There are two left-on-red scenarios in Downtown Monterey that I encounter each morning on my bus ride to work, and both have seen actions by the bus drivers that contradict what I know about the rules of left on red, so I wanted to see what others thought of this.
Scenario 1: https://goo.gl/maps/MFrkae1o9RB2
You are on a one-way street (behind you in this image). There's a one-way street crossing at the signal. However, the street in front of you is two-way, but approaching traffic can only turn right. Is left on red (from Tyler to Franklin) permitted?
Scenario 2: https://goo.gl/maps/aqq4MwsnYLB2
A five-way intersection. You can go straight (one-way), right (two-way), left at a 45-degree angle onto Lighthouse (two-way), or left at a 90-degree angle onto Del Monte (one-way). If you look at the signal in the median of Lighthouse, there's a sign "TURN ON RED AFTER STOP". Can you turn left onto Del Monte (90-degree left) while the light is red?
I'd be genuinely interested to hear what others think of these situations.
The newly opened DDI at 95th St over I-35 allows drivers from eastbound 95th St onto northbound I-35 to turn left on red after yielding. And the same for the opposite directions.
iPhone
Quote from: coatimundi on November 25, 2016, 11:38:34 AM
Scenario 1: https://goo.gl/maps/MFrkae1o9RB2
You are on a one-way street (behind you in this image). There's a one-way street crossing at the signal. However, the street in front of you is two-way, but approaching traffic can only turn right. Is left on red (from Tyler to Franklin) permitted?
Permitted. In most cases, the law is from a one-way street to a one-way street. The opposing street has no affect on that permission.
Quote from: coatimundi on November 25, 2016, 11:38:34 AM
Scenario 2: https://goo.gl/maps/aqq4MwsnYLB2
A five-way intersection. You can go straight (one-way), right (two-way), left at a 45-degree angle onto Lighthouse (two-way), or left at a 90-degree angle onto Del Monte (one-way). If you look at the signal in the median of Lighthouse, there's a sign "TURN ON RED AFTER STOP". Can you turn left onto Del Monte (90-degree left) while the light is red?
The 45' movement is the 'straight' movement. The 90' movement would be the only legal left turn on red here.
Actually, I'm a little surprised in both cases LTOR is permitted, but I guess as long as the turns can be made safely and properly, it's fine.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2016, 12:08:07 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on November 25, 2016, 11:38:34 AM
Scenario 1: https://goo.gl/maps/MFrkae1o9RB2
You are on a one-way street (behind you in this image). There's a one-way street crossing at the signal. However, the street in front of you is two-way, but approaching traffic can only turn right. Is left on red (from Tyler to Franklin) permitted?
Permitted. In most cases, the law is from a one-way street to a one-way street. The opposing street has no affect on that permission.
Quote from: coatimundi on November 25, 2016, 11:38:34 AM
Scenario 2: https://goo.gl/maps/aqq4MwsnYLB2
A five-way intersection. You can go straight (one-way), right (two-way), left at a 45-degree angle onto Lighthouse (two-way), or left at a 90-degree angle onto Del Monte (one-way). If you look at the signal in the median of Lighthouse, there's a sign "TURN ON RED AFTER STOP". Can you turn left onto Del Monte (90-degree left) while the light is red?
The 45' movement is the 'straight' movement. The 90' movement would be the only legal left turn on red here.
Actually, I'm a little surprised in both cases LTOR is permitted, but I guess as long as the turns can be made safely and properly, it's fine.
Okay, yes, that's exactly what the bus does, though I've noticed some drivers do not take the left in the second scenario.
In the case of the first one, I had always thought that left on red wasn't permitted if any street in the intersection was two-way, but I think that makes more sense.
The thing is with that second one: the bus can't really make a turn safely onto Del Monte without encroaching into the right lane of oncoming Lighthouse because it has to swing out. And, because that traffic is emerging from a tunnel, you can't really see them until they're racing up toward you (35mph through the tunnel, but no one follows that). Maybe it's just me, but seeing a bus coming right at me while emerging from that tunnel would scare the hell out of me.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2016, 12:08:07 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on November 25, 2016, 11:38:34 AM
Scenario 1: https://goo.gl/maps/MFrkae1o9RB2
You are on a one-way street (behind you in this image). There's a one-way street crossing at the signal. However, the street in front of you is two-way, but approaching traffic can only turn right. Is left on red (from Tyler to Franklin) permitted?
Permitted. In most cases, the law is from a one-way street to a one-way street. The opposing street has no affect on that permission.
Agreed. The intersection of Center St & 1st St in downtown Reno (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5261076,-119.8118996,3a,50.1y,73.1h,80.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swNzlXc_FvaQb2Bn44Pbxgw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) is identical to this. I've taken the left on red here multiple times.
The thing to remember with this maneuver is that, similar to most RTOR laws, your LTOR requires you to turn from the leftmost lane into the leftmost lane. Thus, a driver in the opposing direction making a simultaneous RTOR turning the same direction as you can actually do so simultaneously, because you're both turning into different lanes.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2016, 12:08:07 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on November 25, 2016, 11:38:34 AM
Scenario 2: https://goo.gl/maps/aqq4MwsnYLB2
A five-way intersection. You can go straight (one-way), right (two-way), left at a 45-degree angle onto Lighthouse (two-way), or left at a 90-degree angle onto Del Monte (one-way). If you look at the signal in the median of Lighthouse, there's a sign "TURN ON RED AFTER STOP". Can you turn left onto Del Monte (90-degree left) while the light is red?
The 45' movement is the 'straight' movement. The 90' movement would be the only legal left turn on red here.
Actually, I'm a little surprised in both cases LTOR is permitted, but I guess as long as the turns can be made safely and properly, it's fine.
I agree with this assessment as well. The true straight movement from this approach appears to be a non-issue for this location, with the functional "straight" movement being the 45° left. The 90° left onto Del Monte looks like it can be made by most vehicles, from the leftmost lane into the leftmost lane, without being affected by oncoming traffic. (With that said, I don't know if I'd take the left for sure without being there in person to better gauge the distances between my vehicle and any vehicles in that outer opposing left turn lane...)
There's also this, just a block away: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5996754,-121.8926865,3a,75y,99.79h,77.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMaVj_Ktd6PDApFhUdvHmxA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMaVj_Ktd6PDApFhUdvHmxA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D66.327835%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
To the right (the cross street) is a two-way and to the left is a one-way. At the left corner, there's a sign: "Left Turn on Red OK After Stop". It seems like, by definition, this is allowed in California, since the law states that you can only make a left on red "into" a one-way street, which this is. It just, again, goes against what I had always thought about left on red.
In Idaho, Oregon, and a few other places, you can turn left from a two way street onto a one way street.
An example you could do this is here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FavBiKb2.png&hash=d032220c8b3dffb4f40dd3c5f023a31323133664)
Unfortunately, I never see people take advantage of this. Even though, in downtown areas, it can be easier to turn on red than on green at times due to oncoming traffic and pedestrians.
One big caveat in Idaho is that you cannot do this if there is a red arrow, only if it is a red ball (as seen above). This is consistent with rules for right turns on red and left turns from one way to one way, so that's expected I suppose, but it removes some otherwise good opportunities that would be legal in Oregon.
Quote from: doorknob60 on November 30, 2016, 03:27:36 PM
One big caveat in Idaho is that you cannot do this if there is a red arrow, only if it is a red ball (as seen above). This is consistent with rules for right turns on red and left turns from one way to one way, so that's expected I suppose, but it removes some otherwise good opportunities that would be legal in Oregon.
Indeed, but unless you're lucky enough to be the first in line at a red left arrow, there's a 99% chance you're gonna have to wait for the green arrow anyway. I try and race ahead, where possible, so I can beat everyone else onto the freeway ramps (here (https://goo.gl/Bt3Zc3) being once place where I do it quite often), but thus far, my father is the only other person who I've witness take advantage of this law. My mother is not so keen on it. I try and explain to her that it's exactly the same thing as a right on red, in that you are still giving way to traffic, just from the right, and potentially in front of you, but she's still not quite ready to adopt it. She says it "doesn't feel right".
^ I freaked my boyfriend out when I did a left-on-red onto a freeway onramp in Washington. He had never heard of the law, and when I tried explaining it to him 10 seconds after making that turn, he refused to believe me and thought I was making it up. I had to pull up the driver's manuals and RCW/ORS for both Oregon and Washington to show him, but even after that, he was super uncomfortable whenever I did it in the future.
Granted, I can see his point of view; there is certainly more risk for things to go wrong when making a left-on-red from a two-way to one-way. Not only do you have traffic from the right to which you have to yield, there is also opposing traffic you have to look out for, which may make a right turn on red, or whose lights may change to green while you're watching for a break in traffic to your right. Plus there may be pedestrians in the mix, who may not be following their respective walk/don't walk signals, especially if they think your red light is a guarantee you won't encroach upon the crosswalk to make your turn. There are more hazards demanding your attention at a situation like this, so there's more of a chance things may go wrong if not careful.
I've only seen two people make the left-on-red from a two-way to a one-way, so I think their people don't know they can do it, or are simply being cautious and not making the turn because they don't want to risk causing a collision. Even when I'm the lead car, there are instances where there simply isn't a sufficient break in traffic, but whenever there is, I make the turn every opportunity I can.
Quote from: doorknob60 on November 30, 2016, 03:27:36 PM
In Idaho, Oregon, and a few other places, you can turn left from a two way street onto a one way street.
An example you could do this is here:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FavBiKb2.png&hash=d032220c8b3dffb4f40dd3c5f023a31323133664)
Unfortunately, I never see people take advantage of this. Even though, in downtown areas, it can be easier to turn on red than on green at times due to oncoming traffic and pedestrians.
One big caveat in Idaho is that you cannot do this if there is a red arrow, only if it is a red ball (as seen above). This is consistent with rules for right turns on red and left turns from one way to one way, so that's expected I suppose, but it removes some otherwise good opportunities that would be legal in Oregon.
I do this daily two blocks down at 10th and Main! I get really weird looks from pedestrians when I do it. It seems to be a lost art. It really should be posted to remind people that it is legal at a few key intersections, such as Fort and 8th where there is no left turn lane and it'd clear the queue much faster to have those people turning left at the front of the line have an opportunity to do so before oncoming traffic gets the green (and traffic volumes are low enough on 8th to make this a safe maneuver most of the time). Besides my father, myself, and apparently you I don't know anybody that does it and haven't seen anybody do it in this go-around in Boise. I remember people doing it more frequently back in the 90s-early 00s when I lived here the first time. My Mom has lived in Idaho for 20 years now, but still doesn't feel right doing it.
I recently actually was talking about this with the employees in charge of the signalization and stuff in Boise (because I deal with them regularly as part of my job), and not even they were aware that this is legal - as with everybody else in Boise these days, they are mostly imports from out of state.
That said, I drive around downtown Boise daily and it frustrates me how many people don't even know you can turn left on red from a one way onto a one way. Again - it clears the left lane a lot faster if they do so before the ped signal turns to walk in pedestrian-heavy downtown, but people don't realize they can.
Quote from: Ace10 on November 30, 2016, 07:13:47 PM
Even when I'm the lead car, there are instances where there simply isn't a sufficient break in traffic, but whenever there is, I make the turn every opportunity I can.
I generally perform left turns on red in the same manner that I would perform a right on red. Stop...pull forward to the second, imaginary "limit" line (where you are past the stop line, but not so far forward that you encroach on those with the right-of-way), and then turn when safe.
If it's an example like I posted above, where the one way begins on the street that I'm on, and there's no one-way from my right, I will pull out (after a stop) in just the same way as I would turn at a permissive left, positioning my car in the junction somewhere past the stop line (in the case of the double left turn above, at a slight angle, because you can't pull straight into a double left turn).
For whatever it's worth, I have done this maneuver in front of an officer before (Tacoma police), and I was not stopped. I'm sure there were people in the cars, yelling at the cop to pull me over because I dared make a turn on red...but, nope! All legal folks.
That left on red stuff out west is weird. Really weird. Left on red is only allowed here between two one-way streets if not signed otherwise. Of course, not many people know that, because the one city in this state with a lot of one-way streets bans turns on red unless specifically allowed. Most of the legal lefts on red in New York are within a few blocks of my apartment in Troy, including two I can see from my building. I can think of 16 in this city off the top of my head.
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2016, 11:37:16 PM
That left on red stuff out west is weird. Really weird.
I do find it interesting though that Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia all share the same law, and all of those states/provinces border each other or are at least in the same region. I have to wonder if the driving culture here developed kind of as a cohesive whole and the laws reflect the practices that just organically developed, or if somehow other states/provinces looked to their neighbors to see how they do things and just followed suit. (Michigan's the only other state with a similar law, but I leave it out since it's not in the Pacific Northwest region.)
The left-on-red from two-way to one-way is definitely a very unique thing here; I didn't find out about it until I pulled up the driver's manual in Washington out of sheer curiosity after I moved here. Actually, I think I looked up the law regarding turns on red arrows, since it's pretty much a tossup whether or not a state permits that movement. That's when I found out both Oregon and Washington are really liberal when it comes to turns on red. I really hope it stays that way.
Man I need to get out west more often. I never knew there was anywhere one could make a left turn on red. Doing it anywhere on this side of the country seems like it's just just one step below a death row offense, lol. After driving for 30 years I think I would be the guy y'all would be beeping at to make the turn because it is just so ingrained in me to not do it-I don't think I would have even noticed a sign telling me I could because I wouldn't have been looking for it-until now, that is!
Quote from: slorydn1 on December 01, 2016, 02:53:57 AM
Man I need to get out west more often. I never knew there was anywhere one could make a left turn on red. Doing it anywhere on this side of the country seems like it's just just one step below a death row offense, lol. After driving for 30 years I think I would be the guy y'all would be beeping at to make the turn because it is just so ingrained in me to not do it-I don't think I would have even noticed a sign telling me I could because I wouldn't have been looking for it-until now, that is!
You're located in North Carolina? Just head to any state to the north, west, or south; they all permit a left-on-red from a one-way to another one-way. Most states permit that turn. Only a few, including NC, prohibit it altogether.
Left turn on red in countries with right hand traffic (turning across traffic) - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#Left_turn_on_red_in_countries_with_right_hand_traffic_.28turning_across_traffic.29) (I helped work on the map)
Quote from: Ace10 on December 01, 2016, 04:00:04 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on December 01, 2016, 02:53:57 AM
Man I need to get out west more often. I never knew there was anywhere one could make a left turn on red. Doing it anywhere on this side of the country seems like it's just just one step below a death row offense, lol. After driving for 30 years I think I would be the guy y'all would be beeping at to make the turn because it is just so ingrained in me to not do it-I don't think I would have even noticed a sign telling me I could because I wouldn't have been looking for it-until now, that is!
You're located in North Carolina? Just head to any state to the north, west, or south; they all permit a left-on-red from a one-way to another one-way. Most states permit that turn. Only a few, including NC, prohibit it altogether.
Left turn on red in countries with right hand traffic (turning across traffic) - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#Left_turn_on_red_in_countries_with_right_hand_traffic_.28turning_across_traffic.29) (I helped work on the map)
Wow, cool. Nope, I wasn't aware of any of this, and I started driving in Illinois in 1986. I didn't move here until 1991. I guess I just haven't been to too many places that had a one way to one way situation other than Chicago-and I didn't drive all that often in the city I usually used public transportation there.
Funny that the state that makes you go past an intersection to make a U-turn, come back and then make a right turn when a simple left turn under a green arrow would have been sooo much easier is one of the more permissive states on LTOR (I'm looking squarely at you, Michigan).
My understanding of the left on red scenario is that you're hugging a curb, just like a right on red in most intersections.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 01, 2016, 07:03:01 AM
My understanding of the left on red scenario is that you're hugging a curb, just like a right on red in most intersections.
Yes, for one-way to one-way. Not two-way to one-way, though.
Quote from: Ace10 on December 01, 2016, 01:10:19 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2016, 11:37:16 PM
That left on red stuff out west is weird. Really weird.
I do find it interesting though that Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia all share the same law, and all of those states/provinces border each other or are at least in the same region. I have to wonder if the driving culture here developed kind of as a cohesive whole and the laws reflect the practices that just organically developed, or if somehow other states/provinces looked to their neighbors to see how they do things and just followed suit.
But once you head south into California, any turn against a red arrow is a big no-no.
I wonder how many PacNW drivers make that mistake when visiting California (or other states for that matter)? What would you say to the officer if pulled over?
Quote from: roadfro on November 26, 2016, 01:50:50 AM
(With that said, I don't know if I'd take the left for sure without being there in person to better gauge the distances between my vehicle and any vehicles in that outer opposing left turn lane...)
For the five-way intersection, the bus is really careful about this turn, and typically does not take it if there's anyone coming up in the oncoming right lane of Lighthouse. From my vantage point, it looks like the bus encroaches into that lane when turning, but I can't know for sure without standing outside and looking, of course.
The curb doesn't have a lot of angle there, so I would guess that it is actually encroaching but, even if it's not, it's probably too close for anyone's comfort.
Tucson has so few one-way streets but also never posted signs about left on reds being permitted when there were situations where it was permitted. Probably as a result of that, I got honked at a couple of times for turning left on red there.
Quote from: coatimundi on December 01, 2016, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 26, 2016, 01:50:50 AM
(With that said, I don't know if I'd take the left for sure without being there in person to better gauge the distances between my vehicle and any vehicles in that outer opposing left turn lane...)
For the five-way intersection, the bus is really careful about this turn, and typically does not take it if there's anyone coming up in the oncoming right lane of Lighthouse. From my vantage point, it looks like the bus encroaches into that lane when turning, but I can't know for sure without standing outside and looking, of course.
The curb doesn't have a lot of angle there, so I would guess that it is actually encroaching but, even if it's not, it's probably too close for anyone's comfort.
Tucson has so few one-way streets but also never posted signs about left on reds being permitted when there were situations where it was permitted. Probably as a result of that, I got honked at a couple of times for turning left on red there.
If it's a legal move, there's no reason to post signage. When signage is posted it's usually due to unusual circumstances.
Quote from: Ace10 on December 01, 2016, 01:10:19 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2016, 11:37:16 PM
That left on red stuff out west is weird. Really weird.
I do find it interesting though that Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia all share the same law, and all of those states/provinces border each other or are at least in the same region. I have to wonder if the driving culture here developed kind of as a cohesive whole and the laws reflect the practices that just organically developed, or if somehow other states/provinces looked to their neighbors to see how they do things and just followed suit. (Michigan's the only other state with a similar law, but I leave it out since it's not in the Pacific Northwest region.)
The left-on-red from two-way to one-way is definitely a very unique thing here; I didn't find out about it until I pulled up the driver's manual in Washington out of sheer curiosity after I moved here. Actually, I think I looked up the law regarding turns on red arrows, since it's pretty much a tossup whether or not a state permits that movement. That's when I found out both Oregon and Washington are really liberal when it comes to turns on red. I really hope it stays that way.
Not quite as unique as you think. Michigan has the same law. And that's how I learned to drive, left on red from both a one-way and a two-way street to a one-way street.
Quote from: Brandon on December 01, 2016, 02:03:12 PM
Quote from: Ace10 on December 01, 2016, 01:10:19 AM
Quote from: cl94 on November 30, 2016, 11:37:16 PM
That left on red stuff out west is weird. Really weird.
I do find it interesting though that Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia all share the same law, and all of those states/provinces border each other or are at least in the same region. I have to wonder if the driving culture here developed kind of as a cohesive whole and the laws reflect the practices that just organically developed, or if somehow other states/provinces looked to their neighbors to see how they do things and just followed suit. (Michigan's the only other state with a similar law, but I leave it out since it's not in the Pacific Northwest region.)
The left-on-red from two-way to one-way is definitely a very unique thing here; I didn't find out about it until I pulled up the driver's manual in Washington out of sheer curiosity after I moved here. Actually, I think I looked up the law regarding turns on red arrows, since it's pretty much a tossup whether or not a state permits that movement. That's when I found out both Oregon and Washington are really liberal when it comes to turns on red. I really hope it stays that way.
Not quite as unique as you think. Michigan has the same law. And that's how I learned to drive, left on red from both a one-way and a two-way street to a one-way street.
I think he knows this ^^^^^
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2016, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on December 01, 2016, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 26, 2016, 01:50:50 AM
(With that said, I don't know if I'd take the left for sure without being there in person to better gauge the distances between my vehicle and any vehicles in that outer opposing left turn lane...)
For the five-way intersection, the bus is really careful about this turn, and typically does not take it if there's anyone coming up in the oncoming right lane of Lighthouse. From my vantage point, it looks like the bus encroaches into that lane when turning, but I can't know for sure without standing outside and looking, of course.
The curb doesn't have a lot of angle there, so I would guess that it is actually encroaching but, even if it's not, it's probably too close for anyone's comfort.
Tucson has so few one-way streets but also never posted signs about left on reds being permitted when there were situations where it was permitted. Probably as a result of that, I got honked at a couple of times for turning left on red there.
If it's a legal move, there's no reason to post signage. When signage is posted it's usually due to unusual circumstances.
A legal move in a minority of jurisdictions, but unusual in the vast majority of the country and the MUTCD. And it becomes difficult to remember where one rule applies and one rule doesn't. There is a benefit of having a uniform driving law across 50 states with exceptions CLEARLY* posted where warranted.
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough. If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2016, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on December 01, 2016, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 26, 2016, 01:50:50 AM
(With that said, I don't know if I'd take the left for sure without being there in person to better gauge the distances between my vehicle and any vehicles in that outer opposing left turn lane...)
For the five-way intersection, the bus is really careful about this turn, and typically does not take it if there's anyone coming up in the oncoming right lane of Lighthouse. From my vantage point, it looks like the bus encroaches into that lane when turning, but I can't know for sure without standing outside and looking, of course.
The curb doesn't have a lot of angle there, so I would guess that it is actually encroaching but, even if it's not, it's probably too close for anyone's comfort.
Tucson has so few one-way streets but also never posted signs about left on reds being permitted when there were situations where it was permitted. Probably as a result of that, I got honked at a couple of times for turning left on red there.
If it's a legal move, there's no reason to post signage. When signage is posted it's usually due to unusual circumstances.
A legal move in a minority of jurisdictions, but unusual in the vast majority of the country and the MUTCD. And it becomes difficult to remember where one rule applies and one rule doesn't. There is a benefit of having a uniform driving law across 50 states with exceptions CLEARLY* posted where warranted.
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough. If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.
It's a state law. Turns on red banned unless specifically allowed in municipalities over a certain size.
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2016, 08:42:41 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough. If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.
It's a state law. Turns on red banned unless specifically allowed in municipalities over a certain size.
That's hardly any more effective than posting a sign at the city limits. Not everyone is aware of the population of each city, nor how big a city needs to be before turns on red are banned.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2016, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2016, 08:42:41 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough. If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.
It's a state law. Turns on red banned unless specifically allowed in municipalities over a certain size.
That's hardly any more effective than posting a sign at the city limits. Not everyone is aware of the population of each city, nor how big a city needs to be before turns on red are banned.
The New York law applies to any city of 1 million of more, which is only New York City. If another city starts to approach 1 million, the number will be increased so that it still only applies to New York City.
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PMThere is a benefit of having ... exceptions CLEARLY* posted where warranted.
I agree with this statement inasmuch as it relates to prohibitions. But I see little to no benefit in posting when something usually prohibited is actually allowed.
Besides which, a statewide law is, IMHO, wide enough to not warrant special signage. Nationwide, in the USA, is too wide of a blanket. Statewide is more reasonable. And so, for example, I'm frustrated that Chicago can blanket-ban U-turns while the rest of Illinois permits them. And that my city can ban on-street parking by writ on specific streets only without signage. A driver shouldn't be expected to keep track of laws that vary from city to city. But knowing what laws change across state lines is more reasonable.
And the New York state law was obviously custom-drafted for NYC. Calling it a state law is barely speaking the truth.
Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:03:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2016, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2016, 08:42:41 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough. If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.
It's a state law. Turns on red banned unless specifically allowed in municipalities over a certain size.
That's hardly any more effective than posting a sign at the city limits. Not everyone is aware of the population of each city, nor how big a city needs to be before turns on red are banned.
The New York law applies to any city of 1 million of more, which is only New York City. If another city starts to approach 1 million, the number will be increased so that it still only applies to New York City.
Regardless,
Quote from: me a few minutes ago
Not everyone is aware of the population of each city, nor how big a city needs to be before turns on red are banned
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2016, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on December 01, 2016, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 26, 2016, 01:50:50 AM
(With that said, I don't know if I'd take the left for sure without being there in person to better gauge the distances between my vehicle and any vehicles in that outer opposing left turn lane...)
For the five-way intersection, the bus is really careful about this turn, and typically does not take it if there's anyone coming up in the oncoming right lane of Lighthouse. From my vantage point, it looks like the bus encroaches into that lane when turning, but I can't know for sure without standing outside and looking, of course.
The curb doesn't have a lot of angle there, so I would guess that it is actually encroaching but, even if it's not, it's probably too close for anyone's comfort.
Tucson has so few one-way streets but also never posted signs about left on reds being permitted when there were situations where it was permitted. Probably as a result of that, I got honked at a couple of times for turning left on red there.
If it's a legal move, there's no reason to post signage. When signage is posted it's usually due to unusual circumstances.
A legal move in a minority of jurisdictions, but unusual in the vast majority of the country and the MUTCD. And it becomes difficult to remember where one rule applies and one rule doesn't. There is a benefit of having a uniform driving law across 50 states with exceptions CLEARLY* posted where warranted.
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough. If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.
The basic rule is you must stop on red.
The exception is you may turn right or left on red after stopping when state law permits it. The exception to that is you can't turn when signage is posted.
Which exception do you sign?
Quote from: kphoger on December 04, 2016, 09:11:17 PM
Besides which, a statewide law is, IMHO, wide enough to not warrant special signage. Nationwide, in the USA, is too wide of a blanket. Statewide is more reasonable. And so, for example, I'm frustrated that Chicago can blanket-ban U-turns while the rest of Illinois permits them. And that my city can ban on-street parking by writ on specific streets only without signage. A driver shouldn't be expected to keep track of laws that vary from city to city. But knowing what laws change across state lines is more reasonable.
So I have to keep track of which states allow:
- Left on red from one-way to one-way
- Left on red from two-way to one-way
- Turn on red arrow
- A cracked windshield
- A single burned headlight
- Cellphone use (not texting) while driving
- Going up to 5 mph over the speed limit when passing
- The use of speed cameras
- The use of red light cameras
And default speed limits vary by state, too.
It's not like NYC doesn't post that turns on red are banned. Not only is it posted at almost every entrance to the City, it's posted regularly along major streets. And it's not like you could safely make a turn on red in a lot of the city, anyway.
It's almost like it's a good idea to know the driving laws of the state you're about to drive in...
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 04, 2016, 10:25:35 PMIt's almost like it's a good idea to know the driving laws of the state you're about to drive in...
While not complete, this site covers most of the important laws state-by-state:
http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/
Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:18:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 04, 2016, 09:11:17 PM
Besides which, a statewide law is, IMHO, wide enough to not warrant special signage. Nationwide, in the USA, is too wide of a blanket. Statewide is more reasonable. And so, for example, I'm frustrated that Chicago can blanket-ban U-turns while the rest of Illinois permits them. And that my city can ban on-street parking by writ on specific streets only without signage. A driver shouldn't be expected to keep track of laws that vary from city to city. But knowing what laws change across state lines is more reasonable.
So I have to keep track of which states allow:
- Left on red from one-way to one-way
- Left on red from two-way to one-way
- Turn on red arrow
- A cracked windshield
- A single burned headlight
- Cellphone use (not texting) while driving
- Going up to 5 mph over the speed limit when passing
- The use of speed cameras
- The use of red light cameras
And default speed limits vary by state, too.
In answering your question: YES.
And that's the problem. Our country allows and promotes freedom of travel and the automobile truly allows the people to travel among the states anytime you want. Why should the public be burdened with keeping track of all of this information? There really is no good reason.
And in a similar vein, there is a national push to have one national toll transponder. EZ-Pass is wonderful in that I can pay for toll facilities in VA, IL, and ME and nearly all states in between. But what if I drive to KS or TX or even CA? A single national transponder will make interstate travel easier.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 04, 2016, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2016, 01:57:20 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on December 01, 2016, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 26, 2016, 01:50:50 AM
(With that said, I don't know if I'd take the left for sure without being there in person to better gauge the distances between my vehicle and any vehicles in that outer opposing left turn lane...)
For the five-way intersection, the bus is really careful about this turn, and typically does not take it if there's anyone coming up in the oncoming right lane of Lighthouse. From my vantage point, it looks like the bus encroaches into that lane when turning, but I can't know for sure without standing outside and looking, of course.
The curb doesn't have a lot of angle there, so I would guess that it is actually encroaching but, even if it's not, it's probably too close for anyone's comfort.
Tucson has so few one-way streets but also never posted signs about left on reds being permitted when there were situations where it was permitted. Probably as a result of that, I got honked at a couple of times for turning left on red there.
If it's a legal move, there's no reason to post signage. When signage is posted it's usually due to unusual circumstances.
A legal move in a minority of jurisdictions, but unusual in the vast majority of the country and the MUTCD. And it becomes difficult to remember where one rule applies and one rule doesn't. There is a benefit of having a uniform driving law across 50 states with exceptions CLEARLY* posted where warranted.
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough. If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.
The basic rule is you must stop on red.
The exception is you may turn right or left on red after stopping when state law permits it. The exception to that is you can't turn when signage is posted.
Which exception do you sign?
The existing law of 38 states allows right turn on red after stopping and left turn on red from a one-way to a one-way after stopping. This should be the national rule enshrined in state laws and clearly pronounced in state driving manuals and taught in driving schools nationwide.
Then, on an intersection by intersection basis, signed exceptions where warranted should be signed.
Will this lead to too many signs? Perhaps. But I believe it will also lead to more judicious application of the exception. If NYC were forced to pay for a NTOR sign at every intersection with NTOR, there would be fewer intersections with a NTOR restriction. Sure, there would be plenty of NTOR signs in Manhattan, but I believe that many more intersections in the outer-boroughs, particularly areas beyond the reach of the subway lines and thus with fewer pedestrians, would simply allow turning on red by default.
And that would be a good thing.
Indeed. IMO, with each state having different laws on everything, it's too much to expect a reasonable person to remember. What do they think, that traveling out of state is unusual or something? You're just crossing a line on the map within the same country!
Perhaps we should have a state decide to drive on the left side of the road too. We have just about every other difference. What's the point of even having a MUTCD if states are all going to do their own thing?
The MUTCD is different from traffic law. Traffic laws are delegated to the states. Good luck getting that one changed.
Quote from: cl94 on December 05, 2016, 03:11:06 PM
The MUTCD is different from traffic law. Traffic laws are delegated to the states. Good luck getting that one changed.
It is true that traffic is a state law, but states arms can be twisted by the federal government in order to conform. Change the non-conforming law or we will withhold federal highway money.
This has happened with things like the original 55 MPH speed limit in the 1970's, 21 year old drinking age, 16 year old driving age, and RTOR.
There is no reason that this can't be done with the left on red scenarios discussed upthread if the federal DOT thinks that these rules should be uniform.
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2016, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 05, 2016, 03:11:06 PM
The MUTCD is different from traffic law. Traffic laws are delegated to the states. Good luck getting that one changed.
It is true that traffic is a state law, but states arms can be twisted by the federal government in order to conform. Change the non-conforming law or we will withhold federal highway money.
This has happened with things like the original 55 MPH speed limit in the 1970's, 21 year old drinking age, 16 year old driving age, and RTOR.
There is no reason that this can't be done with the left on red scenarios discussed upthread if the federal DOT thinks that these rules should be uniform.
No we don't need all the laws the same. As for the 16 year old driving age, what country are you in? Some states (South Dakota) allow 14 year olds to drive, while one must be 18 to drive in New York City. It's not that uniform.
Quote from: Brandon on December 05, 2016, 10:18:06 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 05, 2016, 08:07:24 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 05, 2016, 03:11:06 PM
The MUTCD is different from traffic law. Traffic laws are delegated to the states. Good luck getting that one changed.
It is true that traffic is a state law, but states arms can be twisted by the federal government in order to conform. Change the non-conforming law or we will withhold federal highway money.
This has happened with things like the original 55 MPH speed limit in the 1970's, 21 year old drinking age, 16 year old driving age, and RTOR.
There is no reason that this can't be done with the left on red scenarios discussed upthread if the federal DOT thinks that these rules should be uniform.
No we don't need all the laws the same. As for the 16 year old driving age, what country are you in? Some states (South Dakota) allow 14 year olds to drive, while one must be 18 to drive in New York City. It's not that uniform.
This. It's not even uniform across some
states. What's the driving age in New York? Depends on where you are. In NYC, you need to be 17 with a full license (which means Driver's Ed and a road test) to even drive in a car without dual brakes, let alone drive by yourself. Upstate, you can drive alone at 16.5 in a normal car if you've passed the road test.
Perhaps I should have clarified: the meaning of traffic control devices. If I get to a red light, what is and is not permissible to do shouldn't vary by jurisdiction. Laws applying to vehicles (cracked windshield etc.) should be enforced as the less restrictive of the state the vehicle is in and the state it's registered to. Stuff like speed limits (though one should not be required to memorize every default if it's complicated, but "50 unless otherwise posted" at the border isn't unreasonable) and age to get a licence can be left to the states, but if you have a valid licence in one state, it should be valid everywhere (graduated licence classes are a bit more complicated and I'm not entirely sure how to resolve those; perhaps something similar to my proposal for vehicle laws?).
Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:18:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 04, 2016, 09:11:17 PM
Besides which, a statewide law is, IMHO, wide enough to not warrant special signage. Nationwide, in the USA, is too wide of a blanket. Statewide is more reasonable. And so, for example, I'm frustrated that Chicago can blanket-ban U-turns while the rest of Illinois permits them. And that my city can ban on-street parking by writ on specific streets only without signage. A driver shouldn't be expected to keep track of laws that vary from city to city. But knowing what laws change across state lines is more reasonable.
So I have to keep track of which states allow:
- Left on red from one-way to one-way
- Left on red from two-way to one-way
- Turn on red arrow
- A cracked windshield
- A single burned headlight
- Cellphone use (not texting) while driving
- Going up to 5 mph over the speed limit when passing
- The use of speed cameras
- The use of red light cameras
And default speed limits vary by state, too.
Don't forget states that have it illegal to have a radar detector and you have to take it down at the state border on the interstate!
And once you get out of talking about driving, you have to keep track of all the other laws that are still different in every state (and city). Gun laws, how it needs to be stored when traveling in each state, drinking laws that vary all over for when we stop at a hotel while we're traveling... hell, some states still have (typically unenforced) laws about who you can cohabitat with while you're within their borders. I mean, even if you pick a single state, you can't possibly learn and know all the regulation or rules on what you can and cannot do (feeding the homeless is illegal in my area as well)
If you're observant, you'll see a no turn on red from a one way to a leftward one way. That's a pretty good sign left turn on red is permitted!
I'm not sure if you should really worry about if a state allows a burned out headlight. That's a safety issue that should be fixed asap.
As far as an issue defaulting to the less restrictive state, that would require cops to know the laws of all 50 states. Not reasonable.
Use of red light cameras? Um...just stop at a red light!
Many of us don't trust red light cameras. If you're in an area with them, you need to drive lower than the speed limit to make sure a short yellow doesn't cause you to run the light, and you need to avoid making a right on red or turning on a green arrow, just in case (people really did get ticketed for the latter around here).
As for less restrictive state... cops have computers in their cars. I could see something along the lines of the motorist getting pulled over, driver saying it's legal in their state, cop looking it up, and then the traffic stop ending.
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2016, 09:54:13 PM
Many of us don't trust red light cameras. If you're in an area with them, you need to drive lower than the speed limit to make sure a short yellow doesn't cause you to run the light, and you need to avoid making a right on red or turning on a green arrow, just in case (people really did get ticketed for the latter around here).
As for less restrictive state... cops have computers in their cars. I could see something along the lines of the motorist getting pulled over, driver saying it's legal in their state, cop looking it up, and then the traffic stop ending.
I got a red light camera ticket in Delaware almost ten years ago now. The rental car company charged me a service fee to look up my info to send me the ticket, but that's all I've ever paid on it. It's a bullshit ticket. For one, the initial correspondence came from a company in West Virginia. Then they eventually sold the debt. Now I occasionally still get letters about it from various debt collectors, even though the debt expired several years ago, just hoping I'm a sucker.
However, I would fathom that Delaware changed their rules to make it harder to dodge these things. It seemed to often be the case when red light cameras first appeared that they were all bullshit, but the states slowly caught on.
I went into a traffic court in Arizona a couple of years after I got that Delaware ticket (the Arizona one was a valid speeding ticket, issued by a cop, but I ended up getting out of it easily) and, right before I went up, the judge said, "Listen, everyone. If you get a red light camera ticket in the mail, don't pay it. Throw it away. Because as soon as you acknowledge it, that's it, and there's no contesting it. But it's not a real ticket until you do."
In Arizona, and in a lot of California, it's still not a real ticket. You don't have to pay it.
In Tucson, they were very problematic because of the way the signals work there. Most signals in town allow left on solid green even when there's an arrow at the light, but they also typically always have lagging left arrows. This meant that there was a very small period between the solid green and the green arrow where the camera was erroneously going off, as well as going off when the light turned red, even though you could legally still turn left on red if you were already in the intersection.
They ended up getting rid of all of them.
And realize with this that I'm just baiting all of you Boy Scouts into a lecture on responsibility. And to continue the off-topic torpedo on my own thread.
Quote from: 1 on December 04, 2016, 09:03:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 04, 2016, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2016, 08:42:41 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 04, 2016, 08:09:58 PM
* And in my view one sign at the city limits is not enough. If NYC wants a different law on NTOR than the rest of the country, they need a sign posted at every signalized intersection.
It's a state law. Turns on red banned unless specifically allowed in municipalities over a certain size.
That's hardly any more effective than posting a sign at the city limits. Not everyone is aware of the population of each city, nor how big a city needs to be before turns on red are banned.
The New York law applies to any city of 1 million of more, which is only New York City. If another city starts to approach 1 million, the number will be increased so that it still only applies to New York City.
What happens if Hempstead reaches 1 million? It's incorporated as a town. Do you think they'd still raise it?
Here's one for you. In downtown Orlando there is an intersection where I think left on red is legal, but I've never seen anyone do it. The opposing traffic is two-way, but the cross street and your street are one-way. Think it's legal?
Orange Ave. at South Street
https://goo.gl/maps/JuPKAStJLCE2
(BTW, at a nearby intersection, there is a double left turn one-way to one-way where the sign encourages left on red)
SR408 exit to South Street
https://goo.gl/maps/VoNMgsT8feG2
Here's the law for Florida:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.075.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.075.html)
Quote
316.075 Traffic control signal devices
(1)(c)Steady red indication
1. b. The driver of a vehicle on a one-way street that intersects another one-way street on which traffic moves to the left shall stop in obedience to a steady red signal, but may then make a left turn into the one-way street, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that municipal and county authorities may prohibit any such left turn as described, which prohibition shall be effective when a sign giving notice thereof is attached to the traffic control signal device at the intersection.
The law, at least my interpretation of it, would seem to allow the turn from Orange Ave onto South St. The conditions for being able to legally make the left appear to be made: the street you're on is one-way, and the street you're turning into is one-way. The one- or two-way status of other streets isn't mentioned in the law, except for a general "yield [...] to [...] other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection".
The only reason oncoming two-way traffic would matter is if someone is sitting there waiting to make a right on red and there aren't enough lanes available for everyone to make their respective right- or left-turns on red without coming into conflict. Since the left-turners can't see the opposing right-turner's signal, it would be difficult to determine who might have the right-of-way, and a right-turner not expecting the left-turner to enter the intersection may not be looking in that direction and a collision could occur.
Quote from: Ace10 on December 09, 2016, 12:52:35 AM
Here's the law for Florida:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.075.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.075.html)
Quote
316.075 Traffic control signal devices
(1)(c)Steady red indication
1. b. The driver of a vehicle on a one-way street that intersects another one-way street on which traffic moves to the left shall stop in obedience to a steady red signal, but may then make a left turn into the one-way street, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that municipal and county authorities may prohibit any such left turn as described, which prohibition shall be effective when a sign giving notice thereof is attached to the traffic control signal device at the intersection.
The law, at least my interpretation of it, would seem to allow the turn from Orange Ave onto South St. The conditions for being able to legally make the left appear to be made: the street you're on is one-way, and the street you're turning into is one-way. The one- or two-way status of other streets isn't mentioned in the law, except for a general "yield [...] to [...] other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection".
The only reason oncoming two-way traffic would matter is if someone is sitting there waiting to make a right on red and there aren't enough lanes available for everyone to make their respective right- or left-turns on red without coming into conflict. Since the left-turners can't see the opposing right-turner's signal, it would be difficult to determine who might have the right-of-way, and a right-turner not expecting the left-turner to enter the intersection may not be looking in that direction and a collision could occur.
And even though it's a left red arrow, Florida permits turning on a red arrow, so in this example you are permitted to turn left on red.
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2016, 09:54:13 PM
Many of us don't trust red light cameras. If you're in an area with them, you need to drive lower than the speed limit to make sure a short yellow doesn't cause you to run the light, and you need to avoid making a right on red or turning on a green arrow, just in case (people really did get ticketed for the latter around here).
As for less restrictive state... cops have computers in their cars. I could see something along the lines of the motorist getting pulled over, driver saying it's legal in their state, cop looking it up, and then the traffic stop ending.
A cop is not going to take the time to look up other states laws. And it doesn't matter anyway. A law in one state doesn't transfer over to other states. A cracked windshield is a safety issue, for example. What if the windshield was cracked in the more-restrictive state to begin with...just because the vehicle is registered in another state then doesn't have anything to do with the issue, because the issue didn't occur in that less-restrictive state.
In terms of turning left on red, it's prohibited in NJ. But someone from PA can't argue that they should be allowed to do it because it's allowed in their state.
Speaking of red light cameras...NJ is coming up on 2 years since their program ended. A report was supposed to be issued on their effectiveness. That report still hasn't come. The intersections I'm familiar with have had all their equipment removed, so I think the red light camera companies are resigned to the fact that the program seems to be dead for good in this state. It was a PITA when people refused to turn right on red because of those things.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 09, 2016, 08:59:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2016, 09:54:13 PM
Many of us don't trust red light cameras. If you're in an area with them, you need to drive lower than the speed limit to make sure a short yellow doesn't cause you to run the light, and you need to avoid making a right on red or turning on a green arrow, just in case (people really did get ticketed for the latter around here).
As for less restrictive state... cops have computers in their cars. I could see something along the lines of the motorist getting pulled over, driver saying it's legal in their state, cop looking it up, and then the traffic stop ending.
A cop is not going to take the time to look up other states laws. And it doesn't matter anyway. A law in one state doesn't transfer over to other states. A cracked windshield is a safety issue, for example. What if the windshield was cracked in the more-restrictive state to begin with...just because the vehicle is registered in another state then doesn't have anything to do with the issue, because the issue didn't occur in that less-restrictive state.
In terms of turning left on red, it's prohibited in NJ. But someone from PA can't argue that they should be allowed to do it because it's allowed in their state.
Speaking of red light cameras...NJ is coming up on 2 years since their program ended. A report was supposed to be issued on their effectiveness. That report still hasn't come. The intersections I'm familiar with have had all their equipment removed, so I think the red light camera companies are resigned to the fact that the program seems to be dead for good in this state. It was a PITA when people refused to turn right on red because of those things.
You can't argue that you should be allowed to do it, but you can explain to the cop that it's legal where you're from in an attempt to get out of the ticket. Something to the effect of "I didn't know it was illegal here, it is legal in "_____" where I live. My apologies."
Quote from: cl94 on December 09, 2016, 11:57:03 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 09, 2016, 08:59:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2016, 09:54:13 PM
Many of us don't trust red light cameras. If you're in an area with them, you need to drive lower than the speed limit to make sure a short yellow doesn't cause you to run the light, and you need to avoid making a right on red or turning on a green arrow, just in case (people really did get ticketed for the latter around here).
As for less restrictive state... cops have computers in their cars. I could see something along the lines of the motorist getting pulled over, driver saying it's legal in their state, cop looking it up, and then the traffic stop ending.
A cop is not going to take the time to look up other states laws. And it doesn't matter anyway. A law in one state doesn't transfer over to other states. A cracked windshield is a safety issue, for example. What if the windshield was cracked in the more-restrictive state to begin with...just because the vehicle is registered in another state then doesn't have anything to do with the issue, because the issue didn't occur in that less-restrictive state.
In terms of turning left on red, it's prohibited in NJ. But someone from PA can't argue that they should be allowed to do it because it's allowed in their state.
Speaking of red light cameras...NJ is coming up on 2 years since their program ended. A report was supposed to be issued on their effectiveness. That report still hasn't come. The intersections I'm familiar with have had all their equipment removed, so I think the red light camera companies are resigned to the fact that the program seems to be dead for good in this state. It was a PITA when people refused to turn right on red because of those things.
You can't argue that you should be allowed to do it, but you can explain to the cop that it's legal where you're from in an attempt to get out of the ticket. Something to the effect of "I didn't know it was illegal here, it is legal in "_____" where I live. My apologies."
And as long as the person isn't a dick to the cop about it, hopefully it goes in their favor!!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 09, 2016, 08:59:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2016, 09:54:13 PM
Many of us don't trust red light cameras. If you're in an area with them, you need to drive lower than the speed limit to make sure a short yellow doesn't cause you to run the light, and you need to avoid making a right on red or turning on a green arrow, just in case (people really did get ticketed for the latter around here).
As for less restrictive state... cops have computers in their cars. I could see something along the lines of the motorist getting pulled over, driver saying it's legal in their state, cop looking it up, and then the traffic stop ending.
A cop is not going to take the time to look up other states laws. And it doesn't matter anyway. A law in one state doesn't transfer over to other states. A cracked windshield is a safety issue, for example. What if the windshield was cracked in the more-restrictive state to begin with...just because the vehicle is registered in another state then doesn't have anything to do with the issue, because the issue didn't occur in that less-restrictive state.
In terms of turning left on red, it's prohibited in NJ. But someone from PA can't argue that they should be allowed to do it because it's allowed in their state.
Speaking of red light cameras...NJ is coming up on 2 years since their program ended. A report was supposed to be issued on their effectiveness. That report still hasn't come. The intersections I'm familiar with have had all their equipment removed, so I think the red light camera companies are resigned to the fact that the program seems to be dead for good in this state. It was a PITA when people refused to turn right on red because of those things.
For things like left on red, I was envisioning the federal government forcing the states to have uniform laws. The "less restrictive of the two" would apply only to things like the cracked windshield and driver's licences. As for police not wanting to look up laws, they have computers in their cars, it wouldn't take long, they probably spend more time in the stop looking for an excuse to search your car for drugs. Also, DC already does look up other state's laws so they can enforce them in the district; if your state does annual inspections and it's expired, DC will give you a ticket.
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2016, 07:58:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 09, 2016, 08:59:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2016, 09:54:13 PM
Many of us don't trust red light cameras. If you're in an area with them, you need to drive lower than the speed limit to make sure a short yellow doesn't cause you to run the light, and you need to avoid making a right on red or turning on a green arrow, just in case (people really did get ticketed for the latter around here).
As for less restrictive state... cops have computers in their cars. I could see something along the lines of the motorist getting pulled over, driver saying it's legal in their state, cop looking it up, and then the traffic stop ending.
A cop is not going to take the time to look up other states laws. And it doesn't matter anyway. A law in one state doesn't transfer over to other states. A cracked windshield is a safety issue, for example. What if the windshield was cracked in the more-restrictive state to begin with...just because the vehicle is registered in another state then doesn't have anything to do with the issue, because the issue didn't occur in that less-restrictive state.
In terms of turning left on red, it's prohibited in NJ. But someone from PA can't argue that they should be allowed to do it because it's allowed in their state.
Speaking of red light cameras...NJ is coming up on 2 years since their program ended. A report was supposed to be issued on their effectiveness. That report still hasn't come. The intersections I'm familiar with have had all their equipment removed, so I think the red light camera companies are resigned to the fact that the program seems to be dead for good in this state. It was a PITA when people refused to turn right on red because of those things.
For things like left on red, I was envisioning the federal government forcing the states to have uniform laws. The "less restrictive of the two" would apply only to things like the cracked windshield and driver's licences. As for police not wanting to look up laws, they have computers in their cars, it wouldn't take long, they probably spend more time in the stop looking for an excuse to search your car for drugs. Also, DC already does look up other state's laws so they can enforce them in the district; if your state does annual inspections and it's expired, DC will give you a ticket.
Not all departments have their MDT's enabled for full Internet access. Some because of $$$ and some because of security concerns. Our agency does have internet capability but the deputy would have to completely log out of his Mobile Cad and VPN to get on the internet and then close the internet and then log back in to the terminal for normal operation again. A PITA they just aren't going to do unless they really have too. Besides, it's really up to the individual to know the law and comply with it, not for the state to bend over because someone from another state didn't know.
That said most cops that I know aren't going to mess with someone over a cracked windshield or loud exhaust, for example, unless the windshield was so badly damaged that the drivers vision would be significantly impaired or the exhaust so loud that it belongs on the race track. Note: I did add the qualifier "that I know. I am aware some of you live in places where things like this are a really big deal and you get stopped for it all the time.
In the Broad Channel neighborhood of Queens, New York, you are able to make a left turn on red at certain intersections on Cross Bay Blvd. A fairly quiet area with not much traffic throughout most of the year, so it sounds logical for the NYCDOT to allow it in certain areas, like here.
There are a handful of other spots elsewhere in the city where you're permitted to do so, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2016, 07:58:28 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 09, 2016, 08:59:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 06, 2016, 09:54:13 PM
Many of us don't trust red light cameras. If you're in an area with them, you need to drive lower than the speed limit to make sure a short yellow doesn't cause you to run the light, and you need to avoid making a right on red or turning on a green arrow, just in case (people really did get ticketed for the latter around here).
As for less restrictive state... cops have computers in their cars. I could see something along the lines of the motorist getting pulled over, driver saying it's legal in their state, cop looking it up, and then the traffic stop ending.
A cop is not going to take the time to look up other states laws. And it doesn't matter anyway. A law in one state doesn't transfer over to other states. A cracked windshield is a safety issue, for example. What if the windshield was cracked in the more-restrictive state to begin with...just because the vehicle is registered in another state then doesn't have anything to do with the issue, because the issue didn't occur in that less-restrictive state.
In terms of turning left on red, it's prohibited in NJ. But someone from PA can't argue that they should be allowed to do it because it's allowed in their state.
Speaking of red light cameras...NJ is coming up on 2 years since their program ended. A report was supposed to be issued on their effectiveness. That report still hasn't come. The intersections I'm familiar with have had all their equipment removed, so I think the red light camera companies are resigned to the fact that the program seems to be dead for good in this state. It was a PITA when people refused to turn right on red because of those things.
For things like left on red, I was envisioning the federal government forcing the states to have uniform laws.
The downside is that the uniform laws could be the most restrictive of the possibilities. Remember...the basic rule is Red = Stop. The exceptions, in 50 states, are that vehicles may turn right on red after a full stop. In 45 states, vehicles may turn left after a full stop. The federal government could say the uniform law goes back to the basic law: All traffic must stop and stay stopped on red, meaning that everyone loses the turning on red privileges.
I was envisioning the uniform laws would be the most common ones and as specified in the MUTCD... left on red legal from a one-way to a one-way, right on red permitted, turn on red arrow prohibited, etc.
I would have thought that the basic rule was "right turn on red permitted after stop", with only NYC and Montréal contradicting, but then, I was born long after it became the law of the land, so the idea that it would be prohibited is very strange to me.
Quote from: vdeane on December 11, 2016, 06:20:21 PM
I was envisioning the uniform laws would be the most common ones and as specified in the MUTCD... left on red legal from a one-way to a one-way, right on red permitted, turn on red arrow prohibited, etc.
I would have thought that the basic rule was "right turn on red permitted after stop", with only NYC and Montréal contradicting, but then, I was born long after it became the law of the land, so the idea that it would be prohibited is very strange to me.
If anyone wanted to feel old, any new teenage drivers today weren't even alive during the NMSL days, and have no clue as to the significance and hatred of 55 mph speed limits.
Instance in Cambridge MA where it is signed for No Left Turn on Red (between two one way streets). Only prohibited when signed in Mass
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3729216,-71.1180533,3a,75y,29.82h,84.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7gxF-MIBvSQS0t_xFJpAXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656