Channelizing right turns...fail?

[Brandon]

Here's an interesting example in Southern Illinois. Last time I went through this intersection I almost drove through the red light because it is not too clear whether right turns are controlled by the signal or not when approaching the intersection.

https://goo.gl/maps/jNuOm

It's Illinois.  Always assume the right turn is controlled by the signal unless otherwise stated.  IDOT does not typically do the right turn movement separate from the main intersection signal.

On a different note, that signal does not follow IDOT protocol.  There are supposed to be two signals for the turning direction.  Each direction needs another tower to meet the minimum (3 for through, 2 per turning direction).

[roadfro]

Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?

Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.

You're referring to a situation like this, where those staying to the left have the thru movement, and those to the right are turning right, but have their own signal.  If you zoomed in, you would see "No Turn On Red" signage.  It also does have right arrows which specifically excludes turning right on red anyway, but as most drivers aren't aware of that little factoid supplemental 'No Turn On Red' signs are used as well.

There's no link here...


Re: RTOR with red arrow.  The MUTCD's intent for the use of a right red arrow is to prohibit RTOR. However, many state motor vehicle laws do not specifically prohibit right turns on a red arrow. For example, Nevada's law regarding traffic facing a traffic signal mentions what traffic may do when facing a steady circular green or steady green arrow, but only mentions steady red signals without reference to a shape--this is why nearly all applications of red turn arrows in Nevada (especially those with dual right turn lanes) are accompanied by a "no turn on red" sign.

[UCFKnights]

Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?

Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.

You're referring to a situation like this, where those staying to the left have the thru movement, and those to the right are turning right, but have their own signal.  If you zoomed in, you would see "No Turn On Red" signage.  It also does have right arrows which specifically excludes turning right on red anyway, but as most drivers aren't aware of that little factoid supplemental 'No Turn On Red' signs are used as well.

There's no link here...


Re: RTOR with red arrow.  The MUTCD's intent for the use of a right red arrow is to prohibit RTOR. However, many state motor vehicle laws do not specifically prohibit right turns on a red arrow. For example, Nevada's law regarding traffic facing a traffic signal mentions what traffic may do when facing a steady circular green or steady green arrow, but only mentions steady red signals without reference to a shape--this is why nearly all applications of red turn arrows in Nevada (especially those with dual right turn lanes) are accompanied by a "no turn on red" sign.

Generally, here in Florida, they do seem to permit right turn on red from arrows, including dual right turn lanes. Many of them are accompanied by signs saying right turn on red right lane only, but there are a few that allow it from both lanes.

[jakeroot]

Generally, here in Florida, they do seem to permit right turn on red from arrows, including dual right turn lanes. Many of them are accompanied by signs saying right turn on red right lane only, but there are a few that allow it from both lanes.

I've never understood lane-specific prohibitions. You're going to have an awful lot more traffic in the lane that can go versus the one that cannot.

[jeffandnicole]

Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?

Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.

You're referring to a situation like this, where those staying to the left have the thru movement, and those to the right are turning right, but have their own signal.  If you zoomed in, you would see "No Turn On Red" signage.  It also does have right arrows which specifically excludes turning right on red anyway, but as most drivers aren't aware of that little factoid supplemental 'No Turn On Red' signs are used as well.

There's no link here...

Do'h! 

https://goo.gl/maps/lGrpe

[empirestate]

Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?

Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.

You're referring to a situation like this, where those staying to the left have the thru movement, and those to the right are turning right, but have their own signal.  If you zoomed in, you would see "No Turn On Red" signage.  It also does have right arrows which specifically excludes turning right on red anyway, but as most drivers aren't aware of that little factoid supplemental 'No Turn On Red' signs are used as well.

https://goo.gl/maps/lGrpe

Yeah, that's exactly what I was envisioning. If I saw a setup like that, but with normal red signals (not arrows) and no other signage, I would assume I was not allowed to pass the red signal at all, because I'm not turning right from it, I'm really just going straight through it. Anybody see it differently?

[jakeroot]

Very similar setup here in Tacoma, Wash. Here's the intersection in question. The street view is facing towards the left side of the image:

For the west-to-north movement, is traffic allowed to stop, then proceed on red? Washington only prohibits right-on-red if there's a sign (arrows are irrelevant), but that doesn't necessarily matter because the movement in question does not have arrows. Technically, Steele Street continues north to south through the image, so the movement in question would seem to be a turn, but most maps indicate the through movements as between the right of the image to the top of the image.

The only thing that keeps me from proceeding on red is how far back the stop line is set, which makes creeping out kind of weird. Some people I know go on red, some don't. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on whether or not this is a turn or a through movement. The intersection in and of itself is odd (the optional turn lane is hilariously short, and causes backups for those going from north-to-south, plus there's absolutely no pedestrian facilities [actually there is, never bothered noticing] nor any stop line for the south-to-north movement [north-to-south has no signal]).

[roadfro]

Also, are there some signaled channelized right turns whose geometry suggests that passing the signal constitutes a straight-through movement rather than a turn, and thus isn't subject to right-on-red rules?

Maybe...but then this seems less like a channelized right turn... If it's that ambiguous, it seems like a perfect candidate for a signal head control with a sign prohibiting RTOR.

You're referring to a situation like this, where those staying to the left have the thru movement, and those to the right are turning right, but have their own signal.  If you zoomed in, you would see "No Turn On Red" signage.  It also does have right arrows which specifically excludes turning right on red anyway, but as most drivers aren't aware of that little factoid supplemental 'No Turn On Red' signs are used as well.

https://goo.gl/maps/lGrpe

Yeah, that's exactly what I was envisioning. If I saw a setup like that, but with normal red signals (not arrows) and no other signage, I would assume I was not allowed to pass the red signal at all, because I'm not turning right from it, I'm really just going straight through it. Anybody see it differently?

Well, I wouldn't necessarily think that it's a straight through movement, as you described it. But I would have the same conclusion that you can't go on the red after stop. Mainly due to the signs and arrows that say so, but also because of the dual turn situation (every similar situation in Nevada prohibits RTOR).

[roadfro]

Very similar setup here in Tacoma, Wash. <snipped>

In this case, the geometry of the intersection suggests the westbound to northbound movement is a through movement. That, coupled with a double turn situation, would lead me to believe no turns on red should be allowed.

[jakeroot]

Very similar setup here in Tacoma, Wash. <snipped>

In this case, the geometry of the intersection suggests the westbound to northbound movement is a through movement. That, coupled with a double turn situation, would lead me to believe no turns on red should be allowed.

One more thing I spotted; in the top of the image, the two left lanes (going south) are separated by a solid line, which in Washington is used to separate turn lanes from themselves and through lanes (see below for example). Given this, I wonder if the city considers the through traffic to be north-to-south?

[empirestate]

Well, I wouldn't necessarily think that it's a straight through movement, as you described it. But I would have the same conclusion that you can't go on the red after stop. Mainly due to the signs and arrows that say so, but also because of the dual turn situation (every similar situation in Nevada prohibits RTOR).

Right, but in my hypothetical example the signs and arrows aren't there. In that case, then, you'd consider it a right turn?

[roadfro]

Well, I wouldn't necessarily think that it's a straight through movement, as you described it. But I would have the same conclusion that you can't go on the red after stop. Mainly due to the signs and arrows that say so, but also because of the dual turn situation (every similar situation in Nevada prohibits RTOR).

Right, but in my hypothetical example the signs and arrows aren't there. In that case, then, you'd consider it a right turn?

For an example such as the GMaps link jeffandnicole posted? Yes, I would consider that a right turn.

The geometry of the overall intersection in that example makes it fairly obvious that the movement is a right turn, even though it's a channelized right turn with large radius, could be taken at a fairly speed (relatively speaking), and the end of the channelization is fairly tangent to the roadway and you come out of it heading straight from the light. The dual-lane situation, to me, would reinforce the no turn on red instinct, even if there weren't red arrows and NTOR signs. (One could argue that this particular example need not be a dual-lane turn and signalized...)

One cou

[jeffandnicole]

Well, I wouldn't necessarily think that it's a straight through movement, as you described it. But I would have the same conclusion that you can't go on the red after stop. Mainly due to the signs and arrows that say so, but also because of the dual turn situation (every similar situation in Nevada prohibits RTOR).

Right, but in my hypothetical example the signs and arrows aren't there. In that case, then, you'd consider it a right turn?

For an example such as the GMaps link jeffandnicole posted? Yes, I would consider that a right turn.

The geometry of the overall intersection in that example makes it fairly obvious that the movement is a right turn, even though it's a channelized right turn with large radius, could be taken at a fairly speed (relatively speaking), and the end of the channelization is fairly tangent to the roadway and you come out of it heading straight from the light. The dual-lane situation, to me, would reinforce the no turn on red instinct, even if there weren't red arrows and NTOR signs. (One could argue that this particular example need not be a dual-lane turn and signalized...)

This right turn lanes can get large amounts of usage as they lead you to another nearby intersection with a traffic light, an on ramp to the Rt 42 Freeway, and to the Deptford Mall.  That mall you may recall was in the news this week for an overturned vehicle, car windows blown out and building damage caused by a disastrous line of thunderstorms producing 70mph+ straight line winds.  The damage was unusual and widespread: the storm's winds (which occurred Tuesday evening) were only about 15 minutes in length, but an area approximately 400 square miles large (yes, that's about 20x20 miles) incurred uprooted trees and downed power lines. 5 days later, a widespread area is still without power, including my parent's development. Many side streets are still blocked with large trees blocking the road.

Anyway (sorry for the tangent), dual right turn lanes don't automatically prohibit turning right on red, and since traffic gong this way is leaving Rt. 41 for Rt. 544, it would definitely qualify as a right turn.

The biggest issue is the timing of the light: The light turns red with traffic from Rt 41 turning left will cross the path of traffic here. When that left turning traffic gets the red arrow, after the normal all-red phase, the light turns green. The problem is that traffic hasn't usually cleared this area yet, and now is conflicting with the right turning traffic.