Blinking right red arrow signals

[txstateends]

http://www.kltv.com/category/240194/new-video-landing-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9989353

In Tyler, between Dallas and Shreveport, the city is trying a new type of signal.  The intersection of Front and Bonner is a 'T' intersection, and drivers there apparently have been approaching Front on Bonner (aerial: http://goo.gl/maps/D5ob6 ; street view: http://goo.gl/maps/qj36f) and turning right on red.  The news report didn't come out and say it had been a problem, but there must have been something happening enough there to cause the city to look into a change.  Now a phase has been installed to make the red arrows on the right-most housing on the mast blink sometimes, and stay continuously red at other times (they don't come out and say it's an automatic phase or one set off by a road surface loop sensor in the right lane of Bonner), when the signal is not showing green or yellow.  A new text-based sign accompanies the different signal, which the city hopes will be noticed anew by drivers.  The TV report says that TxDOT gave their OK to this type of signal in 2011, but this is the first time the blinking red right arrow has been used in Tyler or east TX.  The city says they don't plan to use this signal style anywhere else in town (probably because most--not all--signaled intersections there are full 4-way crossings, not 'T' types).

Anyone else have these?

[Bitmapped]

It seems like a "No Turn on Red" sign that lit up during the appropriate portions of the phase would be less confusing.

[roadman65]

In NYC it would do well at those few intersections that allow RTOR.  Remember New York City is much different than the rest of the nation as they have No Turn on Red default and turning signed while the rest of us do it Right Turn on Red unless posted otherwise.

[getemngo]

It seems like a "No Turn on Red" sign that lit up during the appropriate portions of the phase would be less confusing.

Do Texans understand that a solid red right arrow means "no turn on red"? If so, it could turn out okay, and I'd love to see the results of any studies on this because it's sort of a neat concept. It's less ambiguous than the Flashing Yellow Arrow, since everyone knows (or should know) the difference between solid red and blinking red.

If red right arrows are new to Texas, or if TxDOT is like MDOT and doesn't know how to install them properly, then bitmapped is probably right.

[signalman]

Do Texans understand that a solid red right arrow means "no turn on red"?

That depends on how red arrows are defined in Texas, if they are at all.  A red arrow doesn't prohibit the movement in every state.

[getemngo]

From the MUTCD FAQ:

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.

So perhaps a red arrow doesn't prohibit the movement in every state, but it should.

[signalman]

I agree that it should prohibit a turn in that direction, and in states where I'm unsure of the law, it is how I interperet it.  But I was just pointing out that a red arrow doesn't necessarily prohibit a turn depending on the state that it's used in.

[US81]

It seems like a "No Turn on Red" sign that lit up during the appropriate portions of the phase would be less confusing.

Do Texans understand that a solid red right arrow means "no turn on red"? If so, it could turn out okay, and I'd love to see the results of any studies on this because it's sort of a neat concept. It's less ambiguous than the Flashing Yellow Arrow, since everyone knows (or should know) the difference between solid red and blinking red.

If red right arrows are new to Texas, or if TxDOT is like MDOT and doesn't know how to install them properly, then bitmapped is probably right.

I'm no lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV, but I don't think Texas law differentiates between arrows and balls. From http://law.onecle.com/texas/transportation/544.007.00.html:

§ 544.007. TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGNALS IN GENERAL.  (a) A
traffic-control signal displaying different colored lights or
colored lighted arrows successively or in combination may display
only green, yellow, or red and applies to operators of vehicles as
provided by this section.
...
(d)  An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal
shall stop at a clearly marked stop line.  In the absence of a stop
line, the operator shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the
near side of the intersection.  A vehicle that is not turning shall
remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.  After
stopping, standing until the intersection may be entered safely,
and yielding right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully in an adjacent
crosswalk and other traffic lawfully using the intersection, the
operator may:
      (1)  turn right;  or                                                         
      (2)  turn left, if the intersecting streets are both
one-way streets and a left turn is permissible.
   (e)  An operator of a vehicle facing a steady yellow signal
is warned by that signal that:
      (1)  movement authorized by a green signal is being
terminated;  or         
      (2)  a red signal is to be given.                                             
   (f)  The Texas Transportation Commission, a municipal
authority, or the commissioners court of a county may prohibit
within the entity's jurisdiction a turn by an operator of a vehicle
facing a steady red signal by posting notice at the intersection
that the turn is prohibited.

END EXCERPT



So, right (and left) red arrows are not new to Texas in that there are a number of intersections that have them. But I cannot find code that specifies drivers are to treat red arrows differently than red balls.

I'd love to hear from someone who knows more than I do.
[edited for clarity]

[hbelkins]

I'd never heard of the concept that right turns on red are prohibited at a solid red arrow. There are some intersections in Kentucky with red right arrows that are signed to prohibit RTOR, but the fact that they are supposed to be prohibited at all right red arrows is news to me.

Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC)

So we have the feds writing traffic laws now? 

I'm sure the least-known traffic law in Kentucky is the one permitting left turns on red from one one-way street to another.

[getemngo]

The whole right-on-red-arrow issue is so messy because things vary from state to state. Michigan didn't use red right arrows prior to the 2009 MUTCD, and I've only seen one since then, where it appears that you are supposed to be able to turn right on red.

So you have states with red arrows and states without red arrows, and in some states with red arrows, it's no turn on red unless otherwise specified, and in others, it's turn on red allowed unless otherwise specified.

It makes sense to me that you shouldn't be able to turn right on a red arrow, because you certainly can't turn left on a red arrow, and why would there be an arrow if it's not a direction specific instruction?

The MUTCD's intent is to follow the UVC (which I didn't know about before today, either) and make things consistent, so that someday a red right arrow always means no turn on red and there's no ambiguity. It says several different times in Section 4 of the MUTCD that the arrow shall prohibit a right turn on red... and every single time, it uses "shall" language.

When the separate right-turn signal face is providing a message to stop and remain stopped, a steady right-turn RED ARROW signal indication shall be displayed if it is intended that right turns on red not be permitted (except when a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication) or a steady CIRCULAR RED signal indication shall be displayed if it is intended that right turns on red be permitted.

But until the day that every state follows the MUTCD and UVC exactly, which is never, we'll be sitting here debating it.

[hbelkins]

It makes sense to me that you shouldn't be able to turn right on a red arrow, because you certainly can't turn left on a red arrow, and why would there be an arrow if it's not a direction specific instruction?

You can't turn left on a red ball, either. At least not a solid red ball.

[jeffandnicole]

I think most people are so used to turning right on red that whenever I've see a right red arrow, it's accompanied with a No Turn On Red sign anyway.

[DaBigE]

When the separate right-turn signal face is providing a message to stop and remain stopped, a steady right-turn RED ARROW signal indication shall be displayed if it is intended that right turns on red not be permitted (except when a traffic control device is in place permitting a turn on a steady RED ARROW signal indication) or a steady CIRCULAR RED signal indication shall be displayed if it is intended that right turns on red be permitted.

Interestingly, in the section on traffic signals in the Wisconsin Motorists' Handbook (pg 12), there is a picture of a right-facing red arrow with the definition:

A RED arrow means the same thing as a red traffic light in Wisconsin.

...yet the WisDOT Traffic Signal Design Manual all but forbids the use of a right-facing red arrow. Another case of two state agencies (within the same department) not aware of what the other is doing. Right turn signals can have green and amber right arrows, but should have a red ball according to the manual. And except for a few geometric cases, most municipalities seem to be following this practice.

The handbook also goes on to define right turns on red from the leftmost right turn lane to be illegal, yet most drivers seem to think it's okay to do unless signed. Maybe someday, like our old U-turn law, lawmakers will finally figure out that they need to reverse it and sign only when it's prohibited.

[M3019C LPS20]

I have never seen that in use. Interesting idea, though. As another member mentioned, a motorist cannot make a right turn on red in New York City unless a sign that indicates to do so is present.

There are some newer traffic signals, in which I have seen in Manhattan. Each one has four signal indications. From top to bottom, they are a solid red ball, red arrow, amber arrow, and green arrow. One signalized intersection in lower Manhattan (in the general area of the Manhattan bridge) has these in use, and motorists could only make right turns. Once the phase terminates, then the top section blinks a red ball once the main drag is green. A motorist could then make a turn on a flashing red ball signal indication.

[Brandon]

It makes sense to me that you shouldn't be able to turn right on a red arrow, because you certainly can't turn left on a red arrow, and why would there be an arrow if it's not a direction specific instruction?

You can't turn left on a red ball, either. At least not a solid red ball.

Depends on the state and the situation.  In Illinois, you can from a one-way to a one-way.  In Michigan, you can from a one-way to a one-way or from a two-way to a one-way.

[mrsman]

I'd never heard of the concept that right turns on red are prohibited at a solid red arrow. There are some intersections in Kentucky with red right arrows that are signed to prohibit RTOR, but the fact that they are supposed to be prohibited at all right red arrows is news to me.

Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC)

So we have the feds writing traffic laws now? 

I'm sure the least-known traffic law in Kentucky is the one permitting left turns on red from one one-way street to another.

If the UVC works in a way similar to other Uniform laws that I'm familiar with (Uniform Commercial Code, Uniform Trust Code) then it's not the Feds writing the laws, but rather a bunch of law professors on a commission who come up with their own system of laws that cover a particular subject area.  Then, they try to convince the states to enact their legal system.  Many states do.  Some states only enact parts of the uniform law and other states ignore it completely.

This allows for a uniform system without violating federalism or the Tenth Amendment.

Now in my opinion, I believe that many of the rules of the road should be uniform nationwide so that drivers do not have to learn new rules in different states.

For the right arrows, I would say that a red right arrow should generally mean no turn on red.  In situations where it doesn't, then an exception should be signed at each intersection.

For turns from one-way to one-way, I would say that turn on red should be OK generally, with exceptions noted with signage.

For NYC, I don't mind if they disallow right turn on red at every intersection in their city.  I do mind when that exception is not clearly signed at every intersection to which it applies, because I feel that it's a form of entrapment and out of state drivers should not be expected to know of a rule that only applies in one city.

[PColumbus73]

This is similar to Delaware's flashing red arrow signals. The MUTCD allows these flashing red arrows for right and left turns. I think this is the first instance where a right-turn flashing red arrow has been implemented.

[Milepost61]

Hmmm...I was unaware of the ambiguity between balls and arrows in Texas. Every place I ever see a solid red arrow used, to me it means "you can go that way only on a green".

[Brandon]

Hmmm...I was unaware of the ambiguity between balls and arrows in Texas. Every place I ever see a solid red arrow used, to me it means "you can go that way only on a green".

That's part of the problem with them.  More than a few states, Illinois included, do not make a difference is a ball or an arrow is used.  It means the same thing, and you can turn right on red on both.

[froggie]

I'd never heard of the concept that right turns on red are prohibited at a solid red arrow.

Depends on the state, but some states do expressly prohibit turning right on a solid red right arrow.  California, Georgia, and Minnesota for example.

I'm sure the least-known traffic law in Kentucky is the one permitting left turns on red from one one-way street to another.

Something else that is also by state.  Connecticut, Missouri, New Jersey, and North Carolina are examples of states that prohibit this.

Someone mentioned earlier that some states don't differentiate between the red ball and the red arrow...that's true.  As I noted above, some specifically prohibit certain movements.  A guy by the name of Justin (whom I'd had correspondence with in the past) had a website on Geocities that broke it all down and included references to each state's (and DC and territory) statutes.  It still exists on the wayback machine as of 2008.

Brandon mentioned earlier that in Michigan you can turn left from a two-way onto a one-way on red.  Oregon and Washington also allow this, and all three states allow it on a red arrow too.  Alaska and Idaho allow it on a red ball but not on a red arrow.

[Scott5114]

Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC)

So we have the feds writing traffic laws now? 

The UVC is written by a private, non-profit organization. If they're the feds, then so are the Boy Scouts.

[renegade]

You can't turn left on a red ball, either. At least not a solid red ball.

Yes you can, at least in Michigan, from a one- or two-way street to a one-way street unless a sign prohibits it.