AARoads Forum

When the new DDI at Exit 153 for NC-119 at I-85/I-40 in Mebane, North Carolina was still under construction, the left turn lanes from the off-ramps were temporarily protected with stop signs.  After a few years, the permanent left turn signals were installed.  Sure enough, I kept making left turns on red (same as with the stop signs) until I realized that North Carolina is still one of the states that prohibits left turns on red onto one way streets.  This isn't a problem yet, but since completion of the NC-119 Bypass around the west side of Mebane, traffic is starting to pick back up.  It seems to me that the "left turn on red" prohibition is significantly reducing the inherent throughput of the DDI.

Is this an issue in other states that still have the "left turn on red" prohibition?

Legally, in Minnesota, a vehicle may make a left turn on red from a one-way to another one-way, unless otherwise posted. All but three of the DDI examples I looked through in my state have signs prohibiting left turns on red. They are:
- US 169 at MN 41 / Scott CSAH 78 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7652596,-93.5782888,3a,75y,15.89h,91.59t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQTN0Ei8p-_mXcneCFuCf1g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DQTN0Ei8p-_mXcneCFuCf1g%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D232.76508%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0).
- MN 101 at Hennepin CSAH 144 (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.2100362,-93.5522079,3a,75y,6.09h,91.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqJXq3eXbQVnrvc2xsnRXZQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DqJXq3eXbQVnrvc2xsnRXZQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D72.55629%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0).
- US 52 at Olmstead County 31 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.1825927,-92.578581,3a,83y,120.48h,79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQD3JSLjNyRqQj-qfQ8akyA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0). (this one has yield signs)

I can imagine that "no left turn on red" signs at DDIs would create additional traffic backup, especially this one near the Mall of America and the MSP International Airport (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8628265,-93.2223035,3a,75y,212.35h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s96IBMGKf30WFSHXavH7YzA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D96IBMGKf30WFSHXavH7YzA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D212.34985%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0). But at this location and many others, I understand the possible need for those signs, especially with high thru-traffic.

I-75 at University Drive in Auburn Hills, one of the first DDI's in the area, does NOT have NTOR signs:  https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6660231,-83.2396437,3a,63.6y,284.33h,94.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTCjpxLPbukKs4SDoCZCXjA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 02, 2022, 10:58:12 AM
When the new DDI at Exit 153 for NC-119 at I-85/I-40 in Mebane, North Carolina was still under construction, the left turn lanes from the off-ramps were temporarily protected with stop signs.  After a few years, the permanent left turn signals were installed.  Sure enough, I kept making left turns on red (same as with the stop signs) until I realized that North Carolina is still one of the states that prohibits left turns on red onto one way streets.  This isn't a problem yet, but since completion of the NC-119 Bypass around the west side of Mebane, traffic is starting to pick back up.  It seems to me that the "left turn on red" prohibition is significantly reducing the inherent throughput of the DDI.

Is this an issue in other states that still have the "left turn on red" prohibition?

Wow, I didn't know that any state prohibited left turn on red from a one-way to a one-way.  It makes no sense.  My daughter lives in Charlotte and I'm up there quite a bit so I will have to watch out for that.

What states prohibit LTOR from a one-way to a one-way? They need to post signs at the state line stating that prohibition.  I know NC doesn't have any signage posted about that, and I've crossed the state line in many locations.

The main thing reducing throughput of DDIs in my experience, is the fact that most people are unaware of the left turn on red being legal.

I haven't been to all the DDIs in Atlanta and/or Georgia, but some of the busier ones do have "No turn on red" signs (and have had them since being built).

A lot of left turns at DDIs in Utah get red arrow traffic signals, which in Utah means you cannot turn on red even if not explicitly signed.

Some others, like the one at I-15 and 500 South in Bountiful, are explicitly signed with “Left on red after stop / left on red must yield to thru traffic”. Others, like the one at 201 and Bangerter in West Valley, have no signage but only have red ball signals instead of red arrows, suggesting a tacit approval of the maneuver.

Here’s the thing, though - I have never seen anyone turn left on red at any DDI where it wasn’t explicitly indicated as permitted. Nor have I done it myself. Utah doesn’t have a whole lot of one-way streets to begin with, so even though left on red from a one-way to a one-way is legal in Utah, not a lot of people know that’s allowed. And even among people who know the move is legal, even fewer will conceptualize a DDI left turn as this type of situation. I wouldn’t if not for this forum.

Like other states, WA also permits left-on-red (arrow/ball), even from a two-way street, but the only DDI in the state has no-turn-on-red for all movements (left and right turns).

There is another under construction (nearly; WA-18 @ I-90), so it remains to be seen whether this is a statewide policy, or just something they're experimenting with. WSDOT rarely signs NTOR to begin with.

Of the Illinois DDIs:
The Marion one for The Hill Ave at I-57, the left turn onramp movements are controlled with Yield signs
The Aurora one for IL 59 at I-88, has a constant/steady Green Arrow for controlling the left turn onramp movements
The Romeoville one for Weber Rd at I-55, I have not traveled since it opened, and it is not yet on GSV, so no data
The Des Plaines one for Elmhurst Rd at I-90/Addams Tollway, the left movement onramps to the tollway are not traffic signal nor sign controlled at all!

I dont think IDOT nor ISTHA has snuck another one in across the state, but if they have, I am not sure where

Quote from: ilpt4u on August 04, 2022, 11:12:52 PM
Of the Illinois DDIs:
The Marion one for The Hill Ave at I-57, the left turn onramp movements are controlled with Yield signs
The Aurora one for IL 59 at I-88, has a constant/steady Green Arrow for controlling the left turn onramp movements
The Romeoville one for Weber Rd at I-55, I have not traveled since it opened, and it is not yet on GSV, so no data
The Des Plaines one for Elmhurst Rd at I-90/Addams Tollway, the left movement onramps to the tollway are not traffic signal nor sign controlled at all!

I dont think IDOT nor ISTHA has snuck another one in across the state, but if they have, I am not sure where

I would think left turn on red would be more applicable to the off-ramp turning left onto the surface street, not the on-ramp onto the freeway.

Quote from: ran4sh on August 04, 2022, 11:17:01 PM
I would think left turn on red would be more applicable to the off-ramp turning left onto the surface street, not the on-ramp onto the freeway.

Indeed.  All of the DDIs that I have seen have the left-turns from the road onto the freeway separated from the traffic signal with a gore such that left turns are unimpeded (plus the opposing right turns have a Yield sign).  If I am correct, the concept of those unimpeded left-turns is the main benefit of the DDI arrangements.

New York normally allows left turn on red if turning left from a one way street onto another (outside of NYC). A lot of drivers don't seem to know about this though. LTOR is prohibited if a red arrow is displayed.

However, at New York's only DDI, at I 590, exit 1, the left turns on red are prohibited by sign. The signals there have red balls.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1072198,-77.5764121,3a,37.5y,83.11h,93.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suuyzZ33IcSODAAEdVBTR_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1082267,-77.5752815,3a,37.5y,250.89h,90.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRdY0H-ip78ASCKIS9RFJjw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0

Signal with red ball displayed.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1082299,-77.5749218,3a,15y,256.25h,91.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYUYt-i3GnJ-0gR8iTSqpbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0


EDIT TO ADD: The DDI at I 590, exit 1 is no longer NY's only DDI. A DDI was recently constructed at NY 17, exit 131 as mentioned in RestrictOnTheHanger's post below and also here. (https://www.akrf.com/project/ny-route-17-exit-131-atcs/)

NY also has a DDI near the Woodbury Commons at the US6/NY17/NY32/Thruway junction, completed fairly recently. No signs nor red arrows prohibiting turns from what I remember.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/eU4Ko31hB3CxDCV56

Meanwhile this DDI in TN at I40 and TN66 has signs that explicitly state LTOR is allowed... Threw me for a loop when I drove through

https://maps.app.goo.gl/1LxfcLFCgo1tuDZA7

Quote from: rlb2024 on August 02, 2022, 11:32:29 AM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 02, 2022, 10:58:12 AM
When the new DDI at Exit 153 for NC-119 at I-85/I-40 in Mebane, North Carolina was still under construction, the left turn lanes from the off-ramps were temporarily protected with stop signs.  After a few years, the permanent left turn signals were installed.  Sure enough, I kept making left turns on red (same as with the stop signs) until I realized that North Carolina is still one of the states that prohibits left turns on red onto one way streets.  This isn't a problem yet, but since completion of the NC-119 Bypass around the west side of Mebane, traffic is starting to pick back up.  It seems to me that the "left turn on red" prohibition is significantly reducing the inherent throughput of the DDI.

Is this an issue in other states that still have the "left turn on red" prohibition?

Wow, I didn't know that any state prohibited left turn on red from a one-way to a one-way.  It makes no sense.  My daughter lives in Charlotte and I'm up there quite a bit so I will have to watch out for that.

What states prohibit LTOR from a one-way to a one-way? They need to post signs at the state line stating that prohibition.  I know NC doesn't have any signage posted about that, and I've crossed the state line in many locations.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.



Plus NYC dont have signs to state it is the only place in the US that NTOR is the law automatically. Even with the rest of NY allowing turns on red, but being NY state law allows a city with a population over 8 million ( no other state city comes no where near that) to have the turns on red not applicable it stays the way it is.   Luckily for us who can identify the signal installations know even when we crossed the city limit to make the turn or not.

Quote from: rlb2024 on August 02, 2022, 11:32:29 AM
What states prohibit LTOR from a one-way to a one-way? They need to post signs at the state line stating that prohibition.  I know NC doesn't have any signage posted about that, and I've crossed the state line in many locations.

Agreed, at least on the major highways and exits from airports. They could use a similar sign to Montreal's, but just flip the "no right" to a "no left".
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/CA-QC_road_sign_P-115-1-MTL.svg/240px-CA-QC_road_sign_P-115-1-MTL.svg.png)

Quote from: roadman65 on August 05, 2022, 11:37:34 PM
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Plus NYC dont have signs to state it is the only place in the US that NTOR is the law automatically. Even with the rest of NY allowing turns on red, but being NY state law allows a city with a population over 8 million ( no other state city comes no where near that) to have the turns on red not applicable it stays the way it is.   Luckily for us who can identify the signal installations know even when we crossed the city limit to make the turn or not.

I agree that ignorance of the law is not a legal defence, but NYC should be signing their NTOR restrictions at major crossings and airport exits because realistically most people don't think to read the local traffic laws. The cost of adding some signs to me seems worth the benefit of informing tourists of the local law (especially since it impacts pedestrian safety). The goal shouldn't be to catch tourists breaking the law, but to keep them from breaking it in the first place.

I was going to recommend the Montreal sign for here to, but now I'm realizing the sign technically doesn't prohibit left on red, even though that is illegal in Montreal. A better version would show left and right turn restrictions on red to be extra clear.

Quote from: roadman65 on August 05, 2022, 11:37:34 PM

Quote from: rlb2024 on August 02, 2022, 11:32:29 AM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 02, 2022, 10:58:12 AM
When the new DDI at Exit 153 for NC-119 at I-85/I-40 in Mebane, North Carolina was still under construction, the left turn lanes from the off-ramps were temporarily protected with stop signs.  After a few years, the permanent left turn signals were installed.  Sure enough, I kept making left turns on red (same as with the stop signs) until I realized that North Carolina is still one of the states that prohibits left turns on red onto one way streets.  This isn't a problem yet, but since completion of the NC-119 Bypass around the west side of Mebane, traffic is starting to pick back up.  It seems to me that the "left turn on red" prohibition is significantly reducing the inherent throughput of the DDI.

Is this an issue in other states that still have the "left turn on red" prohibition?

Wow, I didn't know that any state prohibited left turn on red from a one-way to a one-way.  It makes no sense.  My daughter lives in Charlotte and I'm up there quite a bit so I will have to watch out for that.

What states prohibit LTOR from a one-way to a one-way? They need to post signs at the state line stating that prohibition.  I know NC doesn't have any signage posted about that, and I've crossed the state line in many locations.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.



Plus NYC dont have signs to state it is the only place in the US that NTOR is the law automatically. Even with the rest of NY allowing turns on red, but being NY state law allows a city with a population over 8 million ( no other state city comes no where near that) to have the turns on red not applicable it stays the way it is.   Luckily for us who can identify the signal installations know even when we crossed the city limit to make the turn or not.

NYC certainly used to sign that NTOR was City law in a few prominent places.  I'd be surprised if there was no signage whatsoever now.

NTOR signs are still posted on major roads / highways that enter the city, as well as leaving airports.

Quote from: RestrictOnTheHanger on August 07, 2022, 10:21:01 AM
NTOR signs are still posted on major roads / highways that enter the city, as well as leaving airports.

That's correct.  There is some form of the sign when crossing the city limits at practically every major entry.  Given its location, the number of entries are somwhat limited, due to the water.  There is no entry for cars from the south at all, and there are only 6 entries from the west at bridges and tunnels.  From the north, you have the Bronx/Westchester line, but the majority of that boundary is either Van Cortlandt Park or Pelham Park, so most people are still restricted from entering at a finite number of points (expressways, parkways, and major streets for the most part).  From the east, you have the Queens/Nassau line and while there are many points of entry, every major one has signage.  Plus, it is hard to believe that someone driving in from Long Island is unfamiliar with the NYC rule.

Here is one at Union Turnpike at the Nassau/Queens border:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7524245,-73.7019147,3a,15y,223.3h,92.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soT5vWerBzMcYA_E51vWqVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The issue that I have is that I don't think it's good enough.  Since it is couter to the national law that permits RTOR everywhere else, NYC should justify each and every application at each intersections and provide appropriate signage at each relevant intersection.  While there are certain rules that a city could put up as a default ordinance that applies citywide (for instance manny have a global overnight parking restriction or an overall speed limit), I don't think a traffic rule that differs from the rest of the country should be covered by simply providing a sign at the city limit.

Quote from: mrsman on August 07, 2022, 08:32:15 PM

Quote from: RestrictOnTheHanger on August 07, 2022, 10:21:01 AM
NTOR signs are still posted on major roads / highways that enter the city, as well as leaving airports.

That's correct.  There is some form of the sign when crossing the city limits at practically every major entry.  Given its location, the number of entries are somwhat limited, due to the water.  There is no entry for cars from the south at all, and there are only 6 entries from the west at bridges and tunnels.  From the north, you have the Bronx/Westchester line, but the majority of that boundary is either Van Cortlandt Park or Pelham Park, so most people are still restricted from entering at a finite number of points (expressways, parkways, and major streets for the most part).  From the east, you have the Queens/Nassau line and while there are many points of entry, every major one has signage.  Plus, it is hard to believe that someone driving in from Long Island is unfamiliar with the NYC rule.

Here is one at Union Turnpike at the Nassau/Queens border:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7524245,-73.7019147,3a,15y,223.3h,92.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soT5vWerBzMcYA_E51vWqVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The issue that I have is that I don't think it's good enough.  Since it is couter to the national law that permits RTOR everywhere else, NYC should justify each and every application at each intersections and provide appropriate signage at each relevant intersection.  While there are certain rules that a city could put up as a default ordinance that applies citywide (for instance manny have a global overnight parking restriction or an overall speed limit), I don't think a traffic rule that differs from the rest of the country should be covered by simply providing a sign at the city limit.

Feel free to die on that hill, then.

Quote from: rlb2024 on August 02, 2022, 11:32:29 AM
What states prohibit LTOR from a one-way to a one-way?

AFAIK Missouri still does.

---

As for left turns from the exits at DDI's in Illinois:

* I-88 at IL 59:  Not allowed on red EB exit Streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/xpF8ME9xFeTTVoyf9), WB exit Streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/ZZeLoRv9r9jmEs6u9).  This does not allow right turns on red either.

* I-90 at Elmhurst Road:  Not allowed on red.  EB exit Streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/PmUhuN2wZekTZpCS7), WB exit Streetview. (https://goo.gl/maps/Wfy1m4cpsmXS1cbP9)  This one does not allow rights on red either.

* I-57 at the Hill Avenue in Marion:  Has 'Left Turn On Red After Stop' signs.  SB exit Streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/Gi17m4MDgXyATZLU9), NB exit Streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/tZUfWHEEAoJFDrnU6)

---

I-40 at TN 66 allows lefts on red, complete with non-MUTCD compliant upward pointing red arrows.  EB exit Streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/oJKAeZkLwGWAHuu58), WB exit Streetview (https://goo.gl/maps/n1q6eReAy3gj463U8).  At least WB also appears to use circular yellow indications between the green arrows and red arrows.

Personally, there's a bit of a gray area in which LTOR is permitted at a DDI.  Granted, I'm not going to read every state's law here, but in general, the laws state that motorists may turn left on red from a one way street to a one way street.  DDIs aren't one way streets.  They're two way streets, but the movement of traffic is on the opposite side of the roadway.  There can be arguments made on both sides of the issue, but on the strict interpretation of the statute, they are probably often illegal turns.

The biggest argument you can come after me with is that the left turn is made onto the nearest roadway or lane, similar to a normal right turn on red.  And while that's true, that's not what the laws and statutes state in writing.

Quote from: rlb2024 on August 02, 2022, 11:32:29 AM
What states prohibit LTOR from a one-way to a one-way? They need to post signs at the state line stating that prohibition.  I know NC doesn't have any signage posted about that, and I've crossed the state line in many locations.

The law in every state is a motorist must stop at a red light. The *exception* is that you may turn right on red after a full stop.  Many states also have an *exception* that you may turn left on red from a one way street to a one way street after a full stop.  It's those states that should be signing the exception.

You also get into an issue of requiring states to monitor every other state's ever-changing laws.  Once the majority of states allows something, why is it the responsibility of the other states now in the minority to sign a law or rule that doesn't apply to them?

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2022, 11:17:26 PM
DDIs aren't one way streets....There can be arguments made on both sides of the issue, but on the strict interpretation of the statute, they are probably often illegal turns.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

Around here, Washington State signs them as two one-way streets. The ramps are also signed:

https://goo.gl/maps/85YQ4c1ed4r49qFS7

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2022, 11:17:26 PM

Quote from: rlb2024 on August 02, 2022, 11:32:29 AM
What states prohibit LTOR from a one-way to a one-way? They need to post signs at the state line stating that prohibition.  I know NC doesn't have any signage posted about that, and I've crossed the state line in many locations.

The law in every state is a motorist must stop at a red light. The *exception* is that you may turn right on red after a full stop.  Many states also have an *exception* that you may turn left on red from a one way street to a one way street after a full stop.  It's those states that should be signing the exception.

You also get into an issue of requiring states to monitor every other state's ever-changing laws.  Once the majority of states allows something, why is it the responsibility of the other states now in the minority to sign a law or rule that doesn't apply to them?

I agree, this is why I don't believe NC etc should have to post signs that LTOR is not allowed. It's not that NC and those other states actually decided to prohibit LTOR, but rather, they never added the LTOR exception to their law, and every time it's brought up results in the usual arguments that government has more important things to deal with and shouldn't waste time debating whether to add that law.

Ohio allows LTOR between two one-way streets, and the signage choices at our DDI seem to reflect this. Of the 3 DDI in the state that I'm aware of, two of them (I-75 exit 19 and I-270 exit 10) sign "No turn on red", while the third (I-475 exit 2) sign "Left on red after stop (https://goo.gl/maps/oY2QwkoWTR4uXQGc7)".

Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:36:38 PM
It's not that NC and those other states actually decided to prohibit LTOR, but rather, they never added the LTOR exception to their law, and every time it's brought up results in the usual arguments that government has more important things to deal with and shouldn't waste time debating whether to add that law.

What exception? In virtually every case, left and right on red were made legal at the same time. I'm sure in many states, as is the case here in WA (RCW 46.61.055, section 3), the same statute making right on red legal also makes left on red legal. NC specifically chose to leave out left turns, and that's odd.

Virginia allows lefts on red from one-way streets to other one-way streets, although I'd wager 99 percent of drivers have no clue it's allowed (one person once told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I said she could go left on red, and she refused to accept it even after I sent her a link to the statute). The only DDI I regularly pass through in Virginia (https://goo.gl/maps/w7SX21NF3tFDrZes6) is signed for no turn on red on both the left turns and the right turns (the latter annoyed me very much on Saturday when I really needed to take a leak and got stuck at the red light), but at this DDI I can see why the landscaping on the islands might be a reason to disallow turns on red. A look at the Zion Crossroads DDI (https://goo.gl/maps/oy4AQd96EYnqcwoX8) reveals no lefts on red are allowed despite no landscaping on the islands (no rights on red, either).

I could see why the left on red might generally be disallowed at DDIs because the driver is on the far side of the car relative to oncoming traffic and also has to turn his head far more than he would have to at an ordinary intersection where the streets are more or less perpendicular to each other. I wonder if VDOT's prohibition of right on red at DDIs might have something to do with the idea that drivers unfamiliar with the configuration might be looking in the wrong place for oncoming traffic. I have no idea whether that's the reason, but it doesn't seem like a crazy idea.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 08, 2022, 03:24:15 AM

Quote from: ran4sh on August 07, 2022, 11:36:38 PM
It's not that NC and those other states actually decided to prohibit LTOR, but rather, they never added the LTOR exception to their law, and every time it's brought up results in the usual arguments that government has more important things to deal with and shouldn't waste time debating whether to add that law.

What exception? In virtually every case, left and right on red were made legal at the same time. I'm sure in many states, as is the case here in WA (RCW 46.61.055, section 3), the same statute making right on red legal also makes left on red legal. NC specifically chose to leave out left turns, and that's odd.

I believe 5 states prohibit left turns on red. The answers why these states didn't permit left turns on red are probably deep in graves, as nearly any elected representative from the time these laws were passed have passed away. NJ is in the same boat - they specifically state "...turning right at an intersection...".

A source I found dated June 2022 says left on red is prohibited in Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Guam, Maine, Missouri (except Kansas City), New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York City, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Dakota (though local ordinances may allow it). I recall a Dr. Gridlock column in the Washington Post talking about the issue that said that Maryland had prohibited it at one time but changed it "because they could find no good reason not to allow it."

I remember the North Carolina law bugged the heck out of me in my law school days because of the many intersections in downtown Durham where this maneuver should be allowed but isn't. Everyone else thought I was nuts for thinking it ought to be allowed at all. Enough people are unfamiliar with the law that I recall there used to be an intersection in Fairfax City, Virginia, near the courthouse where a sign advised that this maneuver was legal after stopping, but the road onto which you would turn has been reconfigured into a two-way street and the sign is now long gone (the reconfiguration pre-dates Google Street View, so no images there, either).

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2022, 11:17:26 PM
DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2022, 08:51:22 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2022, 11:17:26 PM
DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2022, 08:55:20 AM

Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2022, 08:51:22 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2022, 11:17:26 PM
DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

But the crossover at a Michigan Left isn't two way. The divided highway is considered to be a pair of one way streets, so you can turn left on red from the crossover.

Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2022, 09:00:01 AM

Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2022, 08:55:20 AM

Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2022, 08:51:22 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2022, 11:17:26 PM
DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

But the crossover at a Michigan Left isn't two way. The divided highway is considered to be a pair of one way streets, so you can turn left on red from the crossover.

According to the definition, no.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uptf4g201pqgrs3dax1yzxpe))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-20#:~:text=Sec.,for%20purposes%20of%20vehicular%20travel.

Quote"Highway or street" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

So unless there's private property in the median, there's nothing that indicates a Dividend Highway is really two separate one way streets.  But the laws and statutes appear quiet on the subject.  Michigan even has a publication that discusses Michigan Lefts in pretty fair detail, including that they may be traffic lights, but then goes silent on whether a car must wait at a red light, or if turning left on red is permitted.  So it appears this may be technically illegal, but there's a full understanding that as long as a vehicle stops at the red light, they'll be permitted to turn left on red.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2022, 02:34:12 PM

Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2022, 09:00:01 AM

Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2022, 08:55:20 AM

Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2022, 08:51:22 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2022, 11:17:26 PM
DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

But the crossover at a Michigan Left isn't two way. The divided highway is considered to be a pair of one way streets, so you can turn left on red from the crossover.

According to the definition, no.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uptf4g201pqgrs3dax1yzxpe))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-20#:~:text=Sec.,for%20purposes%20of%20vehicular%20travel.

Quote"Highway or street" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

So unless there's private property in the median, there's nothing that indicates a Dividend Highway is really two separate one way streets.  But the laws and statutes appear quiet on the subject.  Michigan even has a publication that discusses Michigan Lefts in pretty fair detail, including that they may be traffic lights, but then goes silent on whether a car must wait at a red light, or if turning left on red is permitted.  So it appears this may be technically illegal, but there's a full understanding that as long as a vehicle stops at the red light, they'll be permitted to turn left on red.

Wouldn't Michigan Lefts technically be U-turns?  Down here in southeast Louisiana there is a highway between Mandeville and Covington (US 190) that was modified a few years ago to where all turns onto the highway are Michigan Lefts.  Some of  them have dual-lane U-turns, and all of those have signs that U-turn on red is allowed only from the left lane.  The rest are single-lane U-turns, all of which have signs that U-turn on red is allowed after stop.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2022, 02:34:12 PM

Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2022, 09:00:01 AM

Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2022, 08:55:20 AM

Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2022, 08:51:22 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2022, 11:17:26 PM
DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

But the crossover at a Michigan Left isn't two way. The divided highway is considered to be a pair of one way streets, so you can turn left on red from the crossover.

According to the definition, no.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uptf4g201pqgrs3dax1yzxpe))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-20#:~:text=Sec.,for%20purposes%20of%20vehicular%20travel.

Quote"Highway or street" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

So unless there's private property in the median, there's nothing that indicates a Dividend Highway is really two separate one way streets.  But the laws and statutes appear quiet on the subject.  Michigan even has a publication that discusses Michigan Lefts in pretty fair detail, including that they may be traffic lights, but then goes silent on whether a car must wait at a red light, or if turning left on red is permitted.  So it appears this may be technically illegal, but there's a full understanding that as long as a vehicle stops at the red light, they'll be permitted to turn left on red.

Once again, I do not agree with your interpretation. On a basic level, the quoted statute makes no mention of two way or one way travel. It simply defines what a highway or street is.

From what I understand, if a wide-enough median is present, that creates a divided highway. Thus, Michigan Left corridors should legally be divided highways, made up of two separate roadways, one traveling in one direction, and the other in the opposing direction. Here in WA, the median would have to be thirty feet or greater in width. I don't know what the rule is in Michigan, but I have to assume it's a similar number.

Quote from: rlb2024 on August 08, 2022, 03:20:21 PM
Wouldn't Michigan Lefts technically be U-turns?  Down here in southeast Louisiana there is a highway between Mandeville and Covington (US 190) that was modified a few years ago to where all turns onto the highway are Michigan Lefts.  Some of  them have dual-lane U-turns, and all of those have signs that U-turn on red is allowed only from the left lane.  The rest are single-lane U-turns, all of which have signs that U-turn on red is allowed after stop.

Signs can always override statutes. But generally speaking, Michigan Left corridors are two one-way roadways parallel to each other, and the "U turn"  is actually two left turns: one to leave the roadway, and the other to join the opposing direction. The second left being a one-way to one-way left turn.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 08, 2022, 05:01:54 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2022, 02:34:12 PM

Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2022, 09:00:01 AM

Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2022, 08:55:20 AM

Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2022, 08:51:22 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2022, 11:17:26 PM
DDIs aren't one way streets. 

Then divided highways aren't one-way streets either? In Michigan they sure are. Because at Michigan Lefts you can turn left on red after stop.

Michigan explicitly allows left on red from two-way streets to one-way streets.

But the crossover at a Michigan Left isn't two way. The divided highway is considered to be a pair of one way streets, so you can turn left on red from the crossover.

According to the definition, no.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uptf4g201pqgrs3dax1yzxpe))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-20#:~:text=Sec.,for%20purposes%20of%20vehicular%20travel.

Quote"Highway or street" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

So unless there's private property in the median, there's nothing that indicates a Dividend Highway is really two separate one way streets.  But the laws and statutes appear quiet on the subject.  Michigan even has a publication that discusses Michigan Lefts in pretty fair detail, including that they may be traffic lights, but then goes silent on whether a car must wait at a red light, or if turning left on red is permitted.  So it appears this may be technically illegal, but there's a full understanding that as long as a vehicle stops at the red light, they'll be permitted to turn left on red.

Once again, I do not agree with your interpretation. On a basic level, the quoted statute makes no mention of two way or one way travel. It simply defines what a highway or street is.

From what I understand, if a wide-enough median is present, that creates a divided highway. Thus, Michigan Left corridors should legally be divided highways, made up of two separate roadways, one traveling in one direction, and the other in the opposing direction. Here in WA, the median would have to be thirty feet or greater in width. I don't know what the rule is in Michigan, but I have to assume it's a similar number.

Quote from: rlb2024 on August 08, 2022, 03:20:21 PM
Wouldn't Michigan Lefts technically be U-turns?  Down here in southeast Louisiana there is a highway between Mandeville and Covington (US 190) that was modified a few years ago to where all turns onto the highway are Michigan Lefts.  Some of  them have dual-lane U-turns, and all of those have signs that U-turn on red is allowed only from the left lane.  The rest are single-lane U-turns, all of which have signs that U-turn on red is allowed after stop.

Signs can always override statutes. But generally speaking, Michigan Left corridors are two one-way roadways parallel to each other, and the "U turn"  is actually two left turns: one to leave the roadway, and the other to join the opposing direction. The second left being a one-way to one-way left turn.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jh5rxnkzg3aeexltjjewxnjy))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-257-644#:~:text=(1)%20When%20a%20highway%20has,over%2C%20across%2C%20or%20within%20the

As long as there's some sort of divider, it's a divided highway. Absent any definition of a one way or two way roadway, the basic definition of a highway applies.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 08, 2022, 05:24:23 PM
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jh5rxnkzg3aeexltjjewxnjy))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-257-644#:~:text=(1)%20When%20a%20highway%20has,over%2C%20across%2C%20or%20within%20the

As long as there's some sort of divider, it's a divided highway. Absent any definition of a one way or two way roadway, the basic definition of a highway applies.

I see. Is there no supplemental law about wide medians creating two separate roadways with two separate intersections, like in WA?

In the case of Michigan Left corridors in Michigan, it seems most/all intersections with turns are signed with one-way signs (https://goo.gl/maps/p7HeHPVR4PTMY2TS8), making left-on-red legal.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 08, 2022, 08:10:13 AM
Virginia allows lefts on red from one-way streets to other one-way streets, although I'd wager 99 percent of drivers have no clue it's allowed (one person once told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I said she could go left on red, and she refused to accept it even after I sent her a link to the statute). The only DDI I regularly pass through in Virginia (https://goo.gl/maps/w7SX21NF3tFDrZes6) is signed for no turn on red on both the left turns and the right turns (the latter annoyed me very much on Saturday when I really needed to take a leak and got stuck at the red light), but at this DDI I can see why the landscaping on the islands might be a reason to disallow turns on red. A look at the Zion Crossroads DDI (https://goo.gl/maps/oy4AQd96EYnqcwoX8) reveals no lefts on red are allowed despite no landscaping on the islands (no rights on red, either).

I could see why the left on red might generally be disallowed at DDIs because the driver is on the far side of the car relative to oncoming traffic and also has to turn his head far more than he would have to at an ordinary intersection where the streets are more or less perpendicular to each other. I wonder if VDOT's prohibition of right on red at DDIs might have something to do with the idea that drivers unfamiliar with the configuration might be looking in the wrong place for oncoming traffic. I have no idea whether that's the reason, but it doesn't seem like a crazy idea.

Yes.  While DDIs are still relatively new and relatively rare, extra caution is probably warrranted. 

There is a great graphic about left turn on red on wikipedia which desingates the different state rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#/media/File:Left_on_red_US.png

Lots of people are unfamiliar with DDI's.  I don't think we want those unfamiliar people thinking they can make the left turn on red, in the event that they don't know where the left-bound thru traffic is coming from.  Not everyone is a roadway geometry expert.

Quote from: mrsman on August 11, 2022, 12:58:13 PM

There is a great graphic about left turn on red on wikipedia which desingates the different state rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#/media/File:Left_on_red_US.png

They have New Jersey wrong in the graphic. Left turns on red are not permitted. In the written part where the graphic comes from, they do state that it's not permitted in NJ.

Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 11, 2022, 04:27:59 PM
Lots of people are unfamiliar with DDI's.  I don't think we want those unfamiliar people thinking they can make the left turn on red, in the event that they don't know where the left-bound thru traffic is coming from.  Not everyone is a roadway geometry expert.

DDIs are supposed to be designed with geometry that avoids confusing drivers about where to go or where traffic is coming from. At least at the DDIs I have been to, when turning left, it's clear where the driver has to look to check if it's safe to turn.

Do other states post one-way signs along DDIs?

The only DDI in Washington State, in Lacey, uses one-way signs, both for the freeway ramps as well as the "wrong way" portion of the DDI.

https://goo.gl/maps/LSrKsykZ7zWCCFCn8 (you'll may have to zoom in, GSV did not get every ramp)

In theory, this should help to encourage drivers to turn left on red if it were permitted. Though it's not at this particular location.

In Downtown areas of Washington State, mostly Seattle, I do see drivers turn left on red with decent regularity. I don't see the whole "left on red from two way to one way" hardly ever, though.

With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 12, 2022, 03:13:44 PM
With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

That's good.  The question is how often should those signs be placed.

Only at state lines?

Entering a business district where there are a lot of one-way streets (where the law is relevant)?

At specific one-way to one-way intersections where a left turn is possible? [my preference]

I'm all for allowing the states the flexibility to make their own laws with regard to turning on red and the meaning of the red arrow, but where the state law is different from the majority US view, it should be very clearly and adequately stated that the state's rules are an exception.  There are only 8 states (and 2 cities) that prohibit this turning movement, so those states should sign their more restrictive law, where relevant.

Relatively speaking, there aren't that many one-way to one-way signalized intersections.  I'm sure for most of the states on the list there are less than 100.  Just add a no turn on red sign at each place.

^^^^^

I'm pretty sure the DOTs would argue that placing a sign at every such intersection is unnecessary if state law prohibits it because it is the motorist's responsibility and burden to know what the law is, regardless of what other states may do. There's some logic to that position–posting the sign arguably implies that the intersection is an exception to the normal rule, such that left on red is permitted if there isn't a sign. That would be wrong, but if, hypothetically, a state with no lefts on red did post "No Turn on Red" signs in the scenario you envision, and then they either forgot to post the signs at one intersection or the signs were otherwise missing (stolen, knocked down in a storm, etc.), it would suggest lefts on red were OK there.

I've seen–very rarely–signs saying left on red IS allowed at a given location even in places where it's generally legal in the "one-way to one-way" situation (thus, not including New York City). Fairfax City, Virginia, used to have one like that at the corner of West Street (facing the courthouse) and Route 236. I assume the city posted it, not VDOT; the sign said "Left Turn on Red Permitted After Stop." The sign is no longer there because the streets were reconfigured and neither street is one-way anymore. That strikes me as the more logical approach if you're going to have a sign. For the most part, left-on-red scenarios are relatively uncommon and are most likely to occur in cities or towns (due to there being more one-way streets than in rural areas) or at certain highway interchanges (I-395 at Seminary Road in Virginia is an excellent example–and I've never seen anyone, other than me, making a left on red there). Most people have no idea the maneuver is legal at all, so if you want to promote it, throw up a sign in the statistically rare situation where it is allowed.

^^^
Seattle used to have a "Stop On Red, Then Left Turn Permitted" sign (https://goo.gl/maps/1jYzVih33DXjGUW47) (zoomed in (https://goo.gl/maps/6kp14gNeT49tQHz77)) in downtown, from 1st Ave to University Street. Even though this would be legal regardless of the sign.

It's now marked "no turn on red" (https://goo.gl/maps/bruucv6cCdFsf6po6), which is consistent with traditional NTOR practices (signing when not allowed).

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 13, 2022, 08:21:02 AM
^^^^^

I'm pretty sure the DOTs would argue that placing a sign at every such intersection is unnecessary if state law prohibits it because it is the motorist's responsibility and burden to know what the law is, regardless of what other states may do. There's some logic to that position–posting the sign arguably implies that the intersection is an exception to the normal rule, such that left on red is permitted if there isn't a sign. That would be wrong, but if, hypothetically, a state with no lefts on red did post "No Turn on Red" signs in the scenario you envision, and then they either forgot to post the signs at one intersection or the signs were otherwise missing (stolen, knocked down in a storm, etc.), it would suggest lefts on red were OK there.

I've seen–very rarely–signs saying left on red IS allowed at a given location even in places where it's generally legal in the "one-way to one-way" situation (thus, not including New York City). Fairfax City, Virginia, used to have one like that at the corner of West Street (facing the courthouse) and Route 236. I assume the city posted it, not VDOT; the sign said "Left Turn on Red Permitted After Stop." The sign is no longer there because the streets were reconfigured and neither street is one-way anymore. That strikes me as the more logical approach if you're going to have a sign. For the most part, left-on-red scenarios are relatively uncommon and are most likely to occur in cities or towns (due to there being more one-way streets than in rural areas) or at certain highway interchanges (I-395 at Seminary Road in Virginia is an excellent example–and I've never seen anyone, other than me, making a left on red there). Most people have no idea the maneuver is legal at all, so if you want to promote it, throw up a sign in the statistically rare situation where it is allowed.

That's fair. But at signals I design, I wouldn't want anyone breaking a law that they may think is legal, especially when it could result in a crash with a vulnerable road user. The backup sign is always a good idea, IMO


iPhone

Quote from: mrsman on August 12, 2022, 05:56:53 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 12, 2022, 03:13:44 PM
With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

That's good.  The question is how often should those signs be placed.

Only at state lines?

Entering a business district where there are a lot of one-way streets (where the law is relevant)?

At specific one-way to one-way intersections where a left turn is possible? [my preference]

I'm all for allowing the states the flexibility to make their own laws with regard to turning on red and the meaning of the red arrow, but where the state law is different from the majority US view, it should be very clearly and adequately stated that the state's rules are an exception.  There are only 8 states (and 2 cities) that prohibit this turning movement, so those states should sign their more restrictive law, where relevant.

Relatively speaking, there aren't that many one-way to one-way signalized intersections.  I'm sure for most of the states on the list there are less than 100.  Just add a no turn on red sign at each place.

I'd request it at any signal I'm a part of. Prioritizing conflicts with vulnerable road users, where the restriction is likely most important. The state law addition makes it clear that that's the law everywhere.


iPhone

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 12, 2022, 03:13:44 PM
With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

States don't sign their laws based on other state's laws. In states that don't allow left turns on red, the law isn't no left turn on red. The law is you must stop and remain stopped at a red light. The exception is you may turn right on red.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2022, 01:11:57 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 12, 2022, 03:13:44 PM
With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

States don't sign their laws based on other state's laws. In states that don't allow left turns on red, the law isn't no left turn on red. The law is you must stop and remain stopped at a red light. The exception is you may turn right on red.

Yes,,, that's why I would add the plaque STATE LAW if that was the law in the state. If the law in the state was that LTOR was allowed, I wouldn't add that.


iPhone

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 13, 2022, 01:14:13 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2022, 01:11:57 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 12, 2022, 03:13:44 PM
With any of those confusing laws, I like to propose signs to make it clear it's a state law, but as a reminder. For example:

STATE LAW
        NO
      LEFT
    ON RED

The same goes for red arrows. Just good to make it clear


iPhone

States don't sign their laws based on other state's laws. In states that don't allow left turns on red, the law isn't no left turn on red. The law is you must stop and remain stopped at a red light. The exception is you may turn right on red.

Yes,,, that's why I would add the plaque STATE LAW if that was the law in the state. If the law in the state was that LTOR was allowed, I wouldn't add that.


iPhone

This is a good approach.  By using the term state law it does highlight the fact that the rule throughout the state is no LT on red, even one way to one way.  But posting the sign acknowledges that it is a very clear minority approach when looking at the nation as a whole. 

In this country there is freedom of travel and a lot of travel between states.  I think it is fair that proper notice be given of rules that are unique to that state, even if they are the law in that state.

Signs like this are posted somewhat regularly in Maryland.  State Law, No texting, no hand held cell phones

http://joyreactor.com/post/477388

Similar type signs would work well for the no left one way to one way prohbition.  I think it is presumptive for any state that disallows a movement that is allowed in over 40 states to rely on a thinking that this is our law and all drivers need to know it.  Play fair.  I'm sure the highway depts in NC and MO are aware that most other states and all of their neighboring states allow the movement that they prohibit.  Put up a responsible warning of the prohibition in appropriate locations.

Quote from: mrsman on August 17, 2022, 07:32:30 PM
In this country there is freedom of travel and a lot of travel between states.  I think it is fair that proper notice be given of rules that are unique to that state, even if they are the law in that state.

Perfectly good concept, except...

Precedence.  In the United States, it was most common that states had a "No Turn on Red" law.  Western states started to adopt "Right Turn on Red" early on, then many Eastern states played that card during the 1970s Fuel Crisis.  The "Left Turn on Red" for one-way onto one-way is a more recent development.  Changes in one jurisdiction that requires costs to another jurisdiction involves a legal technical term called "injury".  So if there was a requirement that North Carolina post a "Statewide - No Left Turn on Red" sign at the borders, the costs would need to borne by Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina for each of their respective border crossings.  Which might be a good idea, except that South Carolina would have never "repealed" their "No Turn" laws if they had been required to bear the cost of signage along the North Carolina border.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 17, 2022, 11:39:15 PM

Quote from: mrsman on August 17, 2022, 07:32:30 PM
In this country there is freedom of travel and a lot of travel between states.  I think it is fair that proper notice be given of rules that are unique to that state, even if they are the law in that state.

Perfectly good concept, except...

Precedence.  In the United States, it was most common that states had a "No Turn on Red" law.  Western states started to adopt "Right Turn on Red" early on, then many Eastern states played that card during the 1970s Fuel Crisis.  The "Left Turn on Red" for one-way onto one-way is a more recent development.  Changes in one jurisdiction that requires costs to another jurisdiction involves a legal technical term called "injury".  So if there was a requirement that North Carolina post a "Statewide - No Left Turn on Red" sign at the borders, the costs would need to borne by Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina for each of their respective border crossings.  Which might be a good idea, except that South Carolina would have never "repealed" their "No Turn" laws if they had been required to bear the cost of signage along the North Carolina border.

I mean, IMO turns on red should only be allowed with a sign. MA has to maintain over 10000 NTOR signs, as 95% of signals have those signs.


iPhone

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 12:43:19 PM
I mean, IMO turns on red should only be allowed with a sign. MA has to maintain over 10000 NTOR signs, as 95% of signals have those signs.

That isn't going to fly in the vast majority of the US, where right turns on red are just about universally permitted and expected.

Quote from: US 89 on August 18, 2022, 12:50:59 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 12:43:19 PM
I mean, IMO turns on red should only be allowed with a sign. MA has to maintain over 10000 NTOR signs, as 95% of signals have those signs.

That isn't going to fly in the vast majority of the US, where right turns on red are just about universally permitted and expected.

Yeah, but it's not fair to our state or other states. It should have been a state's choice. Plus, IMO it's silly that the system we have now fails dangerously. I would much rather know that if a sign falls, turns would be illegal rather then they would be legal. Just my opinions while practicing in a very no turn on red happy state.


iPhone

Living in Massachusetts, there are not no turn on red signs at 95% of intersections. There are a decent number, but it's nowhere near almost all.

Quote from: 1 on August 18, 2022, 01:54:00 PM
Living in Massachusetts, there are not no turn on red signs at 95% of intersections. There are a decent number, but it's nowhere near almost all.

That's how many MassDOT said when they installed them in 1980. Yes many have been removed, but if you consider the amount of signals in Boston/Camberville, it adds up. I'd say at least 65% or more have NTOR signs. In my town, it's around 87%, and in Cambridge it's definitely 95% or more.


iPhone

Quote from: mrsman on August 17, 2022, 07:32:30 PM
In this country there is freedom of travel and a lot of travel between states.  I think it is fair that proper notice be given of rules that are unique to that state, even if they are the law in that state.

Or, you know, there is always the quaint and increasingly obsolete concept of "driver responsibility."  When I am going to be driving in a state with which I am not familiar, whether I am allowed to turn on red is one of the first things I find out.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 17, 2022, 11:39:15 PM
The "Left Turn on Red" for one-way onto one-way is a more recent development.

Are we sure of this? One-/two-way to one-way left on red has been the rule here in Washington since right on red was codified in the 1960s (see here (http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1965ex1c155.pdf?cite=1965%20ex.s.%20c%20155%20%C2%A7%208), pg 2288).

Quote from: jakeroot on August 18, 2022, 04:39:15 PM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 17, 2022, 11:39:15 PM
The "Left Turn on Red" for one-way onto one-way is a more recent development.

Are we sure of this? One-/two-way to one-way left on red has been the rule here in Washington since right on red was codified in the 1960s (see here (http://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1965ex1c155.pdf?cite=1965%20ex.s.%20c%20155%20%C2%A7%208), pg 2288).

I recall that Michigan's LTOR also came in at the same time as RTOR, or at least very close to the same time.

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 01:25:00 PM

Quote from: US 89 on August 18, 2022, 12:50:59 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 12:43:19 PM
I mean, IMO turns on red should only be allowed with a sign. MA has to maintain over 10000 NTOR signs, as 95% of signals have those signs.

That isn't going to fly in the vast majority of the US, where right turns on red are just about universally permitted and expected.

Yeah, but it's not fair to our state or other states. It should have been a state's choice. Plus, IMO it's silly that the system we have now fails dangerously. I would much rather know that if a sign falls, turns would be illegal rather then they would be legal. Just my opinions while practicing in a very no turn on red happy state.


iPhone

It is, and always has been, the state's choice. Every state decided to legalize turning on red. No state had to do so.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2022, 06:37:19 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 01:25:00 PM

Quote from: US 89 on August 18, 2022, 12:50:59 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 12:43:19 PM
I mean, IMO turns on red should only be allowed with a sign. MA has to maintain over 10000 NTOR signs, as 95% of signals have those signs.

That isn't going to fly in the vast majority of the US, where right turns on red are just about universally permitted and expected.

Yeah, but it's not fair to our state or other states. It should have been a state's choice. Plus, IMO it's silly that the system we have now fails dangerously. I would much rather know that if a sign falls, turns would be illegal rather then they would be legal. Just my opinions while practicing in a very no turn on red happy state.


iPhone

It is, and always has been, the state's choice. Every state decided to legalize turning on red. No state had to do so.

That's basically not true. The federal government threatened to withhold state funds from MA because they didn't want to allow right turns on red as a default.

"Massachusetts is the last state to implement the law. The federal government pushed the law through to make a uniform motor vehicle code, and the government threatened to withhold the state's national energy funds if the state did not pass the bill."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/12/4/right-on-red-comes-to-boston-pwhen-it/

"While the intended effect of the law will be minimal – "Right Turn on Red After Stop"  signs at about 10 percent of the state's 3,100 light‐controlled intersections have been taken down and replaced with $400,000 worth of "No Turn on Red"  signs at the other 90 percent some fear it will have an unintended and major impact on driving behavior."

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/30/archives/for-boston-drivers-its-turn-right-on-red-and-full-speed-ahead.html


iPhone

I mean, maybe Massachusetts should actually see whether there's any justification for disallowing right turns on red at each intersection instead of just coasting on the fumes of outdated traffic engineering assumptions.

There is exactly one intersection I can think of in Norman that banned right turns on red, and it was because of a hedge that blocked the view of traffic to the left. The intersection was later reworked because the road needed to be widened, which cleared up the sight lines. The No Turn on Red sign went away after that.

As we are on the subject of legalities, I found this interesting tidbit:

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm#tcsfq2

Quote

Q: The 2000 MUTCD changed the meaning of a right turn red arrow signal by prohibiting right turns on a red arrow after stopping unless there is a sign specifically allowing it. Then, in the 2003 MUTCD, the R10-17a (Right on Red Arrow After Stop) sign was added to go along with this. In my State, turning right on a red arrow after stopping is legal. Why was the MUTCD changed?

A: The R10-17a sign and the revised definition of the meaning of a red arrow signal stem from a change in the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) that revised the meaning of the red arrow to include the prohibition of turns on red arrow after stopping unless a sign specifically permits it. The UVC change came about because of the lack of uniformity among State laws on this subject. The majority of States' laws prohibit the turn on red arrow after stopping without a permissive sign, while the minority of States allow turns on red arrows after stop unless a sign prohibits it. The UVC, which is written by a group comprised mostly of State motor vehicle administrators, adopted the majority practice. The change also took into account that a key use of red right arrows is with signal phasing that "protects" the pedestrian crossing from right turn traffic during a "leading pedestrian interval" by keeping the right turns stopped on a red arrow, while the parallel through movement receives a green. Although this isn't the only use for red right turn arrows, it is one in which the red arrow is critical. Allowing RTOR on red arrow under this condition is counter-productive to the purpose of using the red arrow. It was felt that, at the relatively few red right arrow locations where agencies might actually want to allow RTOR, this could be accommodated by posting the sign to specifically allow it there. For reasons of national uniformity, the MUTCD's text on the meanings of signal indications match the UVC.

Now we have an interesting development.  With regard to red arrows we have MUTCD and UVC have adopted as their rule for discussion and illustration purposes the view of the majority of states.  So there is at least some level of federal encouragement for following the majority practice and signing an exception, as opposed to leaving the meaning undefined because of the difference of state laws.  So in the MUTCD and UVC a steady red right arrow prohibits right turn movements.

Does it make more sense to define the purpose of the traffic control device by a majority view, or to leave it undefined because of different approaches?  THe whole point of having UNIFORM traffic control devices is that a device should have the same meaning uniformly around the country. 

Is it wise to have a stop sign have a uniform meaning across 50 states?

Is it wise to have a one way sign have a uniform meaning across 50 states?

Is it wise to have a red orb indication to have a uniform meaing across 50 states?

If you answered yes to the above three questions, then how could it possibly be wise to have a right red arrow have different meaning in different states?  It clearly isn't.  But becuase of the legal structure of our country, driving laws are state laws not federal laws.  Each state can make their own interpretations of the traffic control devices, even if it doesn't make sense to differ from the majority view.  The only tool that the feds can use to strongly encourage compliance involves conditioning highway funds.  And the feds have done so in areas that they believe requires compliance (which I believe include a 16 year old minimum driving age, 21 year old minimum drinking age, and to allow turn on red in the face of the energy crisis). 

But perhaps the feds feel that they can't threaten highway funding for every little thing.  So they tolerate the different interpreations of left on red for one way streets and the different interpreations or the red arrow.  But that doesn't mean that it is a good idea to leave the inconsistency.  Indeed, the MUTCD/UVC interpretation of the right red arrow is a first indication that they do not like the minority interpretation and perhaps in the future they may address it with threatening highway funding, even though it hasn't happened yet.

Right on red arrow should be allowed. An arrow simply defines the direction the signal applies in. Even flashing yellows are consistent – whether it's a ball or an arrow, it's as if there was no indication at all, i.e. priority if going straight, allowed but without priority if turning.

Quote from: Scott5114 on August 18, 2022, 07:59:48 PM
I mean, maybe Massachusetts should actually see whether there's any justification for disallowing right turns on red at each intersection instead of just coasting on the fumes of outdated traffic engineering assumptions.

There is exactly one intersection I can think of in Norman that banned right turns on red, and it was because of a hedge that blocked the view of traffic to the left. The intersection was later reworked because the road needed to be widened, which cleared up the sight lines. The No Turn on Red sign went away after that.

Personally speaking, I like our no turn on red restrictions. Each time they're lifted we see rises in Ped/bike crashes, and with the density/walkability of our state they just aren't usable. I'm going to keep proposing R10-11b signage at new signals, and most others are doing the same.

The Transportation Research Board had a very interesting study on right turns on red, and are now recommending against that practice. I'd read it if you're able to access it!

Every state has their own context, but at least here, I could only imagine more no turn on red signs, not less.


iPhone

Quote from: mrsman on August 18, 2022, 08:58:57 PM
As we are on the subject of legalities, I found this interesting tidbit:

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm#tcsfq2

Quote

Q: The 2000 MUTCD changed the meaning of a right turn red arrow signal by prohibiting right turns on a red arrow after stopping unless there is a sign specifically allowing it. Then, in the 2003 MUTCD, the R10-17a (Right on Red Arrow After Stop) sign was added to go along with this. In my State, turning right on a red arrow after stopping is legal. Why was the MUTCD changed?

A: The R10-17a sign and the revised definition of the meaning of a red arrow signal stem from a change in the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) that revised the meaning of the red arrow to include the prohibition of turns on red arrow after stopping unless a sign specifically permits it. The UVC change came about because of the lack of uniformity among State laws on this subject. The majority of States' laws prohibit the turn on red arrow after stopping without a permissive sign, while the minority of States allow turns on red arrows after stop unless a sign prohibits it. The UVC, which is written by a group comprised mostly of State motor vehicle administrators, adopted the majority practice. The change also took into account that a key use of red right arrows is with signal phasing that "protects" the pedestrian crossing from right turn traffic during a "leading pedestrian interval" by keeping the right turns stopped on a red arrow, while the parallel through movement receives a green. Although this isn't the only use for red right turn arrows, it is one in which the red arrow is critical. Allowing RTOR on red arrow under this condition is counter-productive to the purpose of using the red arrow. It was felt that, at the relatively few red right arrow locations where agencies might actually want to allow RTOR, this could be accommodated by posting the sign to specifically allow it there. For reasons of national uniformity, the MUTCD's text on the meanings of signal indications match the UVC.

Now we have an interesting development.  With regard to red arrows we have MUTCD and UVC have adopted as their rule for discussion and illustration purposes the view of the majority of states.  So there is at least some level of federal encouragement for following the majority practice and signing an exception, as opposed to leaving the meaning undefined because of the difference of state laws.  So in the MUTCD and UVC a steady red right arrow prohibits right turn movements.

Does it make more sense to define the purpose of the traffic control device by a majority view, or to leave it undefined because of different approaches?  THe whole point of having UNIFORM traffic control devices is that a device should have the same meaning uniformly around the country. 

Is it wise to have a stop sign have a uniform meaning across 50 states?

Is it wise to have a one way sign have a uniform meaning across 50 states?

Is it wise to have a red orb indication to have a uniform meaing across 50 states?

If you answered yes to the above three questions, then how could it possibly be wise to have a right red arrow have different meaning in different states?  It clearly isn't.  But becuase of the legal structure of our country, driving laws are state laws not federal laws.  Each state can make their own interpretations of the traffic control devices, even if it doesn't make sense to differ from the majority view.  The only tool that the feds can use to strongly encourage compliance involves conditioning highway funds.  And the feds have done so in areas that they believe requires compliance (which I believe include a 16 year old minimum driving age, 21 year old minimum drinking age, and to allow turn on red in the face of the energy crisis). 

But perhaps the feds feel that they can't threaten highway funding for every little thing.  So they tolerate the different interpreations of left on red for one way streets and the different interpreations or the red arrow.  But that doesn't mean that it is a good idea to leave the inconsistency.  Indeed, the MUTCD/UVC interpretation of the right red arrow is a first indication that they do not like the minority interpretation and perhaps in the future they may address it with threatening highway funding, even though it hasn't happened yet.

This is actually a very interesting topic to me as well. The city of Boston has defended their practice of treating a red arrow as a no turn on red, but that's not the law in the state. Also, in general it's interesting to see how many drivers treat a red arrow as NTOR. I think I'd always use a R10-17 with a red arrow if I was to allow turns on red, just because it's confusing. That seems to be the policy at MassDOT too.


iPhone

Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 10:09:56 PM
Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 10:18:39 PM

Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 10:09:56 PM
Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

Fairly sure it was in the RMV's driver's handbook, too.

Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 10:39:01 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 10:18:39 PM

Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 10:09:56 PM
Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

Fairly sure it was in the RMV's driver's handbook, too.

That at least has changed now. Notes that laws may be different in other states


iPhone

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 10:18:39 PM

Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 10:09:56 PM
Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

One thing I noticed about driving school instructors is that they're not always correct either.  Several times I've seen a driving school car being driven on a 3 lane highway in the center lane.  Cars are passing on the left and right.  While the driver is teaching the student to drive the speed limit, he's ignoring the law that says keep right except to pass.

With the red arrow, at least here in NJ, there's no specific law about a red arrow. But, nearly every light with a red arrow also has a NTOR sign with it too...clarifying you can't turn on red.  There's one intersection in Camden which is the only intersection I'm aware of with a red arrow and the lack of a NTOR sign, which seems to indicate turning on red is permitted here: https://goo.gl/maps/GBYMjV2w2LFQWi4G6 .

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2022, 11:04:10 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 10:18:39 PM

Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 10:09:56 PM
Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

One thing I noticed about driving school instructors is that they're not always correct either.  Several times I've seen a driving school car being driven on a 3 lane highway in the center lane.  Cars are passing on the left and right.  While the driver is teaching the student to drive the speed limit, he's ignoring the law that says keep right except to pass.

With the red arrow, at least here in NJ, there's no specific law about a red arrow. But, nearly every light with a red arrow also has a NTOR sign with it too...clarifying you can't turn on red.  There's one intersection in Camden which is the only intersection I'm aware of with a red arrow and the lack of a NTOR sign, which seems to indicate turning on red is permitted here: https://goo.gl/maps/GBYMjV2w2LFQWi4G6 .

That's another question. Should you say No Turn On Red or No Turn On Red Arrow. I def wouldn't use a standard R10-11 series with the red ball, but it's an interesting question


iPhone

My thought is this: if you want to allow turns on red, don't use a red right arrow at all - use one of those signal heads with a red ball and yellow/green arrows.

That's how it's done in Utah. Most commonly you'll see this at the bottom of right-turn ramps at SPUIs (example (https://goo.gl/maps/VPFfrvzeEL87u8Fa6)). There aren't a lot of red right arrows in the state anyway, and most of them seem to exist to clarify an existing NTOR restriction that would be there anyway (example (https://goo.gl/maps/KehfKdshrcLZQLYR6)). Utah law does not allow right on a red arrow, but I can't think of a single place I've seen a red right arrow in the state without accompanying NTOR signage.

Florida does allow right on a red arrow unless signed otherwise and it drives me nuts. There are a bunch of intersections without arrows with signs banning turns on red, but there are also a ton of red right arrows that you can turn on after you stop (with no signage clarifying that this is allowed). I far prefer the Utah method.

Allowing right on a red arrow never made sense to me even when Virginia did allow it. The red arrow seems to me to indicate "you're not allowed to move in this direction," whichever direction the arrow is pointing. It would be particularly useful if you had an intersection in which a right-turn-only lane gets a green at a different time from the other lanes moving in the same direction. 18th & L in DC is an example of that (in this June 2014 Street View, you can see the station wagon is illegally turning right on a red arrow–traffic going straight has a green, traffic turning right has a red arrow, and a sign says right turns must wait for the green arrow). (https://goo.gl/maps/MifGvBxwbFpv9Kf17)

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 11:34:21 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2022, 11:04:10 PM

Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2022, 10:18:39 PM

Quote from: Rothman on August 18, 2022, 10:09:56 PM
Hm.  When I was a kid and learned to drive in MA, pretty sure it was taught red arrows meant NTOR.

Was taught this too


iPhone

One thing I noticed about driving school instructors is that they're not always correct either.  Several times I've seen a driving school car being driven on a 3 lane highway in the center lane.  Cars are passing on the left and right.  While the driver is teaching the student to drive the speed limit, he's ignoring the law that says keep right except to pass.

With the red arrow, at least here in NJ, there's no specific law about a red arrow. But, nearly every light with a red arrow also has a NTOR sign with it too...clarifying you can't turn on red.  There's one intersection in Camden which is the only intersection I'm aware of with a red arrow and the lack of a NTOR sign, which seems to indicate turning on red is permitted here: https://goo.gl/maps/GBYMjV2w2LFQWi4G6 .

That's another question. Should you say No Turn On Red or No Turn On Red Arrow. I def wouldn't use a standard R10-11 series with the red ball, but it's an interesting question


iPhone

If it's just the word sign, red is red, so I don't think any further clarification is needed. But if there's a symbol, it would make sense not to use a red ball on the sign when the red arrow is used.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 19, 2022, 02:09:03 PM
The red arrow seems to me to indicate "you're not allowed to move in this direction,"

That is effectively what it means everywhere. But quite a few states follow the legal meaning of a red arrow with some form of "however" statement.

Eg, in Washington State:

Quote from: WA RCW 46.61.055
However, the vehicle operators facing a steady red arrow indication may, after stopping proceed to make a right turn from a one-way or two-way street into a two-way street or into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn; or a left turn from a one-way street or two-way street into a one-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn; unless a sign posted by competent authority prohibits such movement.

Quote from: US 89 on August 19, 2022, 01:57:13 PM
My thought is this: if you want to allow turns on red, don't use a red right arrow at all - use one of those signal heads with a red ball and yellow/green arrows.

Or better yet, there is an actual dedicated signal indication for this: the flashing red arrow. Its universally understood, requires no signage at all, and if it were universally implemented, it could allow for more control of all intersections without needing things like blankout signs. Solid red arrow means no turn on red, flashing red arrow means turn after stop. It could even allow the intersections to switch between the 2, so if a pedestrian is detected, it can go solid for a minute, then back to flashing

Quote from: US 89 on August 19, 2022, 01:57:13 PM
My thought is this: if you want to allow turns on red, don't use a red right arrow at all - use one of those signal heads with a red ball and yellow/green arrows.

That's how it's done in Utah. Most commonly you'll see this at the bottom of right-turn ramps at SPUIs (example (https://goo.gl/maps/VPFfrvzeEL87u8Fa6)). There aren't a lot of red right arrows in the state anyway, and most of them seem to exist to clarify an existing NTOR restriction that would be there anyway (example (https://goo.gl/maps/KehfKdshrcLZQLYR6)). Utah law does not allow right on a red arrow, but I can't think of a single place I've seen a red right arrow in the state without accompanying NTOR signage.

Florida does allow right on a red arrow unless signed otherwise and it drives me nuts. There are a bunch of intersections without arrows with signs banning turns on red, but there are also a ton of red right arrows that you can turn on after you stop (with no signage clarifying that this is allowed). I far prefer the Utah method.

I also prefer the Utah method, but maybe that's because I learned to drive in CA where red arrow means no turn on red.

I think the lack of nationwide uniformity on this issue has led to confusion.  While the MUTCD and UVC (and a majority of jurisdictions) take the approach that a solid red arrow is no turn on red, there are enough other states that will allow the turn to proceed after a complete stop.  Because of this, you will see a lot of unnecessary signs that are put up to clarify the position.

So it is a good practice for UT to put up the NTOR signs with the red arrow, even though this is technically unnecessary.  And it will only be practically unnecessary if every state adopted the same rules regarding red arrows.

In certain contexts, there is too much going on to even place the NTOR sign.  In some of the busiest intersections, you will see separate signal heads for straight traffic, turning traffic, and perhaps separate signal heads for buses and bikes.  Should each signal head get its own sign?  Isn't it quite confusing?  Would it be less confusing if the red arrow simply meant wait until a green arrow to make this turn?

In my view, and i know others have voiced it as well, it would seem quite easy to allow for flexibility.  For every intersection where there is a red arrow and the state allows you to proceed before green arrow, simply have the red arrow flash.  Now we can define a universal meaning to each signal:

Red orb = Wait to proceed.  RTOR after stop.  LTOR after stop one-way to one-way.
Red orb + NTOR sign. = Wait to proceed or turn.
Flashing red orb = Proceeding or turning on red permitted after stop.

Red arrow = Wait to turn.
Flashing red arrow = Turn on red permitted after stop.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 19, 2022, 02:09:03 PM
Allowing right on a red arrow never made sense to me even when Virginia did allow it. The red arrow seems to me to indicate "you're not allowed to move in this direction," whichever direction the arrow is pointing. It would be particularly useful if you had an intersection in which a right-turn-only lane gets a green at a different time from the other lanes moving in the same direction. 18th & L in DC is an example of that (in this June 2014 Street View, you can see the station wagon is illegally turning right on a red arrow–traffic going straight has a green, traffic turning right has a red arrow, and a sign says right turns must wait for the green arrow). (https://goo.gl/maps/MifGvBxwbFpv9Kf17)

This is a growing application of red right arrow, separate phases for turning and peds/bikes.

A sign may be helpful, but the verbiage is not.  It is far simpler to say "No turn on red arrow."  Instructions are  better when they are direct.

Quote from: mrsman on August 22, 2022, 08:31:18 PM

Quote from: US 89 on August 19, 2022, 01:57:13 PM
My thought is this: if you want to allow turns on red, don't use a red right arrow at all - use one of those signal heads with a red ball and yellow/green arrows.

That's how it's done in Utah. Most commonly you'll see this at the bottom of right-turn ramps at SPUIs (example (https://goo.gl/maps/VPFfrvzeEL87u8Fa6)). There aren't a lot of red right arrows in the state anyway, and most of them seem to exist to clarify an existing NTOR restriction that would be there anyway (example (https://goo.gl/maps/KehfKdshrcLZQLYR6)). Utah law does not allow right on a red arrow, but I can't think of a single place I've seen a red right arrow in the state without accompanying NTOR signage.

Florida does allow right on a red arrow unless signed otherwise and it drives me nuts. There are a bunch of intersections without arrows with signs banning turns on red, but there are also a ton of red right arrows that you can turn on after you stop (with no signage clarifying that this is allowed). I far prefer the Utah method.

I also prefer the Utah method, but maybe that's because I learned to drive in CA where red arrow means no turn on red.

I think the lack of nationwide uniformity on this issue has led to confusion.  While the MUTCD and UVC (and a majority of jurisdictions) take the approach that a solid red arrow is no turn on red, there are enough other states that will allow the turn to proceed after a complete stop.  Because of this, you will see a lot of unnecessary signs that are put up to clarify the position.

So it is a good practice for UT to put up the NTOR signs with the red arrow, even though this is technically unnecessary.  And it will only be practically unnecessary if every state adopted the same rules regarding red arrows.

In certain contexts, there is too much going on to even place the NTOR sign.  In some of the busiest intersections, you will see separate signal heads for straight traffic, turning traffic, and perhaps separate signal heads for buses and bikes.  Should each signal head get its own sign?  Isn't it quite confusing?  Would it be less confusing if the red arrow simply meant wait until a green arrow to make this turn?

In my view, and i know others have voiced it as well, it would seem quite easy to allow for flexibility.  For every intersection where there is a red arrow and the state allows you to proceed before green arrow, simply have the red arrow flash.  Now we can define a universal meaning to each signal:

Red orb = Wait to proceed.  RTOR after stop.  LTOR after stop one-way to one-way.
Red orb + NTOR sign. = Wait to proceed or turn.
Flashing red orb = Proceeding or turning on red permitted after stop.

Red arrow = Wait to turn.
Flashing red arrow = Turn on red permitted after stop.

Exactly, like this signal is so complex, and the blank out sign makes it worse. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220823/b75bba6c2808d4be3ebfb0ed1604e59e.jpg)


iPhone

^^^^^

That is a great example of what not to do.  Where is this intersection?

Another problem is that there does not seem to be enough signal faces here.  One separate signal face for left turns, right turns, buses, and bikes, but no duplicate signal face.

Quote from: mrsman on August 24, 2022, 02:01:32 PM
^^^^^

That is a great example of what not to do.  Where is this intersection?

Another problem is that there does not seem to be enough signal faces here.  One separate signal face for left turns, right turns, buses, and bikes, but no duplicate signal face.

This is in Bellevue, WA. Southbound 108th at Main St (https://goo.gl/maps/F7gVxJvo4hwJrK2z7).

There is a duplicate left turn signal on the far left corner, per Bellevue's policy, but no redundancy for the other signals.

The old intersection used to have a small bike lane to the left of the right turn lane (see here (https://goo.gl/maps/XgZPTLCiVvkbKpNL7)), along with a small median between the turn lanes, that allowed cyclists to travel straight-through, which cars were/are not allowed to do. But they eliminated the median, and placed the bike lane to the right of the travel lanes. I'm guessing this was done to allow southbound buses without creating havoc for cyclists. But it did result in a very complicated signal array.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 07, 2022, 11:31:11 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 07, 2022, 11:17:26 PM
DDIs aren't one way streets....There can be arguments made on both sides of the issue, but on the strict interpretation of the statute, they are probably often illegal turns.

I'm not sure I agree with that.

Around here, Washington State signs them as two one-way streets. The ramps are also signed:

https://goo.gl/maps/85YQ4c1ed4r49qFS7

Quote from: jakeroot on August 08, 2022, 05:01:54 PM
From what I understand, if a wide-enough median is present, that creates a divided highway. Thus, Michigan Left corridors should legally be divided highways, made up of two separate roadways, one traveling in one direction, and the other in the opposing direction. Here in WA, the median would have to be thirty feet or greater in width. I don't know what the rule is in Michigan, but I have to assume it's a similar number.

I agree with you about Michigan lefts:  assuming the median is wide enough, they count as two separate intersections.

Michigan state law permits LTOR "into a 1-way roadway".  (Note that is the case even when turning from a two-way street.)

Quote
MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE – Act 300 of 1949

Section 257.612

(1) When traffic is controlled by traffic control signals, ... Red arrow and yellow arrow indications have the same meaning as the corresponding circular indications, except that they apply only to vehicle operators intending to make the movement indicated by the arrow. The following colors shall be used, and the terms and lights shall indicate and apply to vehicle operators as follows:

(c) If the signal exhibits a steady red indication, the following apply:

(ii) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal, after stopping before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or at a limit line when marked or, if there is no crosswalk or limit line, before entering the intersection, may make a right turn from a 1-way or 2-way street into a 2-way street or into a 1-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn or may make a left turn from a 1-way or 2-way street into a 1-way roadway carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn, unless prohibited by sign, signal, marking, light, or other traffic control device. The vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection.

Michigan state law defines the term "roadway" as the entire portion of a highway intended for vehicular traffic.  Notably, the definition also states that more than one "roadway" can comprise a single "highway".

Quote
MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE – Act 300 of 1949

Section 257.55

"Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. In the event a highway includes 2 or more separate roadways, the term "roadway", as used herein, shall refer to any such roadway separately, but not to all such roadways collectively.

So the question then remains:  how can we tell if a highway counts as one roadway or two separate roadways?  Michigan state law provides the answer to this question in the definition of "intersection".

Quote
MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE – Act 300 of 1949

Section 257.22

"Intersection" means:

(a) The area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways of 2 highways which join one another at, or approximately at, right angles, or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.

(b) Where a highway includes 2 roadways 30 feet or more apart, then every crossing of each roadway of such divided highway by an intersecting highway shall be regarded as a separate intersection. In the event such intersecting highway also includes 2 roadways 30 feet or more apart, then every crossing of 2 roadways of such highways shall be regarded as a separate intersection.

There's your answer.  If there is more than 30 feet between center lines, then one should treat it as two separate intersections.  If there is less than 30 feet between center lines, then one should treat it as a single intersection.

With that in mind, I don't understand how you make the leap to assume that a DDI counts as two separate roadways.  The distance between sides of a DDI isn't generally more than 30 feet, is it?  Assuming it's less than 30 feet, then each end of a DDI should be treated as a single intersection–ONE WAY signs or not.

Quote from: kphoger on August 26, 2022, 04:41:38 PM
The distance between sides of a DDI isn't generally more than 30 feet, is it?

A lot of them are, especially at the points where the on and off ramps meet the roadways of the crossroad. The roadways generally have a little more curvature than necessary, to reduce the possibility that a driver simply drives straight onto the bridge/underpass into oncoming traffic. The roadways often reduce to less than 30 feet separation when crossing the bridge/underpass, but that's not what matters.

Quote from: kphoger on August 26, 2022, 04:41:38 PM
With that in mind, I don't understand how you make the leap to assume that a DDI counts as two separate roadways.  The distance between sides of a DDI isn't generally more than 30 feet, is it?  Assuming it's less than 30 feet, then each end of a DDI should be treated as a single intersection–ONE WAY signs or not.

I don't understand how you can build a DDI without one-way signs. Every state requires keeping right of the center of the roadway. If the opposite-side driving portion of a DDI were not separate roadways, what legal reason would I have to stay left?

Obviously, the signs and markings are what makes you stay left, but I think those signs and markings also create separate one-way roadways.

Quote from: kphoger on August 26, 2022, 04:41:38 PM
With that in mind, I don't understand how you make the leap to assume that a DDI counts as two separate roadways.  The distance between sides of a DDI isn't generally more than 30 feet, is it?  Assuming it's less than 30 feet, then each end of a DDI should be treated as a single intersection–ONE WAY signs or not.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 26, 2022, 05:59:34 PM
I don't understand how you can build a DDI without one-way signs. Every state requires keeping right of the center of the roadway. If the opposite-side driving portion of a DDI were not separate roadways, what legal reason would I have to stay left?

Obviously, the signs and markings are what makes you stay left, but I think those signs and markings also create separate one-way roadways.

You guys are digging at the root of this thread.  It seems to me that the primary purpose of a DDI is to change the traffic patterns such that all of the left turn patterns avoid conflicting movements.  Unless there is some safety rationale (such as poor visibility), restricting a left turn on red in the DDI seems counterintuitive to the overarching goal of pushing as many cars through the left turn movements to get as close as theoretically possible. 

Can't remember if I mentioned this, but the specific DDI location at I-85 and NC-119 in Mebane originally had temporary stop signs at the end of each ramp (left turns) when it was first constructed, with only the crossover moves on NC-119 being protected by traffic signals.  After the remainder of the signal heads were installed, I kept making left turns on red until I realized that it was still illegal in North Carolina.  But the entire interchange certainly worked better with the stop signs.  Therefore, it seems to me that the rollout of DDIs this is an impetus for North Carolina to consider eliminating its "no left turn on red" laws.  When necessary, "No Left Turn on Red" (R13-B) or "No Turn on Red" (R10-11) should be employed (regardless of the laws).

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 27, 2022, 12:12:49 AM
Can't remember if I mentioned this, but the specific DDI location at I-85 and NC-119 in Mebane originally had temporary stop signs at the end of each ramp (left turns) when it was first constructed, with only the crossover moves on NC-119 being protected by traffic signals.  After the remainder of the signal heads were installed, I kept making left turns on red until I realized that it was still illegal in North Carolina.  But the entire interchange certainly worked better with the stop signs.  Therefore, it seems to me that the rollout of DDIs this is an impetus for North Carolina to consider eliminating its "no left turn on red" laws.  When necessary, "No Left Turn on Red" (R13-B) or "No Turn on Red" (R10-11) should be employed (regardless of the laws).

Despite the law, would it be acceptable to install "Left on Red OK After Stop" for the off-ramp left turns?

I would think a basic policy for DDIs might be: if the movement is single-lane, yield or stop signs would be fine. More than one lane, flashing red arrows? If the crosswalk was along the outer edge, I could see prohibiting left on red, although only for the off-ramp left turns (off-ramp right turns are like any other right turn, no need to install NTOR signs even with double turns IMO).

There is a DDI outside of of Durban, South Africa that is signalized only at the crossovers. The off-ramp turns onto the wrong-way sections are both double right yields (they drive on the left). Seems to work decently well. Although it's pretty uncommon, there are definitely quite a few double right turns in the US with yield signs (example here in Phoenix (https://goo.gl/maps/9cpVSPYoyBFuBmUQ7)); I don't see why the opposite (double left yield) couldn't also work. Video of the interchange I'm referring to in action...

https://youtu.be/b8jO0b4wXfk

^^^^

I suspect–this is only a guess–is that a double right yield is deemed more acceptable in the USA because the driver is closer to oncoming traffic and thus presumably has less to see around than he would at a double left yield.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 27, 2022, 01:27:24 PM
^^^^

I suspect–this is only a guess–is that a double right yield is deemed more acceptable in the USA because the driver is closer to oncoming traffic and thus presumably has less to see around than he would at a double left yield.

The only time you see double left yields in the US is largely at traffic lights across oncoming traffic, and even then, it's pretty rare (apart from some places). Curb to curb left turn "slip lanes" are pretty much just at DDIs and the very rare one in a downtown core (one I know of in Vancouver, BC (https://goo.gl/maps/pzzPejvk2TPGgXqV9), left on red being OK here but there is a signal).

It wouldn't surprise me if agencies are treating the off-ramp left turns at DDIs the way they would treat any other left turn, even though they are fairly unique in being curb to curb left turns that arguably don't need as much protection.

Doesn't a double right yield technically happen in every multilane roundabout? Plenty of those in the US.

Quote from: US 89 on August 27, 2022, 02:28:20 PM
Doesn't a double right yield technically happen in every multilane roundabout? Plenty of those in the US.

Yes, very true. Although, admittedly, the crash rate at multi-lane roundabouts isn't much to write home about :-D

Quote from: jakeroot on August 27, 2022, 01:23:44 PM

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 27, 2022, 12:12:49 AM
Can't remember if I mentioned this, but the specific DDI location at I-85 and NC-119 in Mebane originally had temporary stop signs at the end of each ramp (left turns) when it was first constructed, with only the crossover moves on NC-119 being protected by traffic signals.  After the remainder of the signal heads were installed, I kept making left turns on red until I realized that it was still illegal in North Carolina.  But the entire interchange certainly worked better with the stop signs.  Therefore, it seems to me that the rollout of DDIs this is an impetus for North Carolina to consider eliminating its "no left turn on red" laws.  When necessary, "No Left Turn on Red" (R13-B) or "No Turn on Red" (R10-11) should be employed (regardless of the laws).

Despite the law, would it be acceptable to install "Left on Red OK After Stop" for the off-ramp left turns?

I would think a basic policy for DDIs might be: if the movement is single-lane, yield or stop signs would be fine. More than one lane, flashing red arrows? If the crosswalk was along the outer edge, I could see prohibiting left on red, although only for the off-ramp left turns (off-ramp right turns are like any other right turn, no need to install NTOR signs even with double turns IMO).

There is a DDI outside of of Durban, South Africa that is signalized only at the crossovers. The off-ramp turns onto the wrong-way sections are both double right yields (they drive on the left). Seems to work decently well. Although it's pretty uncommon, there are definitely quite a few double right turns in the US with yield signs (example here in Phoenix (https://goo.gl/maps/9cpVSPYoyBFuBmUQ7)); I don't see why the opposite (double left yield) couldn't also work. Video of the interchange I'm referring to in action...

If one were really thinking very hard about it, the right turn on red move is one where a vehicle is likely only going to encroach on one direction of traffic (and likely only the closest lane of traffic).  As such, unless there are difficult geometries or too many pedestrians, the movement is generally considered safe, since you proceed only against one direction of traffic, not two.

The same line of thinking would also apply to the left on red situation from one way to one way.  Your car is basically making the same type  of movement as the RTOR, just in reverse.  It is true, that due to drivers sitting on the left side, it may be harder to see around the corner, but in all other respects the LTOR is only encroaching on one direction of traffic.

The LTOR from two-way to one-way is also somewhat similar, but with a twist.  In a simple signalized intersection (without separate arrow phases), when two-way sees red, both directions see red.  The LTOR movement will only encroach on one direction of traffic (the one-way side street green) and is thus a legal movement in WA,OR,ID, MI.  But the reason why this is so, is because the red light stops oncoming traffic. But given that many intersections theses days have complicated signalization, I fear that there is no good way for a driver to distinguish between a red light meaning that cross-traffic has a green vs. a red light meaning that opposing traffic has a green.  There are just too many variables, so I can definitely agree with the majority of states that prohibit this movement on red, even though you are only encroaching on one direction of traffic.

[Another distinction is that RTOR on LTOR one-way to one-way are movments that will hug the corner and by definition not cross the center line of the intersection.  The two-way to one-way left turn will cross the center of the intersection, so the driver is more exposed.]

Which brings us to the DDI.  It probably would not be considered two separate intersections, because the medians are typically too narrow, but the movement of the left turn from offramp to street only encroaches on one direction of traffic.  If one is OK with the LTOR one-way to one-way movement, then this movement is inherently not different.  It is a movement that only encroaches on one direction of traffic, with the proviso that it is a left movement instead of a right movement.  Now obviously, without writing specific laws dealing with the situation, a driver is likely confused about whether it is legal.  But it is not inherently more usnafe than typical LTOR one-way to one-way.  So, the movement should be allowed.  And signage about the legality of these movements should be clarified, with a "left turn may turn on red after stop" or a "no turn on red" when geometry of the intersectoin makes the movement dangerous.

Before DDIs were a thing, I am quite familiar with another intersection where drivers drove on the wrong side of the street.  I present the intersection of East Way and Center Way (lower level) in Los Angeles, in the middle of LAX:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9444131,-118.4017903,3a,75y,94.31h,76.71t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGH0CBFvfFOo9YJQnBEVG4Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DGH0CBFvfFOo9YJQnBEVG4Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D328.04297%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Now East Way (and West Way) are both two-way streets that drive on the reverese side.  This is because the main LAX loop (World Way)is a big counter-clockwise loop around the terminals.  East Way and West Way are designed to provide a shortcut, and the easiest way of providing the shorcut without having both directions of East Way interfere with each other at the World Way intersections is by making East Way a wrong-way street.  Center Way is a dual one-way in the direction of exiting the airport.  Most of its traffic is from those who have exited the parking lots, not the general loop trafffic.

Now if you are driving on Center Way and you see this intersection, there is no good reason why a left on red shouldn't be allowed here.  Yes, the LAX traffic volumes are heavy, but the movement of a left turn on red simply hugs the corner and only encroaches on one direction of traffic.  There is no sign.  Is a LTOR legal?  The movment from East Way to Center Way doesn't allow turn on red, but there is a sign to clarify that.

Quote from: mrsman on August 28, 2022, 05:50:16 PM
Which brings us to the DDI.  It probably would not be considered two separate intersections, because the medians are typically too narrow, but the movement of the left turn from offramp to street only encroaches on one direction of traffic.  If one is OK with the LTOR one-way to one-way movement, then this movement is inherently not different.  It is a movement that only encroaches on one direction of traffic, with the proviso that it is a left movement instead of a right movement.  Now obviously, without writing specific laws dealing with the situation, a driver is likely confused about whether it is legal.  But it is not inherently more usnafe than typical LTOR one-way to one-way.  So, the movement should be allowed.  And signage about the legality of these movements should be clarified, with a "left turn may turn on red after stop" or a "no turn on red" when geometry of the intersectoin makes the movement dangerous.

Agreed, except that I can see some situations where heavy left turn traffic from one or both of the off-ramps could block the stacking of traffic for cars having a green phase signal into the crossover section of the DDI (which could cause gridlock).  In that case, you would need two left turn lanes and probably need "No Left Turn on Red" signage.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 28, 2022, 07:53:00 PM

Quote from: mrsman on August 28, 2022, 05:50:16 PM
Which brings us to the DDI.  It probably would not be considered two separate intersections, because the medians are typically too narrow, but the movement of the left turn from offramp to street only encroaches on one direction of traffic.  If one is OK with the LTOR one-way to one-way movement, then this movement is inherently not different.  It is a movement that only encroaches on one direction of traffic, with the proviso that it is a left movement instead of a right movement.  Now obviously, without writing specific laws dealing with the situation, a driver is likely confused about whether it is legal.  But it is not inherently more usnafe than typical LTOR one-way to one-way.  So, the movement should be allowed.  And signage about the legality of these movements should be clarified, with a "left turn may turn on red after stop" or a "no turn on red" when geometry of the intersectoin makes the movement dangerous.

Agreed, except that I can see some situations where heavy left turn traffic from one or both of the off-ramps could block the stacking of traffic for cars having a green phase signal into the crossover section of the DDI (which could cause gridlock).  In that case, you would need two left turn lanes and probably need "No Left Turn on Red" signage.

Sure.  Heavy ramp movements at the interchange probably led to the construction of a DDI in the first place.  If the traffic is heavy enough, and sightlines difficult, a no turn on red could be justified.