Stupid, Archaic and Weird Highway Laws

[Ace10]

In PA...for some reason you can turn right on red, but not left?

I think you're mistaken.  PA does allow left on red when both intersecting roadways are one-way streets.  At least that's what I read it when I changed my driver's license from Massachusetts over to Pennsylvania 25 years ago.

To my knowledge, Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota, and the cities of New York and Washington DC prohibit left turns on red. Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allow left turns on red from one- and two-way streets into one-way streets, with Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allowing these turns to be made even on red arrows (Idaho prohibits turns on arrows; I'm not sure about Alaska). The rest allow left turns on red but it must be from a one-way street into another one-way street.

NJ does not allow any kind of left turn on red

You're right! I edited my original post. The appropriate law (NJSA 39:4-115, "Making right or left turn") looks like it was amended in 2009. It allows right turns on red, but makes absolutely no mention of left turns on red. I wonder if the maneuver was allowed previously and just changed recently. A few websites reference a 2003 pamphlet issued by AAA that list the states that prohibit the turn on red, and New Jersey isn't listed on it, which leads me to believe the law changed sometime after the pamphlet was issued. Anyone have more knowledge on this?

[Brian556]

School busses, busses, hazmat loads must stop at all railroad crossings, even if they are signalized. Stupidest law ever, causes way more accidents than it prevents.

Headlights don't have to be turned on until 30 min after sunset. Must have been written in the wagon days when headlights were lanterns and nobody traveled over 10 mph.

[Pete from Boston]

I guess in Kentucky and Michigan you're car insurance pays for your car only. That means if you have liability only insurance and you're involved in an accident that is someone else's fault, you're screwed. What's the point of even having car insurance in those states?

So you don't get sued into bankruptcy and/or so you can pay your own medical bills and replace your car when you're in an accident that's determined to be at least partially your fault? (And because it's the law, although you can substitute a surety bond in some states.)

You get uninsured motorist insurance to cover the event that you're in an accident that isn't your fault and the responsible party/ies can't be identified (hit & run), lack insurance, or are underinsured compared to the accident costs (which also avoids you needing to track down the other party/ies and suing them into bankruptcy on your own). But even that usually isn't offered except if you pay for liability insurance for yourself and usually no more generous than your own liability limits.

In Indiana if someone rams their car into me I can get my car fixed at no cost to me because the other driver's insurance pays. If they don't have car insurance I just simply sue them. In Michigan I'd have to pay for it all out of my pocket.

So you're telling us drivers in Michigan are not liable for damage they cause?

[Pete from Boston]

Any state that still restricts logo signs to rural areas despite the 2000 MUTCD adding provisions to allow them in urban areas.  The benefits of logo signs in urban areas are just as good (if not better) in urban areas as they are in rural areas, and if the state's logo sign program generates revenue, the states that continue to restrict them to rural areas are missing out on a lot of additional revenue that can command premium prices since there is a lot more competition in urban areas.

I'll take it that you are familiar with the layout of urban highways in the Northeast, and are aware of the fact that exits are frequently at intervals of one mile or less, quite often elevated or in trenches.  I'm sure you realize also that there are already many signs in that one mile, and that placing these new logo signs, spaced properly, can be problematic both in terms of visual clutter and proper advance notice for exiting drivers. 

This is to say nothing of the fact that with the multitude of available options at many exits, narrowing them down simply by charging a steeper price only tips the scale in favor of chains with large marketing budgets.

It is evident that you are a huge aficionado of highway logo signs, but they do not address all the valid concerns of all highway stakeholders everywhere.

[oscar]

School busses, busses, hazmat loads must stop at all railroad crossings, even if they are signalized. Stupidest law ever, causes way more accidents than it prevents.

Are they allowed, or required, to stop on the shoulder rather than the travel lanes? IIRC, Missouri DOT built pullouts just before RR crossings, for that purpose.

[theline]

I guess in Kentucky and Michigan you're car insurance pays for your car only. That means if you have liability only insurance and you're involved in an accident that is someone else's fault, you're screwed. What's the point of even having car insurance in those states?

So you don't get sued into bankruptcy and/or so you can pay your own medical bills and replace your car when you're in an accident that's determined to be at least partially your fault? (And because it's the law, although you can substitute a surety bond in some states.)

You get uninsured motorist insurance to cover the event that you're in an accident that isn't your fault and the responsible party/ies can't be identified (hit & run), lack insurance, or are underinsured compared to the accident costs (which also avoids you needing to track down the other party/ies and suing them into bankruptcy on your own). But even that usually isn't offered except if you pay for liability insurance for yourself and usually no more generous than your own liability limits.

In Indiana if someone rams their car into me I can get my car fixed at no cost to me because the other driver's insurance pays. If they don't have car insurance I just simply sue them. In Michigan I'd have to pay for it all out of my pocket.

So you're telling us drivers in Michigan are not liable for damage they cause?

That's true, under the Michigan No-Fault law: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/cis_ofis_ip202_25083_7.pdf

Collision and Comprehensive Insurance
Your no-fault insurance DOES NOT pay for repairs to your car if it is damaged in an accident. If your car is properly parked and hit by another car, the other driver's no-fault coverage will pay for the damage to your car. Except for this one situation, the only kinds of auto insurance that will pay for repairs to your car are collision and comprehensive coverage.
A. Collision coverage pays for repairs to your car when it is damaged in a crash. There are three basic kinds of collision insurance to choose from - limited, standard and broad form. The chart on the next page describes each type and what it covers. The deductible mentioned in the chart is the amount of money you agree to pay toward the cost of repairs before the insurance company steps in and pays the remainder. The larger the deductible, the lower the cost of your collision insurance.
B. Comprehensive insurance pays for your car if it is stolen or for repairs if it is hit by a falling object, collides with an animal, or is damaged in a fire, flood or by vandals.
If you have an older car, you may not want collision and comprehensive coverage. If your car is financed, the company that loans you the money may require that you buy collision and comprehensive coverage.

If you fail to buy collision coverage because you are certain that you will never have an accident that is your fault, don't drive in Michigan. I'm not sure who would be so confident in their driving ability that they wouldn't buy collision insurance, but it's not me.

Of course the idea behind no-fault is to avoid costly litigation over who is at fault, but in practice there is just about as much litigation. The injured parties are just suing their own insurance companies, instead of the company that insures the other guy.

[Pete from Boston]

Can you successfully bring a civil suit against someone who damages your property?  This all turns my idea of personal responsibility on its head.  The notion that someone can, through their negligence, destroy tens of thousands of dollars of your property and not be held liable is just plain crazy to me.  Does your collision insurance premium go up if somebody rams into your car when you are doing nothing negligent?

[jeffandnicole]

In PA...for some reason you can turn right on red, but not left?

I think you're mistaken.  PA does allow left on red when both intersecting roadways are one-way streets.  At least that's what I read it when I changed my driver's license from Massachusetts over to Pennsylvania 25 years ago.

To my knowledge, Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota, and the cities of New York and Washington DC prohibit left turns on red. Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allow left turns on red from one- and two-way streets into one-way streets, with Michigan, Oregon, and Washington allowing these turns to be made even on red arrows (Idaho prohibits turns on arrows; I'm not sure about Alaska). The rest allow left turns on red but it must be from a one-way street into another one-way street.

NJ does not allow any kind of left turn on red

You're right! I edited my original post. The appropriate law (NJSA 39:4-115, "Making right or left turn") looks like it was amended in 2009. It allows right turns on red, but makes absolutely no mention of left turns on red. I wonder if the maneuver was allowed previously and just changed recently. A few websites reference a 2003 pamphlet issued by AAA that list the states that prohibit the turn on red, and New Jersey isn't listed on it, which leads me to believe the law changed sometime after the pamphlet was issued. Anyone have more knowledge on this?

NJ has never allowed Left Turns on Red.  NJ has always allowed Right Turns on Red (well, ever since the national rules were changed permitting it).   What websites are you looking at regarding AAA?

NJ does not allow any kind of left turn on red.

Given that many left turn movements in NJ are handled via right-turn jughandles; I'm not surprised.

In most states, left turns on red are permitted from one-way roads to one-way roads, which are commonly found in urban and city-gridded areas.  There wouldn't be any reason to have a jughandle at such an intersection.  And the overwhelming majority of intersections allow left turns.  Jughandles are mostly found on roadways with some sort of medians, which while those roads carry a fair amount of traffic, really doesn't account for a large percentage of intersections.

School busses, busses, hazmat loads must stop at all railroad crossings, even if they are signalized. Stupidest law ever, causes way more accidents than it prevents.

That's a national rule.  How many accidents has it caused?

In Indiana if someone rams their car into me I can get my car fixed at no cost to me because the other driver's insurance pays. If they don't have car insurance I just simply sue them.

Well, suing anyone for anything is simple.  But usually lawsuits take months to resolve.  And it doesn't mean the other party is just going to hand over the money if found guilty.  Many times, they don't have the means to pay, or can only pay very little per month.  If you're facing a $6,000 repair bill, the other party paying $25 a month isn't going to help you out very much.

[Pink Jazz]

Any state that still restricts logo signs to rural areas despite the 2000 MUTCD adding provisions to allow them in urban areas.  The benefits of logo signs in urban areas are just as good (if not better) in urban areas as they are in rural areas, and if the state's logo sign program generates revenue, the states that continue to restrict them to rural areas are missing out on a lot of additional revenue that can command premium prices since there is a lot more competition in urban areas.

I'll take it that you are familiar with the layout of urban highways in the Northeast, and are aware of the fact that exits are frequently at intervals of one mile or less, quite often elevated or in trenches.  I'm sure you realize also that there are already many signs in that one mile, and that placing these new logo signs, spaced properly, can be problematic both in terms of visual clutter and proper advance notice for exiting drivers. 

This is to say nothing of the fact that with the multitude of available options at many exits, narrowing them down simply by charging a steeper price only tips the scale in favor of chains with large marketing budgets.

It is evident that you are a huge aficionado of highway logo signs, but they do not address all the valid concerns of all highway stakeholders everywhere.

I don't see how Northeastern cities are all that different from other major cities.  Logo signs have been very popular in other major cities such as Atlanta, Phoenix, Orlando, Denver, Hampton Roads, Richmond, Northern Virginia, Las Vegas, the Seattle suburbs, and most major cities in Texas and North Carolina.  And it is very typical for urban installations to command premium prices over rural installations, and I still see several family-owned restaurants on logo signs even in urban areas.  Sure, much of these urban areas with logo signs are Sun Belt cities, but I would think that there is probably ample space for logo signs in most urban areas except in the vicinity of downtown areas.

[Pete from Boston]

Popular, and still a lousy idea.

[The Nature Boy]

Any state that still restricts logo signs to rural areas despite the 2000 MUTCD adding provisions to allow them in urban areas.  The benefits of logo signs in urban areas are just as good (if not better) in urban areas as they are in rural areas, and if the state's logo sign program generates revenue, the states that continue to restrict them to rural areas are missing out on a lot of additional revenue that can command premium prices since there is a lot more competition in urban areas.

I'll take it that you are familiar with the layout of urban highways in the Northeast, and are aware of the fact that exits are frequently at intervals of one mile or less, quite often elevated or in trenches.  I'm sure you realize also that there are already many signs in that one mile, and that placing these new logo signs, spaced properly, can be problematic both in terms of visual clutter and proper advance notice for exiting drivers. 

This is to say nothing of the fact that with the multitude of available options at many exits, narrowing them down simply by charging a steeper price only tips the scale in favor of chains with large marketing budgets.

It is evident that you are a huge aficionado of highway logo signs, but they do not address all the valid concerns of all highway stakeholders everywhere.

I don't see how Northeastern cities are all that different from other major cities.  Logo signs have been very popular in other major cities such as Atlanta, Phoenix, Orlando, Denver, Hampton Roads, Richmond, Northern Virginia, Las Vegas, the Seattle suburbs, and most major cities in Texas and North Carolina.  And it is very typical for urban installations to command premium prices over rural installations, and I still see several family-owned restaurants on logo signs even in urban areas.  Sure, much of these urban areas with logo signs are Sun Belt cities, but I would think that there is probably ample space for logo signs in most urban areas except in the vicinity of downtown areas.

Simple, Northeastern cities are often older and were built up extensively before the freeway came through. Sun Belt cities tend to be newer and able to better accommodate a freeway being rammed into them. In some cases, they weren't really all that urban prior to the interstate highway system existing. In those cases, you're better able to plan exits and not cram them on top of each other. In the Northeast, you didn't really have that option since you had a pre-existing urban area.

Also, southern cities tend to be less densely populated than their northern counterparts. Take Boston vs. Charlotte, roughly the same population but Boston is more densely populated. I couldn't imagine a logo sign in Boston's city limits but Charlotte works just fine because it's more spread out.

[slorydn1]

Not a state law, but they tell me that there is a local ordinance still on the books from the beginning of the automobile days that in order to drive a motor vehicle in the City of New Bern one must have a person with a red flag stationed in front of the vehicle walking along ahead of it at all times. Obviously nobody does that (lol) but they do say that it has never been stricken from the record.
Not sure how true that is, I work for and live out in the county (my office is in the city though) so I have never taken the time to look it up.

[jp the roadgeek]

From the Live Free or Die Department: NH does not require that you carry auto liability insurance

[vtk]

Columbus has logo signs. We're definitely not a sun belt city. They don't seem to be a problem.

[1995hoo]

From the Live Free or Die Department: NH does not require that you carry auto liability insurance

Virginia doesn't either–you can pay the $500 "uninsured motorist fee" every year (sort of like a penalty fee, I guess) and drive without insurance. Anyone who does is an idiot other than people who are so poor that they're effectively judgment-proof.

[Pink Jazz]

Columbus has logo signs. We're definitely not a sun belt city. They don't seem to be a problem.

Hampton Roads isn't a Sun Belt metro area either and most of their freeways have logo signs (exceptions include I-264 in Norfolk, I-64 from Norview Avenue to VA 134 in Norfolk and Hampton, I-464, and I-564; I-464 currently has an empty panel in the northbound direction for the Poindexter Street exit).  Even Northern Virginia (which is more and more becoming regarded as Northeastern) has logo signs on most of its freeways.  Some Midwestern states (such as Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, as well as Ohio as you mentioned) also have logo signs in urban areas as well.

[Pete from Boston]

Columbus has logo signs. We're definitely not a sun belt city. They don't seem to be a problem.

Hampton Roads isn't a Sun Belt metro area either and most of their freeways have logo signs (exceptions include I-264 in Norfolk, I-64 from Norview Avenue to VA 134 in Norfolk and Hampton, I-464, and I-564; I-464 currently has an empty panel in the northbound direction for the Poindexter Street exit).  Even Northern Virginia (which is more and more becoming regarded as Northeastern) has logo signs on most of its freeways.  Some Midwestern states (such as Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, as well as Ohio as you mentioned) also have logo signs in urban areas as well.

You're going out of your way now to miss the point.  Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia, as you must well know, are relatively newly "urban" places by Northeastern standards (the former qualifying as part of the Northeast only dubiously, and only based on a geographical stretch rather than historical or cultural ties).  They are outliers in a region where urban cores are predominantly places developed before automobiles, never mind Interstates.  You will note that if they are indeed in the region, they are at its extreme periphery, and thus follow different development pressures and patterns.  Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and the numerous smaller but still old and dense urban places in between are what I am talking about.

You can fish out all the sprawly examples you want and say they prove your point, but you're still not going to create more space between exits in the tight jumble of cities whose current basic form predates the Civil War and whose highways in many cases predate the Korean War.

[oscar]

Virginia doesn't either–you can pay the $500 "uninsured motorist fee" every year (sort of like a penalty fee, I guess) and drive without insurance. Anyone who does is an idiot other than people who are so poor that they're effectively judgment-proof.

Or are so rich that they can comfortably cover any judgments except the ridiculously large ones that even the most generous coverage limits (with umbrella insurance for additional protection) won't cover.

[The Nature Boy]

Columbus has logo signs. We're definitely not a sun belt city. They don't seem to be a problem.

Hampton Roads isn't a Sun Belt metro area either and most of their freeways have logo signs (exceptions include I-264 in Norfolk, I-64 from Norview Avenue to VA 134 in Norfolk and Hampton, I-464, and I-564; I-464 currently has an empty panel in the northbound direction for the Poindexter Street exit).  Even Northern Virginia (which is more and more becoming regarded as Northeastern) has logo signs on most of its freeways.  Some Midwestern states (such as Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, as well as Ohio as you mentioned) also have logo signs in urban areas as well.

You're going out of your way now to miss the point.  Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia, as you must well know, are relatively newly "urban" places by Northeastern standards (the former qualifying as part of the Northeast only dubiously, and only based on a geographical stretch rather than historical or cultural ties).  They are outliers in a region where urban cores are predominantly places developed before automobiles, never mind Interstates.  You will note that if they are indeed in the region, they are at its extreme periphery, and thus follow different development pressures and patterns.  Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and the numerous smaller but still old and dense urban places in between are what I am talking about.

You can fish out all the sprawly examples you want and say they prove your point, but you're still not going to create more space between exits in the tight jumble of cities whose current basic form predates the Civil War and whose highways in many cases predate the Korean War.

Exactly this.

A lot of cities in the Northeast still exist on street patterns that were laid out in the 18th and early 19th century. Northeastern cities don't sprawl like cities south of DC do. You're not going to find the urban density in Richmond or Raleigh or Charlotte or Atlanta that you're going to find in Baltimore or Philly or Boston or even DC.

In some ways, it's better city planning for the newer cities. Driving in Raleigh and Charlotte is substantially easier than ANY Northeastern metro. But Northeastern metros are constricted by the nature of their founding. No one in 1750 foresaw the automobiles ever existing and wanted to create compact cities so people could get from point A to point B. When automobiles were invented, they were stuck.

[froggie]

Driving in Raleigh and Charlotte is substantially easier than ANY Northeastern metro.

At the expense of just about every other mode, to be fair.

[hbelkins]

From the Live Free or Die Department: NH does not require that you carry auto liability insurance

Virginia doesn't either–you can pay the $500 "uninsured motorist fee" every year (sort of like a penalty fee, I guess) and drive without insurance. Anyone who does is an idiot other than people who are so poor that they're effectively judgment-proof.

I pay $1,200 a year for insurance on four vehicles -- full-coverage on two and liability only on two. Surely anyone who owns a vehicle in Virginia can afford liability insurance on it in lieu of paying that fee.

[The Nature Boy]

Driving in Raleigh and Charlotte is substantially easier than ANY Northeastern metro.

At the expense of just about every other mode, to be fair.

I agree. I'm a huge advocate of a light rail system that connects Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill. For a city its size, Charlotte's public transit is just embarrassing.

[Ace10]

NJ has never allowed Left Turns on Red.  NJ has always allowed Right Turns on Red (well, ever since the national rules were changed permitting it).   What websites are you looking at regarding AAA?

Here's a link to the page that references that AAA pamphlet: http://www.driversedguru.com/driving-articles/drivers-ed-extras/can-you-make-a-left-turn-on-red/

According to a 2003 pamphlet issued by AAA, the following locations prohibit a left turn on red:
1.Connecticut
2.Missouri
3.North Carolina
4.Rhode Island
5.Vermont
6.New York City

Obviously, if there is a red left-turn arrow, a left turn is expressly prohibited.

Of course the bit about red arrows expressly prohibiting the turn is not true for all 50 states; I've confirmed both Oregon and Washington allow the turn on a red arrow, and I believe Brandon (another user here) mentioned Michigan also makes no distinction between a circular signal and arrow signal when it comes to turns on red.

[AlexandriaVA]

Many Sun Belt cities grew more through annexation rather than organic growth as well (hence the lower population densities, at least another reason for them).

[jeffandnicole]

NJ has never allowed Left Turns on Red.  NJ has always allowed Right Turns on Red (well, ever since the national rules were changed permitting it).   What websites are you looking at regarding AAA?

Here's a link to the page that references that AAA pamphlet: http://www.driversedguru.com/driving-articles/drivers-ed-extras/can-you-make-a-left-turn-on-red/

According to a 2003 pamphlet issued by AAA, the following locations prohibit a left turn on red:
1.Connecticut
2.Missouri
3.North Carolina
4.Rhode Island
5.Vermont
6.New York City

Obviously, if there is a red left-turn arrow, a left turn is expressly prohibited.

Of course the bit about red arrows expressly prohibiting the turn is not true for all 50 states; I've confirmed both Oregon and Washington allow the turn on a red arrow, and I believe Brandon (another user here) mentioned Michigan also makes no distinction between a circular signal and arrow signal when it comes to turns on red.

This is nothing more than "a friend of a friend told me" crap. Heck, the first line contradicts itself: Can I make a left turn on red? First, it says "Simply put: Yes". Next sentence..."Well, it depends".  There's a big difference there. Doesn't matter anyway. NJ had never allowed it, regardless what some vague website that doesn't link to its supposed sources says.

Not a state law, but they tell me that there is a local ordinance still on the books from the beginning of the automobile days that in order to drive a motor vehicle in the City of New Bern one must have a person with a red flag stationed in front of the vehicle walking along ahead of it at all times. Obviously nobody does that (lol) but they do say that it has never been stricken from the record.
Not sure how true that is, I work for and live out in the county (my office is in the city though) so I have never taken the time to look it up.

In the time it took to write this, you could've looked it up.