"Outdated" Traffic Laws That Could Be Tweaked...

[vtk]

"When turning right, drivers must turn into the nearest lane" or "When turning left, drivers must turn into the lane just beyond the center of the cross road"

1. This is typically overridden by traffic control devices (namely pavement markings) where there are more than one turn lane, and often those markings direct traffic into more than just the nearest n lanes. It often makes sense for turning vehicles to turn into the *farthest* lane, and there's no currently established traffic control device that can explicitly indicate this is allowed.
     (1a. The "center" of a road is often not exactly the dividing line between two directions of traffic. All references to the center of a road in traffic laws should be revised to refer to the established division been traffic directions.)

2. The only situation where it might actually be helpful for traffic to follow this convention is when two vehicles coming from opposing directions are turning simultaneously onto the same multilane road. But drivers don't stick to that convention consistently enough for it to be trusted. When there is a conflict, either because the convention isn't followed or because there's only one lane to turn into, the driver turning left is supposed to yield to the driver turning right. And that's sufficient for the "nearest lane" convention to be redundant anyway.

[Rothman]

"When turning right, drivers must turn into the nearest lane" or "When turning left, drivers must turn into the lane just beyond the center of the cross road"

1. This is typically overridden by traffic control devices (namely pavement markings) where there are more than one turn lane, and often those markings direct traffic into more than just the nearest n lanes. It often makes sense for turning vehicles to turn into the *farthest* lane, and there's no currently established traffic control device that can explicitly indicate this is allowed.
     (1a. The "center" of a road is often not exactly the dividing line between two directions of traffic. All references to the center of a road in traffic laws should be revised to refer to the established division been traffic directions.)

2. The only situation where it might actually be helpful for traffic to follow this convention is when two vehicles coming from opposing directions are turning simultaneously onto the same multilane road. But drivers don't stick to that convention consistently enough for it to be trusted. When there is a conflict, either because the convention isn't followed or because there's only one lane to turn into, the driver turning left is supposed to yield to the driver turning right. And that's sufficient for the "nearest lane" convention to be redundant anyway.

Baloney.

[kalvado]

"When turning right, drivers must turn into the nearest lane" or "When turning left, drivers must turn into the lane just beyond the center of the cross road"

1. This is typically overridden by traffic control devices (namely pavement markings) where there are more than one turn lane, and often those markings direct traffic into more than just the nearest n lanes. It often makes sense for turning vehicles to turn into the *farthest* lane, and there's no currently established traffic control device that can explicitly indicate this is allowed.
     (1a. The "center" of a road is often not exactly the dividing line between two directions of traffic. All references to the center of a road in traffic laws should be revised to refer to the established division been traffic directions.)

2. The only situation where it might actually be helpful for traffic to follow this convention is when two vehicles coming from opposing directions are turning simultaneously onto the same multilane road. But drivers don't stick to that convention consistently enough for it to be trusted. When there is a conflict, either because the convention isn't followed or because there's only one lane to turn into, the driver turning left is supposed to yield to the driver turning right. And that's sufficient for the "nearest lane" convention to be redundant anyway.

Baloney.

Makes quite a bit of sense.
Let me rephrase that:
-Keep things tight if there is conflicting traffic.
-if there are multiple turn lanes, "into nearest lane" is overriden anyway
-if there is no conflicting traffic, then who cares? A bit more room for pedestrians to be seen.
-honorable mention for "turn right, shift 3 lanes for left turn in 100 feet" layouts.

[pderocco]

"When turning right, drivers must turn into the nearest lane" or "When turning left, drivers must turn into the lane just beyond the center of the cross road"

1. This is typically overridden by traffic control devices (namely pavement markings) where there are more than one turn lane, and often those markings direct traffic into more than just the nearest n lanes. It often makes sense for turning vehicles to turn into the *farthest* lane, and there's no currently established traffic control device that can explicitly indicate this is allowed.
     (1a. The "center" of a road is often not exactly the dividing line between two directions of traffic. All references to the center of a road in traffic laws should be revised to refer to the established division been traffic directions.)

2. The only situation where it might actually be helpful for traffic to follow this convention is when two vehicles coming from opposing directions are turning simultaneously onto the same multilane road. But drivers don't stick to that convention consistently enough for it to be trusted. When there is a conflict, either because the convention isn't followed or because there's only one lane to turn into, the driver turning left is supposed to yield to the driver turning right. And that's sufficient for the "nearest lane" convention to be redundant anyway.

Baloney.

Well. Thanks for the information.

[michravera]

This idea came to mind after getting stuck behind 3 school buses who came up to a fully modern railroad crossing with flashing lights and crossing gates.  Each of the 3 buses pulled up to the stop line, engaged air brakes and flashers, opened up their side door to check for trains.

I can understand this law being a good one back in the day when there were a lot more railroad crossings were lucky to have flashing red lights -- even rarer to have crossing gates.

But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else.  Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.

Other laws that could use a little tweaking?

 

In California they added just a few words to the law and made it conform to your rather sane suggestion: "Unless signed 'exempt'". It makes crossings with full quadrant gates, flashing lights, redundant sensors and all that more easy to traverse.

[Ned Weasel]

RTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.

I've been wondering for a long time: how exactly does a red light camera know whether you've made a full stop before turning right on red?

[jeffandnicole]

RTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.

I've been wondering for a long time: how exactly does a red light camera know whether you've made a full stop before turning right on red?

It's taking video, so when it detects a vehicle going past the stop line the reviewer should see the driver stopped first.

[pderocco]

RTOR does bother me at intersections with red-light cameras, because I fear they might still go off and get me a ticket even when I fully stop and turn right on red legally with no problem.

I've been wondering for a long time: how exactly does a red light camera know whether you've made a full stop before turning right on red?

It's taking video, so when it detects a vehicle going past the stop line the reviewer should see the driver stopped first.

Machine vision has progressed to where no human reviewer should be needed. I don't know if that's been invested in yet anywhere, though.

[thenetwork]

Some red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.

[vtk]

But now in modern times when most crossings are fully equipped and more reliable, I think the law should be rewritten to say that for at least school buses, the full ordeal of full stop, flashers an open doors should only apply to crossings with only crossbucks and nothing else.  Otherwise, buses should treat it as a yield as most other vehicles do.

Other laws that could use a little tweaking?

 

In California they added just a few words to the law and made it conform to your rather sane suggestion: "Unless signed 'exempt'". It makes crossings with full quadrant gates, flashing lights, redundant sensors and all that more easy to traverse.

The set of crossings signed 'exempt' and the set of crossings with full gates and flashing lights are two very different sets with very little overlap.

[pderocco]

Some red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.

Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).

[Max Rockatansky]

The 55 MPH top speed for heavy duty trucks and vehicles hauling trailers in California.  Currently CHP doesn't seem very interested in enforcing this limit and it never really aided traffic anyways.

[wanderer2575]

Some red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.

Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).

I'm assuming that.  In my hometown there will be three signals replaced at city street intersections (no traffic cameras) and the plans for all of them show multiple loops.  Although, interestingly, the redundant loops will be only in the left-turn lanes, including the intersection that won't have a dedicated left-turn signal.

[pderocco]

Some red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.

Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).

I'm assuming that.  In my hometown there will be three signals replaced at city street intersections (no traffic cameras) and the plans for all of them show multiple loops.  Although, interestingly, the redundant loops will be only in the left-turn lanes, including the intersection that won't have a dedicated left-turn signal.

I could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.

[LilianaUwU]

The 55 MPH top speed for heavy duty trucks and vehicles hauling trailers in California.  Currently CHP doesn't seem very interested in enforcing this limit and it never really aided traffic anyways.

I will also agree with this as an American Truck Simulator player. It's the reason I removed traffic infractions entirely.

[algorerhythms]

The 55 MPH top speed for heavy duty trucks and vehicles hauling trailers in California.  Currently CHP doesn't seem very interested in enforcing this limit and it never really aided traffic anyways.

I will also agree with this as an American Truck Simulator player. It's the reason I removed traffic infractions entirely.

I removed traffic infractions because every time I got stuck on a fire hydrant a cop car would come up behind me and I would run it over.

I never did figure out how to play that game without getting stuck on a fire hydrant.

[LilianaUwU]

The 55 MPH top speed for heavy duty trucks and vehicles hauling trailers in California.  Currently CHP doesn't seem very interested in enforcing this limit and it never really aided traffic anyways.

I will also agree with this as an American Truck Simulator player. It's the reason I removed traffic infractions entirely.

I removed traffic infractions because every time I got stuck on a fire hydrant a cop car would come up behind me and I would run it over.

I never did figure out how to play that game without getting stuck on a fire hydrant.

I figured it out: I heavily mod my game to have no traffic, no infractions, no damage, and Hatsune Miku liveries for my trucks and trailers.

[algorerhythms]

I should probably check out the mods for the game. I downloaded the Oklahoma DLC when I bought the game, but I've never played it because I've never figured out how to get my truck to Oklahoma when I've never managed to actually complete a delivery.

[wanderer2575]

I could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.

In my area, it's the exact opposite -- I'm guessing the system is wired to send a constant low power flow through the pavement sensors, and a broken sensor tells the controller there is nonstop traffic and the controller is programmed to act accordingly, which absolutely infuriates me.  The signal one block away from my home is supposed to trigger a green light phase for the side street only when a vehicle activates it, but the pavement sensors on the side street were torn out during a repaving project about five years ago.  Ever since then, every cycle triggers a minimum-length green light for the main road and a maximum-length green light for the side street.

[LilianaUwU]

I should probably check out the mods for the game. I downloaded the Oklahoma DLC when I bought the game, but I've never played it because I've never figured out how to get my truck to Oklahoma when I've never managed to actually complete a delivery.

You can teleport there for an ingame fee. For what it's worth, I bought all the DLC so everything is interconnected.

[pderocco]

I could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.

In my area, it's the exact opposite -- I'm guessing the system is wired to send a constant low power flow through the pavement sensors, and a broken sensor tells the controller there is nonstop traffic and the controller is programmed to act accordingly, which absolutely infuriates me.  The signal one block away from my home is supposed to trigger a green light phase for the side street only when a vehicle activates it, but the pavement sensors on the side street were torn out during a repaving project about five years ago.  Ever since then, every cycle triggers a minimum-length green light for the main road and a maximum-length green light for the side street.

I think that's common for the straight-through direction. I've seen that in my area in California. I'm just speculating that turn lanes might be treated differently.

[roadfro]

Some red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.

Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).

I'm assuming that.  In my hometown there will be three signals replaced at city street intersections (no traffic cameras) and the plans for all of them show multiple loops.  Although, interestingly, the redundant loops will be only in the left-turn lanes, including the intersection that won't have a dedicated left-turn signal.

I could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.

Here in Nevada, the left turn lanes almost always have more detector loops than the through lanes. I'm not sure why that is. The one thing that comes to mind is that if a motorcycle fails to get detected in a turn lane, another car coming along behind it will eventually trip the sensors—theoretically, that detection need is lessened with through lanes that may get a green regardless or run together with opposing through phase.

[PColumbus73]

Some red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.

Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).

I'm assuming that.  In my hometown there will be three signals replaced at city street intersections (no traffic cameras) and the plans for all of them show multiple loops.  Although, interestingly, the redundant loops will be only in the left-turn lanes, including the intersection that won't have a dedicated left-turn signal.

I could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.

Here in Nevada, the left turn lanes almost always have more detector loops than the through lanes. I'm not sure why that is. The one thing that comes to mind is that if a motorcycle fails to get detected in a turn lane, another car coming along behind it will eventually trip the sensors—theoretically, that detection need is lessened with through lanes that may get a green regardless or run together with opposing through phase.

I would guess it would have to do with the queuing and to gauge how much time is needed for the green arrow. In my area, I've seen a lot of people 'hang back' on a left turn lane to try and trigger the green arrow, meaning instead of pulling up to the stop bar on a red, they'll sit about 2-3 car lengths back.

[jeffandnicole]

Some red light cameras still have multiple pavement loop detectors in succession to determine if a red light stop was made or not and which lane ran the red.

Are you sure that's what they're for? Practically all signalized intersections have more than one loop in each lane, even though very few are detecting red light runners. I always assumed they were just for redundancy due to unreliability, or perhaps to tell whether there was only one car (let it wait) or more (give them the green).

I'm assuming that.  In my hometown there will be three signals replaced at city street intersections (no traffic cameras) and the plans for all of them show multiple loops.  Although, interestingly, the redundant loops will be only in the left-turn lanes, including the intersection that won't have a dedicated left-turn signal.

I could be wrong, but I would guess that the loops are redundant in the left turn lanes because if they fail, the controller would never give a green arrow. The straight through phase probably happens eventually even if the sensor fails. Maybe someone else around here knows how these are designed.

Here in Nevada, the left turn lanes almost always have more detector loops than the through lanes. I'm not sure why that is. The one thing that comes to mind is that if a motorcycle fails to get detected in a turn lane, another car coming along behind it will eventually trip the sensors—theoretically, that detection need is lessened with through lanes that may get a green regardless or run together with opposing through phase.

I would guess it would have to do with the queuing and to gauge how much time is needed for the green arrow. In my area, I've seen a lot of people 'hang back' on a left turn lane to try and trigger the green arrow, meaning instead of pulling up to the stop bar on a red, they'll sit about 2-3 car lengths back.

They're either doing that to give room for turning traffic, or because the "Everything you see is true" internet told them to do that.

[PColumbus73]

If we're referring to hanging back in the left turn lane, it's definitely to trigger the green arrow. Someone who actually installs and maintains signals would have to explain the technical details. But from my observation, if a driver hangs back on the loop detectors, and you can usually see the loop detectors in the road, it will relay to the traffic signal controller that there are multiple cars in the turn lane and to give the green arrow on the next cycle. This is on the protected-permissive left turns (doghouses / FYAs). Depending on how the signal is programmed, the green arrow might not display if there's not enough cars in the turn lane, so the hanging back games the system.