One thing I've seen with dedicated left-turn signals is that, in addition to the green and yellow left arrows, the red signal aspect will be an arrow as well. (Red left arrows are most common, but I've sometimes seen red right and even straight-ahead arrows as well.)
What I wanted to know is as follows: does having a red arrow specifically - as opposed to a normal red circle light - have any particular meaning, or is it simply a stylistic choice by the state or local authorities in charge of the signal?
I suppose the red arrow is meant to signify "do not proceed in that direction" - but if they're part of a dedicated left-turn signal installation (as they most commonly are), then I suppose an ordinary red ball would convey the same message to drivers - especially when, say, that light is red at the same time that the signals governing right turns and through-movements are green. Therefore, I believe that the choice of red arrow vs. red circle is purely a matter of aesthetics - although I suppose the cost of the lenses for the various signal aspects could play a role as well.
Might anyone have any insight on this?
Simplest answer: it depends on the state.
Some allow turns on a red arrow: WA, OR, etc
Some do not allow turns on a red arrow: CA, DC, etc
In states that allow turns on red arrows, you'll find more all-arrow signals in lieu of lane assignment signs (those black-on-white arrow signs that say "left turn only" or whatever). It's not unusual to find right turns in WA that have all arrow displays in front of them; right-on-red (and left-on-red!) is still allowed so they use the red arrow to more clearly indicate what that lane does. Other states, like CA, might use a red ball here instead to explicitly allow turns on red, reserving red arrows for those specific occasions where they want to ban turns on red.
As to what's better: I think you could argue in favor of both.
No
They're fairly rare in Minnesota, with the only one I can think off offhand being an "all traffic must turn" situation where a two-way road meets an oncoming off-ramp. A red ball probably would have sufficed but they must have wanted to emphasize the all traffic must turn part of it.
Quote from: KCRoadFan on September 17, 2020, 10:19:52 PM
One thing I've seen with dedicated left-turn signals is that, in addition to the green and yellow left arrows, the red signal aspect will be an arrow as well. (Red left arrows are most common, but I've sometimes seen red right and even straight-ahead arrows as well.)
What I wanted to know is as follows: does having a red arrow specifically - as opposed to a normal red circle light - have any particular meaning, or is it simply a stylistic choice by the state or local authorities in charge of the signal?
I suppose the red arrow is meant to signify "do not proceed in that direction" - but if they're part of a dedicated left-turn signal installation (as they most commonly are), then I suppose an ordinary red ball would convey the same message to drivers - especially when, say, that light is red at the same time that the signals governing right turns and through-movements are green. Therefore, I believe that the choice of red arrow vs. red circle is purely a matter of aesthetics - although I suppose the cost of the lenses for the various signal aspects could play a role as well.
Might anyone have any insight on this?
Maybe it's for motorist clarity. In California we don't have many three-way signals and we also don't have many intersections with one signalhead per lane like some other states. Except in special circumstances, a green ball is used to show that all allowed movements have the right of way in that direction. So there's not necessarily an obvious correlation for a motorist between a particular signalhead and a given lane or lane movement. A driver approaching an intersection with one signalhead showing a red ball and another signalhead showing a green ball might be confused, whereas a driver approaching an intersection with a red left arrow and a green ball knows that through movements and right turns have the right of way but left turns do not.
One way you can tell if turning right on a red arrow is forbidden is whether the intersection has signs that say "No Turn on Red". If there are no such signs present, then a right turn would be allowed, provided the driver comes to a complete stop first. FWIW, red arrows give a clear indication of what the signal is intended for, and are far less ambiguous than the standard red ball.
Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2020, 10:40:03 AM
One way you can tell if turning right on a red arrow is forbidden is whether the intersection has signs that say "No Turn on Red". If there are no such signs present, then a right turn would be allowed, provided the driver comes to a complete stop first. FWIW, red arrows give a clear indication of what the signal is intended for, and are far less ambiguous than the standard red ball.
Some states prohibit right on red arrow, even if there is no sign present.
Quote from: Henry on September 18, 2020, 10:40:03 AM
One way you can tell if turning right on a red arrow is forbidden is whether the intersection has signs that say "No Turn on Red". If there are no such signs present, then a right turn would be allowed, provided the driver comes to a complete stop first. FWIW, red arrows give a clear indication of what the signal is intended for, and are far less ambiguous than the standard red ball.
The signage isn't always there. CA state law requires NTO red arrow, but the sign isn't always present. State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:03:31 AM
and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.
There is a fix for it, but it would require changing about 10—15% of signals in the country. Right on red arrow would be prohibited if solid and allowed if flashing, no signs necessary.
So, do some states just allow RTOR on a red arrow, without a sign saying so? If so, that really irks me. The MUTCD makes it pretty clear:
From Section 4D.04:
Quote
Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed.
When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.
Sure, I complain about my home state and metro area a lot, but they also do a lot of things well and get a lot of things right: https://goo.gl/maps/2zQCKpXZ1Fo3rVwc7
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:03:31 AM
State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.
Except for that handy-dandy MUTCD, which is free and available for anyone to read 24/7 online.
Virginia is an example of a state that changed the law. Virginia law used to allow turns on red (not necessarily just right turns) at red arrows due to an arguable oversight in the way the statutes were written. The statutes simply referred to a red signal and didn't distinguish between a red arrow and a circular red indicator. This was amended a few years ago–the statutes now say as follows (the old statutes merely referred to "traffic facing a steady red signal" and the second paragraph wasn't included in either of these provisions):
Quote from: Va Code 46.2-835
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed prohibiting turns on steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red circular signal, after coming to a full stop, may cautiously enter the intersection and make a right turn.
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed permitting turns on a steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow, after coming to a full stop, shall remain standing until a signal to proceed is shown.
....
Quote from: Va Code 46.2-836
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed prohibiting turns on steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red circular signal on a one-way highway, after coming to a full stop, may cautiously enter the intersection and make a left turn onto another one-way highway.
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 46.2-833, except where a traffic control device is placed permitting turns on a steady red, vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow signal, after coming to a full stop, shall remain standing until a signal to proceed is shown.
....
I can think of at least one intersection off the top of my head where the far right lane has a circular red and the second lane from the right has a red arrow (westbound Eisenhower Avenue at Van Dorn Street in the City of Alexandria, for those who know the area), although there is also a typical Virginia sign saying turns on red are allowed only from the curb lane. Prior to the statute being amended as described above, the sign was there but both lanes had red arrows. I always thought that was mildly interesting because if you had any doubt about whether turning on a red arrow was allowed, that sign basically confirmed it, although if you didn't know what the statute said it would have been fair to question whether it was allowed generally or whether that sign created an exception for that particular intersection.
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 18, 2020, 11:33:16 AM
So, do some states just allow RTOR on a red arrow, without a sign saying so? If so, that really irks me.
Yes. Your home state of Kansas allows this.
Quote from: Kansas Statutes, Chapter 8 — Automobiles and Other Vehicles
Article 15 — Uniform Act Regulating Traffic; Rules of the Road
§ 8-1508 — Traffic-control signal legend
(c) Steady red indication.
(1) Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of this subsection. Any turn provided for in paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) shall be governed by the applicable provisions of K.S.A. 8-1545, and amendments thereto.
(2) Unless a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn after stopping as required by paragraph (1) of this subsection. After stopping, the driver shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 18, 2020, 11:33:16 AM
Sure, I complain about my home state and metro area a lot, but they also do a lot of things well and get a lot of things right: https://goo.gl/maps/2zQCKpXZ1Fo3rVwc7
As illustrated above, that sign is unnecessary in the state of Kansas. Right turn on red arrow is permitted unless a sign prohibits it.
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 18, 2020, 11:33:16 AM
The MUTCD makes it pretty clear:
From Section 4D.04:
Quote
Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed.
When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:03:31 AM
State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.
Except for that handy-dandy MUTCD, which is free and available for anyone to read 24/7 online.
Except that the Uniform Vehicle Code, on which many states' codes are based, contradicts the MUTCD section you cited. The Kansas code referenced above, in fact, is nearly identical to the UVC. Moreover, the UVC goes so far as to permit left turn on red left arrow after stop.
Quote from: Uniform Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
ARTICLE 11 — TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
§ 11-202 — Traffic-control signal legend
(c) Steady red indication
1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subsection (c)3.
2. [...]
3. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subsection (c) 1 or subsection (c)2. After stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. Such driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 18, 2020, 11:33:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:03:31 AM
State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.
Except for that handy-dandy MUTCD, which is free and available for anyone to read 24/7 online.
Except that the MUTCD is not "law", but rather a national policy on the application of traffic control devices (which itself can be modified or supplemented by state versions). So the actual vehicular statutes of the state is what applies.
For example, Nevada has no definition of a steady red arrow in Nevada Revised Statutes, so RTOR arrow is technically legal here. However, it is extremely rare in Nevada to find a red right arrow signal that isn't also accompanied by a "No turn on red" sign (I only know of one example statewide), as NDOT and the various agencies require using sign to achieve the MUTCD-intended effect.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2020, 01:03:11 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 18, 2020, 11:33:16 AM
The MUTCD makes it pretty clear:
From Section 4D.04:
Quote
Vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make another movement permitted by another signal indication, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection; or if there is no crosswalk, then before entering the intersection; and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed.
When a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication, vehicular traffic facing a steady RED ARROW signal indication is permitted to enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow signal indication, after stopping. The right to proceed with the turn shall be limited to the direction indicated by the arrow and shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:03:31 AM
State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.
Except for that handy-dandy MUTCD, which is free and available for anyone to read 24/7 online.
Except that the Uniform Vehicle Code, on which many states' codes are based, contradicts the MUTCD section you cited. The Kansas code referenced above, in fact, is nearly identical to the UVC. Moreover, the UVC goes so far as to permit left turn on red left arrow after stop.
Quote from: Uniform Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
ARTICLE 11 — TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
§ 11-202 — Traffic-control signal legend
(c) Steady red indication
1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subsection (c)3.
2. [...]
3. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subsection (c) 1 or subsection (c)2. After stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. Such driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.
You omitted the text of subsection 2...the part that agrees with the MUTCD definition of red arrow almost verbatim...
Quote from: Uniform Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition, Article 11, § 11-202 (c)
2. Vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow, and unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication permitting the movement indicated by such red arrow is shown except as provided in subsection (c)3
(emphasis added)
The key difference though appears to be that the UVC would still allow a left turn on red arrow from one way into one way, which doesn't appear to be accommodated in the MUTCD.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2020, 01:03:11 PM
Except that the Uniform Vehicle Code, on which many states' codes are based, contradicts the MUTCD section you cited. The Kansas code referenced above, in fact, is nearly identical to the UVC. Moreover, the UVC goes so far as to permit left turn on red left arrow after stop.
Drat!
Quote from: roadfro on September 18, 2020, 01:39:51 PM
Except that the MUTCD is not "law", but rather a national policy on the application of traffic control devices (which itself can be modified or supplemented by state versions). So the actual vehicular statutes of the state is what applies.
It is and it isn't. It a set of regulations governing the design of traffic control devices, but it also includes a mechanism by which exceptions can be made.
For what it's worth, it's all too easy to forget Section 1A.09, Paragraph 02: "This Manual describes the application of traffic control devices, but shall not be a legal requirement for their installation." So, that at least arguably overrides "...and shall remain stopped until a signal indication or
other traffic control device permitting the movement indicated by such RED ARROW is displayed" (emphasis added), because it overrides the requirement for any traffic control device permitting the movement.
Frankly, though, with all these rules contradicting each other, I'm starting to think we all live in Alanland.
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:03:31 AM
The signage isn't always there. CA state law requires NTO red arrow, but the sign isn't always present. State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.
This is an unfortunate side effect of allowing each state to determine their own laws. Keeping Right Except to Pass is another similar law in some states but not all. Even signaling to switch lanes can vary between states I believe.
Quote from: roadfro on September 18, 2020, 01:39:51 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 18, 2020, 11:33:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:03:31 AM
State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.
Except for that handy-dandy MUTCD, which is free and available for anyone to read 24/7 online.
Except that the MUTCD is not "law", but rather a national policy on the application of traffic control devices (which itself can be modified or supplemented by state versions). So the actual vehicular statutes of the state is what applies.
For example, Nevada has no definition of a steady red arrow in Nevada Revised Statutes, so RTOR arrow is technically legal here. However, it is extremely rare in Nevada to find a red right arrow signal that isn't also accompanied by a "No turn on red" sign (I only know of one example statewide), as NDOT and the various agencies require using sign to achieve the MUTCD-intended effect.
Exactly. Many people forget what the M in the MUTCD stands for.
And to show how it really is a manual and not law, NJ doesn't have any statutes restricting a right turn on red *signal* (in other words, it doesn't differentiate between an orb or arrow), unless there's a "NTOR" sign present. If you want to try to claim that the MUTCD is gospel and it states that right turns on red arrows can't be made, then I'll quickly point out that the MUTCD also states that left on red can be made from a one way to a one way. NJ law states that only a right turn on red can be made at a red light, unless there's a "NTOR" sign present. MUTCD as gospel would mean this statute isn't necessary.
Quote from: roadfro on September 18, 2020, 01:58:34 PM
You omitted the text of subsection 2...the part that agrees with the MUTCD definition of red arrow almost verbatim...
I should have cited subsection 2 instead of subsection 1, actually. But it doesn't change anything anyway. Put together, it still doesn't agree with the MUTCD.
* UVC 11-202(c)(1) = Stop at a red ball, don't go again until it turns green, except as allowed in Subsection 3.
* UVC 11-202(c)(2) = Stop at a red arrow, don't go again until it turns green, except as allowed in Subsection 3.
* UVC 11-202(c)(3) = RTOR or one-way-to-one-way LTOR is permitted at any signal unless prohibited by signage to the contrary.
Pertinent portions shown below:
Quote from: Uniform Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
1. Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop ... and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in subsection (c)3.
2. Vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow, and ... shall stop ... except as provided in subsection (c)3.
3. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping as required by subsection (c) 1 or subsection (c)2. [...]
I'll tell you what, if I was designing a traffic signal assembly with a red right arrow, I would always include either a "NO TURN ON RED" sign, or a "RIGHT TURN ON RED ARROW AFTER STOP" sign, depending on whether or not the RTOR prohibition is warranted.
Wherever I drive, if I see a red arrow without a sign saying I can make a turn on red after stopping, I wait for it to turn green. Since the laws vary state-by-state, I'd rather be safe than sorry. Just like how (these days) I follow "Keep Right Except to Pass" (or except when approaching a left turn or left exit) everywhere I go, even though it isn't the law in every single jurisdiction. I honestly think it's a bit too much to ask drivers to memorize all the differences in traffic laws between the lower 48 states, so it's just prudent to go with the most restrictive if you don't want to risk getting a ticket.
Quote from: 1 on September 18, 2020, 11:05:17 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:03:31 AM
State laws do vary on whether you may turn right on a red arrow, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one uniform law on it.
There is a fix for it, but it would require changing about 10—15% of signals in the country. Right on red arrow would be prohibited if solid and allowed if flashing, no signs necessary.
Agreed.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2020, 02:09:01 PM
This is an unfortunate side effect of allowing each state to determine their own laws. Keeping Right Except to Pass is another similar law in some states but not all. Even signaling to switch lanes can vary between states I believe.
Agreed.
As all of the above indicates it is not only confusing for states to have different interpretations on whether a right turn on red, after stop, is permitted on a steady right red arrow, the different rules are entirely unnecessary.
One set of rules on this and other basic driving rules should apply nationwide.
Two possibilities, if there is political will for a nationalized system. (Perhaps the feds can force the states to adopt a uniform rule, they legally threatened to withhold highway money to force every state to have a minimum drinking age of 21.)
(1) RTOR permitted on steady right arrow. This means:
Steady red right arrow is equivalent to steady red orb for right turn purposes.
Flashing red right arrow has no unique meaning so its unnecessary (except maybe for nighttime flash and/or stop signs)
If jurisdiction wants to prohibit right turns on red, they need to add a sign at the intersection.
(2) RTOR prohibited on steady right arrow. This means:
No RTOR signs at intersections with steady right arrow are unnecessary.
Flashing red arrow can be used to indicate the equivalent of a red orb (make a full stop then proceed on turn).
A sign to permit right turn on red after stop can also be used, but should be discouraged
One of the above rules should be the uniform national rule. Now, some states choose (1) and some states choose (2).
As with the last thread that we had on red arrows, I continue to be on the fence for several reasons:
(1) flashing red arrow would have no unique meaning if turns on red arrows are allowed, but flashing red arrows remain exceptionally rare apart from very unique situations, even in states that ban turns against a red arrow (CA for instance). I have no reason to believe these would be widely adopted if the national standard changed to banning turns on red arrow in all states (by punishment of withholding highway funds or something).
(2) WA and OR 'left turn from two way to one way' laws allow me turn left against a solid red arrow when clear; there's no chance these agencies would change their signal operations to FRA or put up a sign to continue permitting the turn. 'Turn on red' laws are taught in drivers ed, and many people would have to relearn what is permitted (and people who live in states where the maneuver is legal would have to relearn, to avoid "running" a red light).
(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws put most miles on their car in a single state (likely the state within which they reside). Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.
(4) states that use red arrows purely to indicate what the lane does (not my favorite but definitely a thing) would have to change hundreds or thousands of signal faces to allow RTOR, or install just as many "RTOR permitted" signs.
(5) any all-arrow signals that operate as an LPI would also then need either "LEFT/RIGHT TURN SIGNAL" signs (for those changed to a red orb) or "TURN ON RED OK AFTER STOP" signs (if right on red is to be allowed). States that allow turns on red arrows do not require any signage for this right now.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2020, 02:48:51 PM
....
(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws. Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.
....
The clause in boldface seems implausible to me–I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state, other than perhaps people from Alaska or Hawaii or maybe a few of the very large states out west like Texas. (Maybe being from the East Coast, with its smaller states, and living six miles from a state line colors my perception, of course.) I do think, however, that most people assume that whatever the law is in their own state is also the law everywhere else, except with respect to obvious things like speed limits* and maybe some more esoteric things like Virginia not allowing radar detectors.
*Even with speed limits, there are still some clueless people: Last summer I worked with a guy who swore there is a 55-mph national speed limit and told me I was crazy when I disagreed with him. Nice guy in general, but talk about someone who doesn't get out much....
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2020, 05:25:11 PM
I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state
I very rarely go more than 20 miles from my home. While this does cross a state line in my case, it is probably not the case for most of the population.
Just as an example: How often do you think the average person (not a roadgeek) from Hendersonville, TN drives to Kentucky, only 20 miles away? I would estimate once every two months on average. And that's one of the
northern suburbs of Nashville, and there are many metros (Los Angeles, DFW, Atlanta, etc. farther from a state line.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2020, 05:25:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2020, 02:48:51 PM
....
(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws. Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.
....
The clause in boldface seems implausible to me–I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state, other than perhaps people from Alaska or Hawaii or maybe a few of the very large states out west like Texas. (Maybe being from the East Coast, with its smaller states, and living six miles from a state line colors my perception, of course.) I do think, however, that most people assume that whatever the law is in their own state is also the law everywhere else, except with respect to obvious things like speed limits* and maybe some more esoteric things like Virginia not allowing radar detectors.
*Even with speed limits, there are still some clueless people: Last summer I worked with a guy who swore there is a 55-mph national speed limit and told me I was crazy when I disagreed with him. Nice guy in general, but talk about someone who doesn't get out much....
I reworded my post. I was trying to imply that most people spend most of their time (probably 99% of the year) in a single state, and have become accustomed to the laws of that state (the exceptions being metro areas that span multiple states, but even then, most non-commute driving is likely in their home state). Changing the law on red arrows in WA because the law in CA "makes more sense" doesn't make sense to me: CA drivers are used to waiting for green, WA drivers are not. Why does there need to be a single harmonious law? Neither state frequents the other more than occasionally at best. Even people who live in Northern Idaho (where turns on red arrows are banned) probably spend most of their time in Idaho, and not across the border in Spokane.
The only advantage I can see to banning turns on red arrows is so that you can reduce the number of "no turn on red" signs. But this fails to take into account how many new "turn on red arrow OK after stop" signs would need to be implemented around the country, where red arrows were installed without the intent of banning turns on red. These signals could be changed to flashing red arrows, but this requires more than just a simple code change, and would take decades to complete across an entire state. You'd be far more likely to see the red arrows removed than changed to flashing red, since you could just swap out the signal head.
One place where a natural "no turn on red arrow" law makes sense is along corridors with protected cycle paths. In WA, these corridors are largely protected by red arrows, and are (usually)
accompanied by NTOR signage (https://goo.gl/maps/GjpHFSdvAiJVXyT28). But this situation is far less common than the
typical red arrow in WA (https://goo.gl/maps/MY7mHSgnkjKgWpm19), which is basically just to tell people that the signal is for left or right turns. Given this, we must ask ourselves: is it worth changing the law so we can stop installing "no turn on red" signs along cycling corridors, or keep the law the same, and reserve turn-on-red bans for those situations
where a sign can achieve the same result (https://goo.gl/maps/irDxYH88cuaSLF4DA)?
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2020, 05:25:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2020, 02:48:51 PM
....
(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws. Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.
....
The clause in boldface seems implausible to me–I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state, other than perhaps people from Alaska or Hawaii or maybe a few of the very large states out west like Texas. (Maybe being from the East Coast, with its smaller states, and living six miles from a state line colors my perception, of course.)
Most people around here do the vast majority of driving in Oklahoma, since the OKC metro is at least a hundred miles from a state line in all directions. While yeah, most people do take occasional recreational trips down to Dallas for whatever, it's far enough away that going down there is definitely more of a special occasion.
When I was in high school, one of my classmates had never been outside of Oklahoma in his life. I think that's probably a rare extreme, but it's entirely possible for someone with no out-of-state relatives and no compelling reason to visit Dallas.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2020, 06:28:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2020, 05:25:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2020, 02:48:51 PM
....
(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws. Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.
....
The clause in boldface seems implausible to me–I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state, other than perhaps people from Alaska or Hawaii or maybe a few of the very large states out west like Texas. (Maybe being from the East Coast, with its smaller states, and living six miles from a state line colors my perception, of course.) I do think, however, that most people assume that whatever the law is in their own state is also the law everywhere else, except with respect to obvious things like speed limits* and maybe some more esoteric things like Virginia not allowing radar detectors.
*Even with speed limits, there are still some clueless people: Last summer I worked with a guy who swore there is a 55-mph national speed limit and told me I was crazy when I disagreed with him. Nice guy in general, but talk about someone who doesn't get out much....
I reworded my post. I was trying to imply that most people spend most of their time (probably 99% of the year) in a single state, and have become accustomed to the laws of that state (the exceptions being metro areas that span multiple states, but even then, most non-commute driving is likely in their home state). ....
OK, I can certainly agree with that proposition. I had interpreted you to be suggesting that most people spend their entire lives in a given state and never leave it, and I found that implausible. If you'd said most Americans never leave the country, even in normal circumstances when the borders are open, I'd have agreed with that. The way you phrase your point here makes more sense and I certainly can't argue with it because areas like where I live, where it's routine for large numbers of people to commute across state lines, are certainly the exception rather than the norm (notwithstanding places like New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago).
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 24, 2020, 02:01:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2020, 06:28:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2020, 05:25:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2020, 02:48:51 PM
....
(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws. Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.
....
The clause in boldface seems implausible to me–I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state, other than perhaps people from Alaska or Hawaii or maybe a few of the very large states out west like Texas. (Maybe being from the East Coast, with its smaller states, and living six miles from a state line colors my perception, of course.) I do think, however, that most people assume that whatever the law is in their own state is also the law everywhere else, except with respect to obvious things like speed limits* and maybe some more esoteric things like Virginia not allowing radar detectors.
*Even with speed limits, there are still some clueless people: Last summer I worked with a guy who swore there is a 55-mph national speed limit and told me I was crazy when I disagreed with him. Nice guy in general, but talk about someone who doesn't get out much....
I reworded my post. I was trying to imply that most people spend most of their time (probably 99% of the year) in a single state, and have become accustomed to the laws of that state (the exceptions being metro areas that span multiple states, but even then, most non-commute driving is likely in their home state). ....
OK, I can certainly agree with that proposition. I had interpreted you to be suggesting that most people spend their entire lives in a given state and never leave it, and I found that implausible. If you'd said most Americans never leave the country, even in normal circumstances when the borders are open, I'd have agreed with that. The way you phrase your point here makes more sense and I certainly can't argue with it because areas like where I live, where it's routine for large numbers of people to commute across state lines, are certainly the exception rather than the norm (notwithstanding places like New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago).
I think regular commuting and more or less reasonably common travel are two different concepts, but there are definitely a lot of the population that are within a daytrip's journey of another state. So many of our largest cities are near state lines: NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Charlotte, St. Louis, Cincinnatti, Kansas City, Virginia Beach, Louisville, Memphis, and El Paso. And there are more that are within 100 miles of a border. So there are quite a lot of people that could be affected if neighboring states have different rules of traffic interpretation.
Getting back to the topic at hand, is there a list (or partial list) over which states treat right red arrow as red ball and which states treat red arrow as do not proceed until red arrow is extinguished. And for the states in the second category, are there any instances of a red right arrow that is not also accompanied by a NTOR arrow sign or equivalent? It would seem, then, that even though a majority of the states may be in the second category, it may make sense to make the first category the national rule and just add a NTOR sign as appropriate if NTOR is desired.
I have stated on this forum before, and I will repeat it now, I dislike NYC's special exemption for NTOR. While I understand the inherent risks of turning on red in intersections with heavy pedestrian presence, I believe that each intersection needs to be carefully analyzed and signs should be put up in every intersection where NTOR is warranted. There are plenty of intersections in Staten Island and Queens where NTOR is not warranted, but are prohibited any way. While there is signage of NYC's law at city entrances, I don't feel that this is enough warning for out of state drivers.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2020, 06:28:23 PM
The only advantage I can see to banning turns on red arrows is so that you can reduce the number of "no turn on red" signs. But this fails to take into account how many new "turn on red arrow OK after stop" signs would need to be implemented around the country, where red arrows were installed without the intent of banning turns on red. These signals could be changed to flashing red arrows, but this requires more than just a simple code change, and would take decades to complete across an entire state. You'd be far more likely to see the red arrows removed than changed to flashing red, since you could just swap out the signal head.
I think this isn't really valid. Since we're not really adding a state or anything like with FYA, I'd imagine most controller are capable of being wired in such a way to configure a light to flash. The only situation that I can think of where it probably couldn't be wired that way without substantial work is if its not a single wire being shared with the straight movements. Even if thats the case, in the days of LED bulbs, it'd be fairly easy to develop a bulb with the flasher integrated into it so the controller doesn't even need to know about it, and that likely wouldn't cost even as much as a sign. If it doesn't already exist. Hell, my pool light bulb can change colors and flash at will!
Out of curiosity, does MUTCD specify a solid right red arrow should be used for NTOR and a FRA for permitting turn on red after stop? I'd really like to see the MUTCD updated to mandate it, so new installations get it at the very least. It does seem like most new installations I see while travelling are using FYA and retroreflective borders, even if most areas haven't gone back and upgraded the old intersections yet. And it seems to be growing fairly quickly all things considered.
Quote from: UCFKnights on September 26, 2020, 11:31:32 AM
Out of curiosity, does MUTCD specify a solid right red arrow should be used for NTOR and a FRA for permitting turn on red after stop? I'd really like to see the MUTCD updated to mandate it, so new installations get it at the very least. It does seem like most new installations I see while travelling are using FYA and retroreflective borders, even if most areas haven't gone back and upgraded the old intersections yet. And it seems to be growing fairly quickly all things considered.
The 2009 MUTCD already defines the meanings of signal indications that would be compatible with this (see Section 4D.04 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part4/part4d.htm#section4D04), p03.C.2 & p03.F.2):
Steady red arrow: Cannot enter the intersection to turn in the direction of the arrow. Must stop and remain stopped until the red arrow is extinguished. (Exception applies if another traffic control device permits the movement, then stop sign rules apply.)
Flashing red arrow: Must stop first. Traffic can proceed in the direction of the arrow according to stop sign rules.
Given other rules on signal indications, a red arrow could really only be used in situations where a dedicated turn lane exists. So the steady/flashing red arrow governing RTOR can't be used everywhere.
EDIT: Removed list tags[/list]
Quote from: mrsman on September 25, 2020, 10:47:45 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 24, 2020, 02:01:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2020, 06:28:23 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2020, 05:25:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2020, 02:48:51 PM
....
(3) uniformity is important, but most people only drive in their state with their state's laws. Some uniformity for "keep right" sake makes sense (especially for safety), but uniformity for red arrows seems to be uniformity for uniformity's sake, with there not being any obvious safety benefits to banning turns on red arrows.
....
The clause in boldface seems implausible to me–I highly doubt most people drive only in their own state, other than perhaps people from Alaska or Hawaii or maybe a few of the very large states out west like Texas. (Maybe being from the East Coast, with its smaller states, and living six miles from a state line colors my perception, of course.) I do think, however, that most people assume that whatever the law is in their own state is also the law everywhere else, except with respect to obvious things like speed limits* and maybe some more esoteric things like Virginia not allowing radar detectors.
*Even with speed limits, there are still some clueless people: Last summer I worked with a guy who swore there is a 55-mph national speed limit and told me I was crazy when I disagreed with him. Nice guy in general, but talk about someone who doesn't get out much....
I reworded my post. I was trying to imply that most people spend most of their time (probably 99% of the year) in a single state, and have become accustomed to the laws of that state (the exceptions being metro areas that span multiple states, but even then, most non-commute driving is likely in their home state). ....
OK, I can certainly agree with that proposition. I had interpreted you to be suggesting that most people spend their entire lives in a given state and never leave it, and I found that implausible. If you'd said most Americans never leave the country, even in normal circumstances when the borders are open, I'd have agreed with that. The way you phrase your point here makes more sense and I certainly can't argue with it because areas like where I live, where it's routine for large numbers of people to commute across state lines, are certainly the exception rather than the norm (notwithstanding places like New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago).
I think regular commuting and more or less reasonably common travel are two different concepts, but there are definitely a lot of the population that are within a daytrip's journey of another state. So many of our largest cities are near state lines: NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Charlotte, St. Louis, Cincinnatti, Kansas City, Virginia Beach, Louisville, Memphis, and El Paso. And there are more that are within 100 miles of a border. So there are quite a lot of people that could be affected if neighboring states have different rules of traffic interpretation.
Getting back to the topic at hand, is there a list (or partial list) over which states treat right red arrow as red ball and which states treat red arrow as do not proceed until red arrow is extinguished. And for the states in the second category, are there any instances of a red right arrow that is not also accompanied by a NTOR arrow sign or equivalent? It would seem, then, that even though a majority of the states may be in the second category, it may make sense to make the first category the national rule and just add a NTOR sign as appropriate if NTOR is desired.
I have stated on this forum before, and I will repeat it now, I dislike NYC's special exemption for NTOR. While I understand the inherent risks of turning on red in intersections with heavy pedestrian presence, I believe that each intersection needs to be carefully analyzed and signs should be put up in every intersection where NTOR is warranted. There are plenty of intersections in Staten Island and Queens where NTOR is not warranted, but are prohibited any way. While there is signage of NYC's law at city entrances, I don't feel that this is enough warning for out of state drivers.
And how often you can get away following the laws of one state in the other state? It's not that red light has a different meaning. One would need to find an infrequent situation where laws are indeed different, AND a cop willing to enforce something that cannot be very dangerous (otherwise, it will be banned across the board). So I can reasonably see people just being unaware of fine print differences.
^^^^
I certainly made a point of looking up North Carolina law regarding left on red when I started law school because downtown Durham has a lot of places where said maneuver should be allowed but is not due to the state's inexplicable ban on same (not that it necessarily stopped me when I was in my 20s).
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 26, 2020, 03:43:55 PM
^^^^
I certainly made a point of looking up North Carolina law regarding left on red when I started law school because downtown Durham has a lot of places where said maneuver should be allowed but is not due to the state's inexplicable ban on same (not that it necessarily stopped me when I was in my 20s).
That's another rule that should have a uniform national application. LTOR permitted from one way to one way unless a sign says otherwise. In states that want to prohibit the movement, just put up a NTOR sign.
Someone with the time and energy and desire should compile a list of where RTOR is allowed on a red arrow vs. where it is prohibited. And the same with right turns on red from the leftmost of two right-turn lanes.
I'm not sure of Kentucky's laws on either, although I routinely turn right from the leftmost turn lane on the ramp from southbound I-75 to US 60 in Lexington.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2020, 04:07:03 PM
Someone with the time and energy and desire should compile a list of where RTOR is allowed on a red arrow vs. where it is prohibited. And the same with right turns on red from the leftmost of two right-turn lanes.
I'm not sure of Kentucky's laws on either, although I routinely turn right from the leftmost turn lane on the ramp from southbound I-75 to US 60 in Lexington.
I think HB hit the nail on the head. These rules are so obscure that many do not even know their own state's rules on such, let alone being able to keep track of other states. It speaks to the need for uniformity and possibly the need for signage, even when there is uniformity.
The right turn on red from the left of two lanes is a really obscure concept. I would hope that whereever that is prohibited, there would be signs posted, even if that is a statewide rule. (I believe that's the rule in VA and I believe that every time that concept applies, there is signage.)
RTOR arrow has all of the confusion discussed upthread. In addition, there are probably some states where there isn't even a set rule on the books at all for a steady red arrow.
Quote from: mrsman on September 29, 2020, 08:12:14 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2020, 04:07:03 PM
Someone with the time and energy and desire should compile a list of where RTOR is allowed on a red arrow vs. where it is prohibited. And the same with right turns on red from the leftmost of two right-turn lanes.
I'm not sure of Kentucky's laws on either, although I routinely turn right from the leftmost turn lane on the ramp from southbound I-75 to US 60 in Lexington.
I think HB hit the nail on the head. These rules are so obscure that many do not even know their own state's rules on such, let alone being able to keep track of other states. It speaks to the need for uniformity and possibly the need for signage, even when there is uniformity.
The right turn on red from the left of two lanes is a really obscure concept. I would hope that whereever that is prohibited, there would be signs posted, even if that is a statewide rule. (I believe that's the rule in VA and I believe that every time that concept applies, there is signage.)
RTOR arrow has all of the confusion discussed upthread. In addition, there are probably some states where there isn't even a set rule on the books at all for a steady red arrow.
In my observation, the boldfaced comment is correct, although the signage varies from intersection to intersection and sometimes even within the same intersection if there are two signs posted. There are two signs advising of the prohibition as you exit the Beltway at Van Dorn, for example, and it's understandable why the small sign hanging from the span wire has a shorter message. (https://goo.gl/maps/21QRCK3QiFhE7Kt58) VDOT is absolutely religious about signing this prohibition (with one weird exception I'll mention), and in my observation the independent cities seem to follow their lead on this (the example I'm the most familiar with, because it's closest to where I live, is westbound Eisenhower Avenue at Van Dorn Street in the City of Alexandria, where a sign on Eisenhower says right on red is allowed from the curb lane only). The unintended side effect is that in many places, only the far right lane gets a lot of use for turning traffic because people don't want to get stuck not being able to turn on red from the other lane.
The weird exception is the very rare situation where there are dual left-turn lanes where a left on red is permitted. I can think of two such locations off the top of my head (four such spots at the interchange of Seminary Road and I-395, and one such spot involving a left-only lane and an optional left-or-straight lane going from westbound US-29 to the Fairfax County Parkway, VA-286) and neither of them has a sign saying left turns on red are permitted from the far left lane only. You'd think the same principles that cause them to insist on right on red from the far right lane only would apply. But then, I'd wager over 95% of motorists in Virginia have no clue that left on red is ever permitted at all, so as a practical matter it probably doesn't matter.
Regarding turning on red from lanes other than the curb lane, I'm never sure whether that's allowed when I'm in other states, but in Florida I routinely see people do it, so I've followed their example so as not to hold up the traffic. I just always hope people have the lane discipline to turn into the correct lane when they do that. People in the DC area definitely do NOT have much lane discipline when they turn, even on green and even when there are three turn lanes all with those small skip lines (VDOT sometimes calls them "puppy tracks") guiding you around the turn. I sometimes wonder whether Virginia's prohibition of right-on-red from other than the far right lane contributes to some of this because so few people typically turn right from other lanes, unless the light is green when they get there, that people are just used to there not being anyone to their left.
(Edited to move a sentence that unintentionally didn't fit where I had typed it.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 29, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
...even when there are three turn lanes all with those small skip lines (VDOT sometimes calls them "puppy tracks") guiding you around the turn.
A friend of mine will call them "idiot lines".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 29, 2020, 08:59:16 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 29, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
...even when there are three turn lanes all with those small skip lines (VDOT sometimes calls them "puppy tracks") guiding you around the turn.
A friend of mine will call them "idiot lines".
I can think of some intersections where they're useful for various reasons, such as it not necessarily being apparent what's around the corner due to visibility issues (https://goo.gl/maps/t8jEHrT2QcVfE5tc8) or situations where the road curves somewhat as you go across the intersection such that people unfamiliar with it need to be told where to go (https://goo.gl/maps/pvRVXTQftucaTjD1A).
But then there are places where it doesn't matter what they do. This intersection has two left-only lanes and an option lane and plenty of signs telling you which lane goes where. (https://goo.gl/maps/xNN2yHu8A4xrdkV9A) But then you go around the corner and, while Street View doesn't show it, it tends to be a free-for-all of lane-changing (https://goo.gl/maps/9hTpVvG5yGwrS4Kt8)–people in the far left lane that heads to Old Keene Mill Road try to shove right to get onto the highway, and people in the far right lane that goes to I-95 South try to shove left to get to either I-95 North, the Beltway, or I-395 North, never mind all the signs that told them which lanes to use. It's a wonder there aren't more crashes there.