tickets to fight. How many other tickets provide video evidence?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 02:54:44 PM
It wasn't legal in most of the US until 1978, but did most people do it anyways before that? Or was it completely unheard of?
Short answer: Yes, they did, at least from my experience.
Longer answer: I've lived in Michigan most of my life. I've had a driver's license since 1969. In the early 1970s, I started working for the local phone company as an installer in Detroit. Driving from job to job, I quickly learned that in many parts of town that traffic control devices of all sorts were considered superfluous. I couldn't begin to tally the number of times I saw people ignore red lights, blow stop signs, consider yielding as an affront to their personal liberty, etc. I got real paranoid driving, real fast. I managed to escape after 10 years of that with only one accident (was rear-ended at a stop light).
Oddly enough, I can still recall my first RTOR the day the law went into effect in 1976*. For those familiar with Detroit streets, it was from the NB Southfield Freeway service drive onto EB Puritan. Felt weird as all get-out.
* Google News archive story about the new RTOR law in Michigan:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19760327&id=DZRaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MEoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5571,5905744
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2016, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on April 16, 2016, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2016, 09:31:57 PM
Quote from: Super Mateo on April 14, 2016, 09:16:01 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on April 14, 2016, 07:55:33 PM
I've been honked at for the sin of stopping at a red light before turning right.
So have I. I've also been honked at for choosing not to turn on red; I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections.
Why not? Unless a sign specifically prohibits RTOR, no camera will be taking your photo, so long as you stop first. If it takes a photo, dispute it. No need to be paranoid about it.
That's not true. The cameras in the Chicago suburbs photograph any car that crosses the stop bar on red. It's common knowledge around here that those tickets are impossible to fight, as well. There are many people that are doing that now, too. You can't take any chances around here. Those things exist only to take money away from us. If you have ever driven in Chicago or it's suburbs, you'll understand.
You should have said that in your original comment, then ("I do not turn on red at red light camera controlled intersections in Chicago). Because, to me, you're describing a preposterous situation, where a camera is ticketing you for performing a legal maneuver.
Also, why are they impossible to fight? Just tell them you weren't the driver. Or at very least, show them the video where you stopped first. They're the easiest tickets to fight. How many other tickets provide video evidence?
In big cities, traffic court is so painful to deal with that most people just pay the ticket. Even trying to fight it is gonna cost a fair amount in parking fees and a day off from work, which for some people means an unpaid day off. Judges aren't generally very accommodating - they want you in and out quickly.
Its not right, but it's part of dealing with big cities. If these tickets were easy to fight, more would be doing it.
Besides...I've seen videos on YouTube where people swear they stop, but the video clearly shows they are still moving. Sure, people will agree with them, but it's like they're saying yeah you slowed down "enough" so it should count as a stop. Judges deal with that crap all day, so when someone truly innocent comes along they are just lumped in with the "no, slowing down enough isn't the same as stopping" group.
If someone is truly innocent, they need to know how to bring video evidence with them to show to the judge. Most just say "I stopped" and thing their word is good enough.
And that assumes there is no surcharge simply for going to traffic court. In some states (such as Massachusetts), that can be more than the ticket. And that assumes that these cases even GO to traffic court. In many places, it's considered a civil violation, and in many places, these go to kangaroo courts where one is presumed guilty until proven innocent (the standard for a civil violation is "more likely than not", NOT "beyond all reasonable doubt", and the camera is assumed to be right unless you can PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt otherwise). And no, they don't care if you were driving the vehicle at the time or not. And it's assuming the camera took a video that shows all the facts.
It's not just Chicago ticketing for legal maneuvers, btw. In Albany, there recently was controversy where people turning right on a green arrow got ticketed.
Quote from: kphoger on April 16, 2016, 09:40:01 AM
Now that you've pre-countered my argument... I do maintain that the risk in a car turning right on red is greater than a cyclist blowing through an intersection. The damage done by another vehicle crashing into the right-turn offender definitely has greater potential for injury than the bicycling offender. A bicycle going 15 mph hitting a couple of pedestrians going 3 mph is a far cry from a motor vehicle going 35 mph hitting another motor vehicle at any speed.
And if the cyclist gets hit because they're blowing through the intersection? I'm not sure even the courts would assign fault to the cyclist, and you can bet your life that the press and cycling advocates won't.
Quote from: vdeane on April 16, 2016, 06:14:25 PM
And if the cyclist gets hit because they're blowing through the intersection? I'm not sure even the courts would assign fault to the cyclist, and you can bet your life that the press and cycling advocates won't.
Here's what I determined via reading news articles:
When a Ped or bicyclist gets hit: Instant coverage. Vague details. Story almost always says "Charges against the driver are pending" or "Investigation is ongoing". This is very true in the smaller papers. For big city papers, not every incident will have a story.
If the driver is at fault: At least one, and probably several, follow-up stories will be written and posted.
If the pedestrian or bicyclist is at fault: Crickets.
If you're to do a search in a local paper, take note of all the stories written when someone first gets hit, versus followup stories. One is rarely if ever written when the ped or cyclist is at fault.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 16, 2016, 02:50:52 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 16, 2016, 08:50:22 AM
An example of "restricting" is something that ought to be familiar to forum member "AlexandriaVA"–in the City of Alexandria, it's very common to see signs reading "No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present." A bunch of lights near the Whole Foods on Duke Street have those, and they're specifically intended to address one of the concerns he's raised. I sometimes find those signs annoying because some drivers not used to them overlook the "when pedestrians are present" portion, but whatever.
I've encountered similar signage in Long Island. I am not a fan of it due to the highly ambiguous meaning of "when pedestrians are present". Does that mean no turn on red when there are pedestrians in or waiting to enter the crosswalk? No turn on red when there are pedestrians near the crosswalk, even if they're walking away from the intersection? No turn on red when there are any pedestrians in sight at all?
This sort of sign smells to me like an opportunity for easy revenue enhancement, and I'm sure some of the drivers declining to turn on red at them are doing so because they smell the same thing.
I've seen people refuse to turn right on red when the "walk" signals are on.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2016, 05:55:54 PM
In big cities, traffic court is so painful to deal with that most people just pay the ticket. Even trying to fight it is gonna cost a fair amount in parking fees and a day off from work, which for some people means an unpaid day off. Judges aren't generally very accommodating - they want you in and out quickly.
Right, which is why you bring the video on your phone or something; get in and get out, quick. Traffic court is not that painful. Trust me, I've been there.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2016, 05:55:54 PM
Besides...I've seen videos on YouTube where people swear they stop, but the video clearly shows they are still moving. Sure, people will agree with them, but it's like they're saying yeah you slowed down "enough" so it should count as a stop. Judges deal with that crap all day, so when someone truly innocent comes along they are just lumped in with the "no, slowing down enough isn't the same as stopping" group.
If the video doesn't show you stopping, then you rightly deserved the ticket. But really, we're not talking about slowing down to turn here. My concern here is that people aren't turning on red because they think the camera will give them a ticket. I'm saying, that's insane. And I've never heard of that happening before. Seriously, find me an article. I don't care if its Chicago or not. Most of Chicago's red light cameras are connected to short yellow intervals and rolling right turns, the latter of which is not a legal maneuver.
Quote from: vdeane on April 16, 2016, 06:14:25 PM
In many places, it's considered a civil violation, and in many places, these go to kangaroo courts where one is presumed guilty until proven innocent (the standard for a civil violation is "more likely than not", NOT "beyond all reasonable doubt", and the camera is assumed to be right unless you can PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt otherwise)
That's because most people
are guilty of most civil violations. But that doesn't change the fact that you are, under US law (last I checked), innocent until proven guilty.
Also, kangaroo courts? What the hell are those? Last two tickets I got were parking tickets. I reported to my county courthouse.
EDIT: It's worth mentioning that camera tickets are reviewed by humans before being sent to the registered owner. There is no "camera is assumed to be right" action here at all.
Quote from: vdeane on April 16, 2016, 06:14:25 PM
And no, they don't care if you were driving the vehicle at the time or not.
Can't speak for other states, but in Washington, they can't legally ticket you without proof that you were driving the vehicle (RCW 46.63.075 ~2).
Quote from: vdeane on April 16, 2016, 06:14:25 PM
It's not just Chicago ticketing for legal maneuvers, btw. In Albany, there recently was controversy where people turning right on a green arrow got ticketed.
How many of those ticketed had to report to court? If it's a technical glitch, it's not your fault.
In quite a few states, the ticket goes to the registered owner. Virginia and DC law both explicitly require that the photos be of the REAR of the vehicle. (In Virginia it's easy to get out of one if you weren't driving. You file an affidavit or declaration saying you weren't driving, and you need not rat out the person who was. I don't know about DC procedure there. Doesn't matter to me, the only time anyone else drives my cars is the mechanic, who isn't in DC, or my wife if we visit my parents in Fairfax and I drink too much.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 16, 2016, 08:00:09 PM
In quite a few states, the ticket goes to the registered owner. Virginia and DC law both explicitly require that the photos be of the REAR of the vehicle. (In Virginia it's easy to get out of one if you weren't driving. You file an affidavit or declaration saying you weren't driving, and you need not rat out the person who was. I don't know about DC procedure there. Doesn't matter to me, the only time anyone else drives my cars is the mechanic, who isn't in DC, or my wife if we visit my parents in Fairfax and I drink too much.)
"Affidavit" being the key word here. You don't need to report to court to fight the ticket.
"Affidavit or declaration." The declaration is easier because it doesn't have to be notarized as long as you follow the proper format and use the required language.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/09/ticketed-la-driver-guilty-until-proven-innocent/
http://wjla.com/news/local/ticketed-d-c-drivers-guilty-until-proven-innocent-inspector-general-s-probe-finds-106909
http://www.winknews.com/2015/04/01/red-light-ticket-fraud-or-a-mistake-naples-couple-wants-answers/
http://www.mddriversalliance.org/p/arguments-against-speed-cameras.html
QuoteCan't speak for other states, but in Washington, they can't legally ticket you without proof that you were driving the vehicle (RCW 6.63.075 ~2).
Reread that law again. They can legally ticket you.
Here's the portion of the statute you're refering to.
Quote
(2) This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner.
That clearly states that you can beat the ticket by saying you weren't driving the car. That absolutely does not state the cop has to determine you were driving the car before issuing you the ticket.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2016, 01:22:26 AM
That clearly states that you can beat the ticket by saying you weren't driving the car. That absolutely does not state the cop has to determine you were driving the car before issuing you the ticket.
Err, fine. They can ticket you (and almost always do), but the ticket is automatically void unless the registered owner was the driver at the time.
FWIW, though I know you already noticed, the actual RCW is 46.63..., not 6.63...for anyone else who cares.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 17, 2016, 01:57:50 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2016, 01:22:26 AM
That clearly states that you can beat the ticket by saying you weren't driving the car. That absolutely does not state the cop has to determine you were driving the car before issuing you the ticket.
Err, fine. They can ticket you (and almost always do), but the ticket is automatically void unless the registered owner was the driver at the time.
FWIW, though I know you already noticed, the actual RCW is 46.63..., not 6.63...for anyone else who cares.
Again, no, it's not automatically voided. You have to write or appear in court staying under oath you weren't the driver.
You're acting as if the driver has the upper hand here and the court has to prove you violated the law. That's not the case. And I'm going to think that it's not a slam dunk win if you try to claim you weren't the driver either.
I don't turn right on red at "camera controlled" intersections either. I'm sure not taking any chances.
Quote from: US 41 on April 17, 2016, 10:58:28 AM
I don't turn right on red at "camera controlled" intersections either. I'm sure not taking any chances.
Too many were doing that in NJ as well. Since the cameras were turned off after the 5 year "test" period to analyze the results (which is now incredibly at the 16 month mark), most people are comfortable turning right on red again without fear of a ticket.
A few months ago there was a news article about people complaining that the red-light cameras in Montgomery County, Maryland, issue tickets to people who stop before turning on red but who fail to stop behind the line. While I'm not generally a fan of camera-based enforcement, if there is going to be camera enforcement I don't have too much sympathy for those people.
Quote from: catch22 on April 16, 2016, 05:41:13 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2016, 02:54:44 PM
It wasn't legal in most of the US until 1978, but did most people do it anyways before that? Or was it completely unheard of?
Short answer: Yes, they did, at least from my experience.
Longer answer: I've lived in Michigan most of my life. I've had a driver's license since 1969. In the early 1970s, I started working for the local phone company as an installer in Detroit. Driving from job to job, I quickly learned that in many parts of town that traffic control devices of all sorts were considered superfluous. I couldn't begin to tally the number of times I saw people ignore red lights, blow stop signs, consider yielding as an affront to their personal liberty, etc. I got real paranoid driving, real fast. I managed to escape after 10 years of that with only one accident (was rear-ended at a stop light).
Oddly enough, I can still recall my first RTOR the day the law went into effect in 1976*. For those familiar with Detroit streets, it was from the NB Southfield Freeway service drive onto EB Puritan. Felt weird as all get-out.
* Google News archive story about the new RTOR law in Michigan:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19760327&id=DZRaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MEoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5571,5905744
I've been driving a bit longer than catch22, which means over a decade before RTOR was enacted. I've lived in Indiana all my life.
My observation is that drivers were no more likely to RTOR than they were to go straight or left on red. A red light was a red light. Of course, there are and always have been people who are too impatient to wait at a red light at 3 AM, but the right turn wasn't a factor. I would have never even thought about disobeying a red light.
Come to think of it, there used to be occasions when a signal would get "stuck" and drivers would treat them like stop signs. This was not that unusual when the switching equipment was mechanical.
I wish it was just illegal everywhere. It annoys me to have to worry about no turn on red signs. Make the law more consistent it makes sense.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 15, 2016, 03:34:07 PM
I wish it was just illegal everywhere. It annoys me to have to worry about no turn on red signs. Make the law more consistent it makes sense.
Why? RTOR makes perfect sense, just be observant for the signage.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2016, 04:49:56 PM
Also, why are they impossible to fight? Just tell them you weren't the driver.
Worth noting that this is not a valid defense in every jurisdiction that has cameras. In NY, a ticket from a red light or speed camera is legally equivalent to a parking ticket and the registered owner of the vehicle is liable regardless of who was driving.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2016, 07:40:23 PM
It's worth mentioning that camera tickets are reviewed by humans before being sent to the registered owner.
In theory.
In practice, how likely is that human going to take their job super seriously, or even know what they are doing? Somehow I don't trust the schlub tasked with reviewing camera violations to not be lazy and rubber stamp them, or to have the situational awareness to realize that (for example) there's a green arrow and the person turning right without stopping doesn't deserve a ticket.
If there's one thing I've learned in life it's that the majority of humans are incompetent at performing tasks which require them to think. Those that aren't are overqualified for tasks like reviewing camera tickets and won't be found in such a role.
Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2016, 10:49:48 PM
Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.
People do this at stop signs too, though.
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2016, 10:49:48 PM
Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.
Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2016, 08:13:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2016, 10:49:48 PM
Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.
Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".
We should invent drivers who will follow those signs. Self-driving cars may come to bite us in the butt as they will follow laws as intended, in a bit of schadenfreude.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 15, 2016, 10:44:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2016, 04:49:56 PM
Also, why are they impossible to fight? Just tell them you weren't the driver.
Worth noting that this is not a valid defense in every jurisdiction that has cameras. In NY, a ticket from a red light or speed camera is legally equivalent to a parking ticket and the registered owner of the vehicle is liable regardless of who was driving.
....
Some jurisdictions require you to rat out the person who was driving so they can re-issue the ticket.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2016, 08:13:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2016, 10:49:48 PM
Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.
Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".
This. This all day.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 18, 2016, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2016, 08:13:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2016, 10:49:48 PM
Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.
Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".
This. This all day.
People disobey the signs. All day. I see it all over where I live.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 18, 2016, 10:01:36 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 18, 2016, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2016, 08:13:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2016, 10:49:48 PM
Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.
Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".
This. This all day.
People disobey the signs. All day. I see it all over where I live.
The "No right on red" signs on the Highway 8 off-ramp to Fairway Rd in Kitchener are commonly ignored (this GSV screenshot below clearly shows three signs). The signs are there because there are two right turn lanes, not to mention a lot of people run the red on Fairway. But that doesn't stop people in the rightmost lane from turning anyway.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4244968,-80.4348235,3a,37.5y,152.04h,84.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shq2q3MjmSxfj6c4txSnF3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4244968,-80.4348235,3a,37.5y,152.04h,84.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shq2q3MjmSxfj6c4txSnF3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHaE8KrX.png&hash=93b8cb7963c7a9fd295a336a3d2d3a2a49743f3a)
Of course they did. Everyone always has an excuse for why they did a rolling "stop" (aka slowing down, not stopping), or just outright blasting through it.
Just this morning I had to lay on the horn because some pickup with a trailer full of lawn equipment RTOR'd into the lane that I had the green light for.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 18, 2016, 10:01:36 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 18, 2016, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2016, 08:13:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2016, 10:49:48 PM
Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.
Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".
This. This all day.
People disobey the signs. All day. I see it all over where I live.
Well, unless you want us to live in a totalitarian police state, what's the point of bringing this up? We can't physically force people to stop turning right if they insist on doing so. Unless you want to install gates everywhere. This disobedience probably occurs more frequently in densely populated areas, because managing your way through the crowds is difficult and frustrating enough already. And making right-turn-on-red entirely legal isn't going to stop people, either.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2016, 08:13:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2016, 10:49:48 PM
Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.
Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".
As you're probably aware but choosing to ignore, most traffic engineers still consider the car as "king" and everyone else plays second fiddle, despite the safety benefits to non-vehicular users of some of these measures. Furthermore, Bruce is completely correct in that, far too many times, drivers will pull into and block the sidewalk.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 18, 2016, 10:30:02 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 18, 2016, 10:01:36 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 18, 2016, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2016, 08:13:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2016, 10:49:48 PM
Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.
Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".
This. This all day.
People disobey the signs. All day. I see it all over where I live.
Well, unless you want us to live in a totalitarian police state, what's the point of bringing this up? We can't physically force people to stop turning right if they insist on doing so. Unless you want to install gates everywhere. This disobedience probably occurs more frequently in densely populated areas, because managing your way through the crowds is difficult and frustrating enough already. And making right-turn-on-red entirely legal isn't going to stop people, either.
As usual, RTOR arguments here end up with the logic of "I'm inconvenienced by waiting and it's hard to enforce, so let's just allow it all the time everywhere".
I wonder how many "law and order" types conveniently ignore the traffic laws which inconvenience them.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 18, 2016, 10:48:47 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 18, 2016, 10:30:02 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 18, 2016, 10:01:36 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 18, 2016, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2016, 08:13:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2016, 10:49:48 PM
Right-on-red really shouldn't be legal in urban areas. Or anywhere with a pedestrian traffic of more than 1 per day. Too many people just blindly roll into the intersection past the stop line and block the crosswalk while looking for an opening in traffic, completely ignoring pedestrians that need to use that narrow sliver of paint to not walk into traffic.
Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".
This. This all day.
People disobey the signs. All day. I see it all over where I live.
Well, unless you want us to live in a totalitarian police state, what's the point of bringing this up? We can't physically force people to stop turning right if they insist on doing so. Unless you want to install gates everywhere. This disobedience probably occurs more frequently in densely populated areas, because managing your way through the crowds is difficult and frustrating enough already. And making right-turn-on-red entirely legal isn't going to stop people, either.
As usual, RTOR arguments here end up with the logic of "I'm inconvenienced by waiting and it's hard to enforce, so let's just allow it all the time everywhere".
I wonder how many "law and order" types conveniently ignore the traffic laws which inconvenience them.
Yawn.
I guess in flyover country, stop signs are suggestions and yield signs are target practice?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 18, 2016, 10:48:47 AM
I wonder how many "law and order" types conveniently ignore the traffic laws which inconvenience them.
I have no idea what this even means. Are "law and order" types the people who want anarchy or absolutism? I can't even discern the nature of the straw man you're trying to build lol. I wasn't advocating for anarchy or absolutism in this case...I just like that there are signs that say No Turn on Red when engineers deem it too dangerous to do so. And I understand that, in a given instance, a pertinent law won't necessarily change a person's behavior.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 18, 2016, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 18, 2016, 10:48:47 AM
I wonder how many "law and order" types conveniently ignore the traffic laws which inconvenience them.
I have no idea what this even means. Are "law and order" types the people who want anarchy or absolutism? I can't even discern the nature of the straw man you're trying to build lol.
I think he's talking about people like the guy in my carpool. He will complain about someone that turned right on red where it's prohibited...while he's going 10 mph over the limit, because "everyone else is doing it". Or how he wants a safety gap in front of him and complains that people pull in front of him. He complains by throwing his arms up in the air...letting go of the steering wheel. And then he cuts over at the last minute to get to his exit, using that 'safety zone' that someone has in front from them.
Has anyone ever accidentally made a right on red at an intersection that specifically states "no right on red"? I haven't, but back in 2006 during a day trip to Philadelphia (my family and I live in the Baltimore, Maryland area which is full of RORs) my mom made a right on a red light after stopping, and then she said "Oh shucks! There was a sign that said 'no right on red'." Luckily she didn't get in trouble.
Also, something that really annoys me is that cars in front of and behind me turning right on a red light almost never stop before turning. I seem to be the only one who actually stops first. One of the most important things I learned in driver's ed is that red always means stop. It's especially important to stop before making that right turn if there's oncoming traffic.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 18, 2016, 11:24:26 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 18, 2016, 10:48:47 AM
I wonder how many "law and order" types conveniently ignore the traffic laws which inconvenience them.
I have no idea what this even means. Are "law and order" types the people who want anarchy or absolutism? I can't even discern the nature of the straw man you're trying to build lol. I wasn't advocating for anarchy or absolutism in this case...I just like that there are signs that say No Turn on Red when engineers deem it too dangerous to do so. And I understand that, in a given instance, a pertinent law won't necessarily change a person's behavior.
He's bitching about RTOR and the ignorance of such signs by folks who complain about other violations of the law. Like I said, to quote another member of this forum, "yawn". He's probably throwing a rock here when he himself lives in a glass house.
I'm not a perfect driver, but I also don't willingly ignore road signs just because I think I'm smarter than the engineer who decided to put them in place, or I think a particular regulation is dumb.
Except road signs are VERY often put in place on the order of politicians, not engineers.
Incidentally, when I say I'm not against rolling stops for right on red, I'm talking about where someone slows like they're stopping and looks around but just so happens to still have 2mph or so on the speedomoeter instead of 0 when they determine it's safe to go... NOT just blowing through at normal turning velocity. Basically, fulfilling the spirit of the law, though not the letter of the law. I absolutely agree that the people who ignore even the concept of stopping when making a right on red are an issue.
Incidentally, not all traffic laws are equal. While a very large number of speed limits are underposted (at least in the northeast), no turn on red usually has a good reason (though I think automatically blocking it if there's more than one right turn lane is a bit much... right on red with multiple turn lanes works fine in NY).
One thing that I just thought of is that, when right on red was made the default, pedestrian curb ramps were usually done one per corner on a diagonal to serve two crosswalks. These days, that's discouraged, due to the impacts on safety and people with disabilities. The result is that crosswalks are often further back than they were in the past, resulting in fewer places where one can safely turn right on red and still stay behind the stop line. It's possible that right on red would not have been made an automatic default if the issue were debated today.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 18, 2016, 12:03:32 PM
I'm not a perfect driver, but I also don't willingly ignore road signs just because I think I'm smarter than the engineer who decided to put them in place, or I think a particular regulation is dumb.
Most people don't. But this is how it often looks:
When I do it: "It was a mistake".
When someone does it: "They're an idiot".
Perspective means a lot. So when I'm making that mistake, someone else is looking at me thinking I'm the idiot.
Also, if you do something wrong, you may not even realize it. Say you never saw the NTOR sign. How'd you know you messed up? So while you may have accidently made a mistake, you don't actually know it was a mistake. In the meantime, the guy behind you? He think's your an idiot.
Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2016, 12:54:34 PM
Incidentally, not all traffic laws are equal. While a very large number of speed limits are underposted (at least in the northeast), no turn on red usually has a good reason (though I think automatically blocking it if there's more than one right turn lane is a bit much... right on red with multiple turn lanes works fine in NY).
For the example I posted, Fairway Rd has three lanes when you make your right turn, so the middle lane on Fairway Rd is a potential conflict. Though I guess you could argue that this would still be a problem during the green right-turn phase :hmm:
In NY's case, how many lanes are on the road being turned on to? Because if there's only 2 lanes in each direction, then the problem I mentioned wouldn't be relevant.
Quote from: froggie on August 18, 2016, 10:43:29 AM
As you're probably aware but choosing to ignore, most traffic engineers still consider the car as "king" and everyone else plays second fiddle, despite the safety benefits to non-vehicular users of some of these measures. Furthermore, Bruce is completely correct in that, far too many times, drivers will pull into and block the sidewalk.
IMO that's the way it should be. The people driving the cars are the ones after all paying the taxes for all the facilities along the roads. I think walkers should wait on traffic to clear first before crossing. You shouldn't have to sit and wait on walkers to take their sweet time getting across the street. I'll be honest. I stop at the stop line and then creep up and block the walk ways. If you don't you can't see to make a RTOR.
Quote from: 7/8 on August 18, 2016, 01:14:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2016, 12:54:34 PM
Incidentally, not all traffic laws are equal. While a very large number of speed limits are underposted (at least in the northeast), no turn on red usually has a good reason (though I think automatically blocking it if there's more than one right turn lane is a bit much... right on red with multiple turn lanes works fine in NY).
For the example I posted, Fairway Rd has three lanes when you make your right turn, so the middle lane on Fairway Rd is a potential conflict. Though I guess you could argue that this would still be a problem during the green right-turn phase :hmm:
In NY's case, how many lanes are on the road being turned on to? Because if there's only 2 lanes in each direction, then the problem I mentioned wouldn't be relevant.
I don't know if we have anything with more than two right turn lanes; at the very least, it would be very rare. Usually it's two right turn lanes onto a road with two lanes in that direction (though I know of one where the road has three lanes in that direction).
Quote from: froggie on August 18, 2016, 10:43:29 AM
Furthermore, Bruce is completely correct in that, far too many times, drivers will pull into and block the sidewalk.
Often this is necessary because there are not sufficient sight lines for a driver to see whether there is a gap in traffic they can turn right into from behind the crosswalk. And this issue is not limited to signalized intersections, around where I live drivers block crosswalks (both marked and unmarked) at stop signs all the time for the same reason - you physically cannot, from behind the stop line, see enough to determine that it is safe to proceed because your view from back there is obstructed by parked vehicles, buildings, bushes, etc.
That said, I don't think this is really a big deal despite it being nominally contrary to how the book says you're supposed to do it. When I am walking and encounter a vehicle that is waiting in the crosswalk to proceed through the intersection, I simply walk behind it. This way I am both not impeding their progress and not putting myself in a position where I may get hit, while at the same time not suffering any significant inconvenience or increased risk from other hazards. Meanwhile as a driver I expect that entering the crosswalk at a non-four-way stop or when preparing to turn right on red will, even if not 100% necessary for line of sight reasons, prevent pedestrians from walking in front of me and therefore reduce the risk of a collision occurring. Unless, of course, I see a pedestrian entering the crosswalk before I get to it in which case they have the right of way and can go first.
Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2016, 12:54:34 PM
Except road signs are VERY often put in place on the order of politicians, not engineers.
Yes. A reason why many of them are often nonsensical - they are placed for the emotional appeasement of people who complained about something, not for rational utilitarian purposes.
QuoteOne thing that I just thought of is that, when right on red was made the default, pedestrian curb ramps were usually done one per corner on a diagonal to serve two crosswalks. These days, that's discouraged, due to the impacts on safety and people with disabilities. The result is that crosswalks are often further back than they were in the past, resulting in fewer places where one can safely turn right on red and still stay behind the stop line. It's possible that right on red would not have been made an automatic default if the issue were debated today.
Possible? I'd go with guaranteed. With today's paranoia about safety something like RTOR would be too scary for people to even consider were it not already an established norm.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 18, 2016, 09:04:46 PM
physically cannot, from behind the stop line, see enough to determine that it is safe to proceed because your view from back there is obstructed by parked vehicles, buildings, bushes, etc.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 18, 2016, 09:04:46 PM
pedestrian entering the crosswalk before I get to it in which case they have the right of way and can go .
My Driver Ed teacher taught us you stop before the stop line or crosswalk, then if no peds are crossing you creep up until you can see if it's safe to enter. That made perfect sense to me as it satisfies the law and common sense, so that's how I do it.
Quote from: Bruce on August 18, 2016, 02:21:42 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2016, 08:13:57 PM
Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".
We should invent drivers who will follow those signs. Self-driving cars may come to bite us in the butt as they will follow laws as intended, in a bit of schadenfreude.
Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2016, 12:54:34 PM
One thing that I just thought of is that, when right on red was made the default, pedestrian curb ramps were usually done one per corner on a diagonal to serve two crosswalks. These days, that's discouraged, due to the impacts on safety and people with disabilities. The result is that crosswalks are often further back than they were in the past, resulting in fewer places where one can safely turn right on red and still stay behind the stop line. It's possible that right on red would not have been made an automatic default if the issue were debated today.
Compared to some countries, we still place the stop line relatively close to the intersection. Places like the UK (which don't permit the equivalent movement) place the stop line rather far back from the "box" of the junction (note the example image below). This is for several reasons, I assume: 1) visibility from the stop line is not important, 2) crosswalks are usually perpendicular to the carriageway, so at slightly askew junctions, the crosswalk (and thus the stop line) can be set very far back from the intersection, and 3) bike boxes are, more and more often, painted in front of stop lines, but behind the crosswalk. This means that, to turn left on red, one would need to drive through both a bike box and a crosswalk.
Why does this matter? The US places its stop line right on top of the crosswalk (in places like California and Oregon, the first line of the crosswalk
is the stop line). This makes it, frankly, way too easy to turn on red. If we made it, geometrically, more awkward for drivers to turn on red, they might be more likely to obey any posted "no turn on red sign".
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUZdbL5Y.png&hash=f1c79eb2fd411f56196ed3ab8364a0977294e099)
Just saying that if policing is a problem, there's always things like railroad crossing gates to really force people to stop on red. But then the drivers would try to speed under.
The only solution is to have a heavy wall of traffic that prevents them from even daring to do so in the first place.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 18, 2016, 10:28:22 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 18, 2016, 02:21:42 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2016, 08:13:57 PM
Maybe they could invent some sort of sign where turning on red would be prohibited where traffic engineers believe motorists should not turn on red. It would say "No Turn On Red".
We should invent drivers who will follow those signs. Self-driving cars may come to bite us in the butt as they will follow laws as intended, in a bit of schadenfreude.
Quote from: vdeane on August 18, 2016, 12:54:34 PM
One thing that I just thought of is that, when right on red was made the default, pedestrian curb ramps were usually done one per corner on a diagonal to serve two crosswalks. These days, that's discouraged, due to the impacts on safety and people with disabilities. The result is that crosswalks are often further back than they were in the past, resulting in fewer places where one can safely turn right on red and still stay behind the stop line. It's possible that right on red would not have been made an automatic default if the issue were debated today.
Compared to some countries, we still place the stop line relatively close to the intersection. Places like the UK (which don't permit the equivalent movement) place the stop line rather far back from the "box" of the junction (note the example image below). This is for several reasons, I assume: 1) visibility from the stop line is not important, 2) crosswalks are usually perpendicular to the carriageway, so at slightly askew junctions, the crosswalk (and thus the stop line) can be set very far back from the intersection, and 3) bike boxes are, more and more often, painted in front of stop lines, but behind the crosswalk. This means that, to turn left on red, one would need to drive through both a bike box and a crosswalk.
Why does this matter? The US places its stop line right on top of the crosswalk (in places like California and Oregon, the first line of the crosswalk is the stop line). This makes it, frankly, way too easy to turn on red. If we made it, geometrically, more awkward for drivers to turn on red, they might be more likely to obey any posted "no turn on red sign".
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUZdbL5Y.png&hash=f1c79eb2fd411f56196ed3ab8364a0977294e099)
Not only that, but US crosswalks tend to be closer to the intersection too (though that's changing due to efforts to reduce the distance pedestrians have to spend in the roadway and improve visibility). And bike boxes are rare here.
As far as whether stop lines are posted separately or are part of the crosswalk, NY is inconsistent.
Waking this thread up...
Checking out the new Garden State Parkway (NJ) construction via Google, I came upon this situation: https://goo.gl/maps/QZKLfUUuy7P2
It appears the lane lines originally went to the crosswalk, where one can turn right to get to the southbound Parkway. However, there's a small side street just before that, of which the sole purpose is to access the Cape May Chamber of Commerce Building (https://goo.gl/maps/qaoMGtsp94n). It appears this was an afterthought, and the access out of that side street will be controlled by a traffic light. As of the time the GSV passed by, it wasn't turned on yet (I have no idea if it since in use)
There is no 'No Turn On Red' sign here.
So...the question as it relates to the thread: Would you turn right on red passing the side street to enter the GSP? Technically, you're turning right on red...just not at the first street! Obviously, there is a conflict there if that side street happened to have a green light.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2017, 11:03:23 AM
Waking this thread up...
Checking out the new Garden State Parkway (NJ) construction via Google, I came upon this situation: https://goo.gl/maps/QZKLfUUuy7P2
It appears the lane lines originally went to the crosswalk, where one can turn right to get to the southbound Parkway. However, there's a small side street just before that, of which the sole purpose is to access the Cape May Chamber of Commerce Building (https://goo.gl/maps/qaoMGtsp94n). It appears this was an afterthought, and the access out of that side street will be controlled by a traffic light. As of the time the GSV passed by, it wasn't turned on yet (I have no idea if it since in use)
There is no 'No Turn On Red' sign here.
So...the question as it relates to the thread: Would you turn right on red passing the side street to enter the GSP? Technically, you're turning right on red...just not at the first street! Obviously, there is a conflict there if that side street happened to have a green light.
In my local area at there are a few odd ones.
this one has a sign
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0505656,-87.9124032,3a,60y,216.56h,84.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_M35w87mSdTcEfgNssIB-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
no sign and people use both lanes for right on red
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.037042,-87.9633359,3a,29.9y,270.7h,87.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAczIacbZcNMUhcpwsBCqZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
is it ok here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0785627,-87.9702596,3a,60y,316.65h,87.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO3UzfMLONY3IOuloUV5QEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 14, 2017, 11:51:09 AM
is it ok here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0785627,-87.9702596,3a,60y,316.65h,87.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO3UzfMLONY3IOuloUV5QEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I would say yes it's fine here.
It should also be noted the traffic lights are way too close to the stop line, with no downstream light. A car at the stop line would have trouble seeing them.
Quote
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.037042,-87.9633359,3a,29.9y,270.7h,87.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAczIacbZcNMUhcpwsBCqZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
No sign = Permitted.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2017, 12:07:50 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 14, 2017, 11:51:09 AM
is it ok here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0785627,-87.9702596,3a,60y,316.65h,87.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO3UzfMLONY3IOuloUV5QEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I would say yes it's fine here.
Assuming that's meant to be the one on the slip ramp, I wouldn't consider that to be a right but rather a straight (you're going straight on the ramp, not turning right off the ramp into the sidewalk).
I say this one is ok, although it's almost going straight. The arrows save you
https://goo.gl/maps/J3q2mekYQfr
Quote from: vdeane on August 14, 2017, 12:48:35 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2017, 12:07:50 PM
Quote from: Joe The Dragon on August 14, 2017, 11:51:09 AM
is it ok here?
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0785627,-87.9702596,3a,60y,316.65h,87.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO3UzfMLONY3IOuloUV5QEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I would say yes it's fine here.
Assuming that's meant to be the one on the slip ramp, I wouldn't consider that to be a right but rather a straight (you're going straight on the ramp, not turning right off the ramp into the sidewalk).
I've seen cases where if there's ambiguity, they'll clearly denote via signage that going thru the signal isn't allowed.
In this case: https://goo.gl/maps/twSR2PgqZxr , although it appears straight, it's actually a slip ramp off the main road. Red arrows and NTOR signage fully clarifies that you're not supposed to go thru the red light.
I actually detest right-on-red here in San Francisco. Not only have I been nearly hit several times, motorists who wait/yield at a right turn get honked (mostly by traditional taxis). I'd love to bring NYC's rules here, at least for the downtown areas where I live and work.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 14, 2017, 01:03:40 PM
I say this one is ok, although it's almost going straight. The arrows save you
https://goo.gl/maps/J3q2mekYQfr
Now that brings up something interesting: if you can make a right on red at an intersection like this, why isn't it permitted to proceed straight through a T-intersection, if you're in the outside lane and there's no traffic approaching on the intersecting street? Geometrically, they're essentially identical.
Quote from: empirestate on August 14, 2017, 03:12:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 14, 2017, 01:03:40 PM
I say this one is ok, although it's almost going straight. The arrows save you
https://goo.gl/maps/J3q2mekYQfr
Now that brings up something interesting: if you can make a right on red at an intersection like this, why isn't it permitted to proceed straight through a T-intersection, if you're in the outside lane and there's no traffic approaching on the intersecting street? Geometrically, they're essentially identical.
I proposed that about 1½ years ago. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16637
Quote from: 1 on August 14, 2017, 03:18:55 PM
Quote from: empirestate on August 14, 2017, 03:12:13 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 14, 2017, 01:03:40 PM
I say this one is ok, although it's almost going straight. The arrows save you
https://goo.gl/maps/J3q2mekYQfr
Now that brings up something interesting: if you can make a right on red at an intersection like this, why isn't it permitted to proceed straight through a T-intersection, if you're in the outside lane and there's no traffic approaching on the intersecting street? Geometrically, they're essentially identical.
I proposed that about 1½ years ago. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16637
Interesting...I wonder why it didn't work out in those places where it was tried? Unless I'm missing something, all the objections raised in that thread would apply equally well to right on red.