Turning right on red when the hold line is far from the intersection

[yand]

Is turning right on red legal? in situations like these:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6381052,-70.970027,3a,60y,285.75h,87.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSWIZW6fkCzHPdKdOLVEQIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It seems like it would be safe to do so and there's no sign prohibiting it, but the few times I've had a red light at this intersection I've waited for a green.

[sprjus4]

Since the intersection is offset, I'd assume no. You have to go straight through the first intersection before you can turn, and that's running the red light.

It's like turning in a driveway after a three-way intersection. You have to go past the intersection first, so you have to wait for green.

Reasonably though, a sign should be posted prohibiting turn on red just for safety purposes.

[jeffandnicole]

Since the intersection is offset, I'd assume no. You have to go straight through the first intersection before you can turn, and that's running the red light.

It's like turning in a driveway after a three-way intersection. You have to go past the intersection first, so you have to wait for green.

Reasonably though, a sign should be posted prohibiting turn on red just for safety purposes.

The intersection isn't offset. It's just on an angle. Here's the view from the cross street.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/CeLP7GpsAUz1b5AC9

Since there's no No Turn On Red sign, there's nothing wrong with making the right turn on red.

[sprjus4]

Since the intersection is offset, I'd assume no. You have to go straight through the first intersection before you can turn, and that's running the red light.

It's like turning in a driveway after a three-way intersection. You have to go past the intersection first, so you have to wait for green.

Reasonably though, a sign should be posted prohibiting turn on red just for safety purposes.

The intersection isn't offset. It's just on an angle. Here's the view from the cross street.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/CeLP7GpsAUz1b5AC9

Since there's no No Turn On Red sign, there's nothing wrong with making the right turn on red.

I see that now... I suppose you technically could then.

Since I just clicked on the link without scrolling around, I assumed it was an offset intersection based on the appearance. In that case, it would be different.

[deathtopumpkins]

Maybe they should take a page out of the City of Beverly's book and put up one of these signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/TnxKHg2ACJdg9Ziu7

That stretch of road was realigned a few years ago so this right turn is now the through movement, but prior to that they posted this sign to allow you to go straight through one red light and a railroad crossing provided you were turning right at the next signal. Pretty sure I've found at least one other case of a similar scenario in MA though I can't remember where.

[hotdogPi]

Maybe they should take a page out of the City of Beverly's book and put up one of these signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/TnxKHg2ACJdg9Ziu7

That stretch of road was realigned a few years ago so this right turn is now the through movement, but prior to that they posted this sign to allow you to go straight through one red light and a railroad crossing provided you were turning right at the next signal. Pretty sure I've found at least one other case of a similar scenario in MA though I can't remember where.

My current internship involves looking at intersections in Massachusetts. I've gone through about 1/8 of the state so far (I'm not the only one doing it), and I don't think I've seen anything like this.

[1995hoo]

Is turning right on red legal? in situations like these:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6381052,-70.970027,3a,60y,285.75h,87.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSWIZW6fkCzHPdKdOLVEQIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It seems like it would be safe to do so and there's no sign prohibiting it, but the few times I've had a red light at this intersection I've waited for a green.

It looks like it would be legal there, but whether it would be prudent to do it is a different question. For me the question would be how well I could see the traffic coming from the left. Based on what jeffandnicole posted, it seems like it might be quite difficult–I notice that even if you pull past the stop bar, there are still trees and such making it hard to see to the left, and that's assuming the people in the other two lanes stop behind the line, which in my experience is often not the case.

If I don't feel I can see adequately, I won't turn on red even if it is legal, regardless of whether it annoys people behind me. (I have sometimes declined to turn on red when I had to look directly into the sun glare to see if the way was clear, simply because so many people refuse to turn on their headlights to make themselves more visible.)

[froggie]

I've been through that intersection (stopped at the adjacent Cumbies).  While it's technically legal to turn right on red as Jeff suggests, it is not a good idea to do so given the sight distance and angle.  There's also pedestrian crossing through the middle of the intersection which is there because of the angle skew, but IIRC it coincides with the left turn phase.

[Revive 755]

Maybe they should take a page out of the City of Beverly's book and put up one of these signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/TnxKHg2ACJdg9Ziu7

I think there's a better way to word that sign - kind of biased towards Missouri's 'Right On Red After Stop' whcih would appear to be based on the MUTCD R10-17a 'Right On Red Arrow After Stop'.

Though with the railroad running through the intersection I think there would be a good case for prohibiting that right turn on red.

[edited to fix hyperlink]

[jeffandnicole]

A roughly similar intersection design is this: https://goo.gl/maps/apT8Egoe5WAvsUom7 (No RR Tracks though). Traffic on 45 South enters the intersection a bit to make the right turn on red. Considering 45 Southbound and Mantua Blvd into 45 both prohibit turning on red, and part of the intersection was redesigned when the Walgreens was built several years ago, they clearly are ok with this movement.

BTW, I've also always liked the No Left Turn symbol on the street sign blade on the far mast.  If you zoom in or forward the GSV towards it, you'll see it's all combined into the single sign.

[ozarkman417]

Maybe they should take a page out of the City of Beverly's book and put up one of these signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/TnxKHg2ACJdg9Ziu7

I think there's a better way to word that sign - kind of biased towards Missouri's 'Right On Red After Stop' which would appear to be based on the MUTCD R10-17a 'Right On Red Arrow After Stop'.

Though with the railroad running through the intersection I think there would be a good case for prohibiting that right turn on red.

Fixed the link for you

[Brandon]

Maybe they should take a page out of the City of Beverly's book and put up one of these signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/TnxKHg2ACJdg9Ziu7

That stretch of road was realigned a few years ago so this right turn is now the through movement, but prior to that they posted this sign to allow you to go straight through one red light and a railroad crossing provided you were turning right at the next signal. Pretty sure I've found at least one other case of a similar scenario in MA though I can't remember where.

Illinois usually signs those for "No Turn On Red": https://goo.gl/maps/Sj4YPo6BvcLzsmKQ9

[vdeane]

Maybe they should take a page out of the City of Beverly's book and put up one of these signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/TnxKHg2ACJdg9Ziu7

I think there's a better way to word that sign - kind of biased towards https://goo.gl/maps/dwEzNB9T1m2GNYPDAMissouri's 'Right On Red After Stop' whcih would appear to be based on the MUTCD R10-17a 'Right On Red Arrow After Stop'.

Though with the railroad running through the intersection I think there would be a good case for prohibiting that right turn on red.

Looks like Beverly was inspired by NYC.

[deathtopumpkins]

Looks like Beverly was inspired by NYC.

Possibly. It is pretty similar.

Though with the railroad running through the intersection I think there would be a good case for prohibiting that right turn on red.

And that's why I've always found that setup interesting. Functionally it's two intersections with a railroad crossing in between, and that sign is there to tell you that you can go straight on red and through the crossing, so long as you're going to turn right at the second intersection.

For the record, when the intersection was rebuilt around 2016 they made that right turn the through movement, which means that sign came down, and you can no longer go through the first signal on red.

[roadfro]

Maybe they should take a page out of the City of Beverly's book and put up one of these signs:
https://goo.gl/maps/TnxKHg2ACJdg9Ziu7

I think there's a better way to word that sign - kind of biased towards https://goo.gl/maps/dwEzNB9T1m2GNYPDAMissouri's 'Right On Red After Stop' whcih would appear to be based on the MUTCD R10-17a 'Right On Red Arrow After Stop'.

Though with the railroad running through the intersection I think there would be a good case for prohibiting that right turn on red.

Looks like Beverly was inspired by NYC.

"Right on Red After Stop" works, I guess...but it's really an incomplete sentence or instruction. I've always liked the sign on the WB I-80 exit ramp at Keystone Ave in Reno, NV, where the right turn traffic is given the instruction "Right turn on red OK after stop". (Although in actuality, the sign shouldn't be necessary to begin with, and this turn doesn't really need to be signalized anyway.)

Looks like Beverly was inspired by NYC.

Possibly. It is pretty similar.

Though with the railroad running through the intersection I think there would be a good case for prohibiting that right turn on red.

And that's why I've always found that setup interesting. Functionally it's two intersections with a railroad crossing in between, and that sign is there to tell you that you can go straight on red and through the crossing, so long as you're going to turn right at the second intersection.

For the record, when the intersection was rebuilt around 2016 they made that right turn the through movement, which means that sign came down, and you can no longer go through the first signal on red.

Yeah, that seems incredibly weird to have permitted that right turn on red  movement across a railroad track and into what is essentially a second intersection. Redesign looks a lot better, although maybe navigating the whole area is a tad more complex now.

[jakeroot]

A very interesting topic.

If someone asked me, I would say that it it's not a matter of whether it's legal (it's definitely legal), but rather a matter of whether it can be done safely. IMO, unless a sign exists prohibiting the movement, it's probably safe to do so.

Here in Washington State, standard practice (by law) is to stop at the stop line, and then yield to those with the right of way. You do not have to remain stopped at the stop line once you've made your full stop. This means that, in the case of the OP, you could then creep forward up to where you would have good visibility of traffic from the left, and then proceed when clear (yielding to all cars and pedestrians with the right of way). The only laws that dictate where you cannot stop in an intersection are those related to "blocking the box", and even those only prevent you from entering when your exit leg is blocked, not just any old time.

The only parallel I can think of that I experience regularly is this left turn onto a freeway ramp. The movement is from a two-way street, but is permissible on red in WA. The legally-acceptable practice is to stop at the stop line, and then pull forward as far as you can, turning only after you have yielded to all vehicles and pedestrians with the right-of-way. I consider it similar because of the large distance between where you must stop, and the point where you've actually finished the turn.

In both situations, drivers can remain stopped behind the stop line, but it's much harder to judge an appropriate gap when you have so much extra intersection to clear. It's better to finish as much of the turn as you possibly can without interfering with anyone, leaving only the bit where you actually conflict with traffic (minimizing the required gap that must be cleared). In the illustration below, the gap between the red and blue lines would be that no-interference zone, where you can enter without needing to worry about a collision. It's the point beyond the blue line where conflicts arise, and where you must yield.

Illustration:

[deathtopumpkins]

Illustration:

This is seriously legal in WA!? How, in this situation, are your blue cars not conflicting with traffic? They're not conflicting with through traffic on Union Ave, but they are absolutely conflicting with left turns off the offramp. I could only see this potentially being safe if you're able to see the signal heads for both other directions from your blue positions and you keep your head on a constant swivel. No way I'd trust the average driver to do this safely. There's a reason left turns across traffic aren't allowed on red pretty much anywhere else!

[vdeane]

Thinking about it, I'm guessing it's because the oncoming straight and the left from the ramp wouldn't be green at the same time... so if it's clear to enter the intersection, but not to finish the turn, you're not conflicting with the ramp because they have a red too.

[deathtopumpkins]

Thinking about it, I'm guessing it's because the oncoming straight and the left from the ramp wouldn't be green at the same time... so if it's clear to enter the intersection, but not to finish the turn, you're not conflicting with the ramp because they have a red too.

Until the light changes and by the time you realize the oncoming traffic is stopping the offramp has a green. I guess this would work if you time the light to have a couple second all red clearance time.

[jakeroot]

Thinking about it, I'm guessing it's because the oncoming straight and the left from the ramp wouldn't be green at the same time... so if it's clear to enter the intersection, but not to finish the turn, you're not conflicting with the ramp because they have a red too.

Until the light changes and by the time you realize the oncoming traffic is stopping the offramp has a green. I guess this would work if you time the light to have a couple second all red clearance time.

Keep in mind how little conflict there actually is between traffic turning left onto the on-ramp, and traffic turning onto the arterial from the off-ramp. The latter only conflicts with the former where those blue cars are waiting in my illustration. Thus, the moment you begin to finish your turn, you're already out of their way. Yes, you must stay attentive to the traffic signals around you, although it'll be pretty obvious when it's time to turn when traffic begins to stop.

In practice, traffic only turns on red at these intersections when through traffic along the arterial is proceeding. But turning on red when adjacent traffic is red is much less awkward at smaller intersections, like this, or this (where I first turned left on red, as it was near my driving school).

[jeffandnicole]

Thinking about it, I'm guessing it's because the oncoming straight and the left from the ramp wouldn't be green at the same time... so if it's clear to enter the intersection, but not to finish the turn, you're not conflicting with the ramp because they have a red too.

Until the light changes and by the time you realize the oncoming traffic is stopping the offramp has a green. I guess this would work if you time the light to have a couple second all red clearance time.

But that's a typical left turn everywhere, unless someone is one of those people that refuse to go beyond the stop line waiting to turn.

[deathtopumpkins]

But that's a typical left turn everywhere, unless someone is one of those people that refuse to go beyond the stop line waiting to turn.

I'd say it's different for two reasons:
1) because the vast majority of permissive left turns where you're creeping into the intersection waiting to turn are single lane, and thus less complicated.
2) because a permissive left turn signal is only green (or FYA) for PART of the signal cycle. It still indicates to you when you only have one conflicting direction of traffic, and when that interval is about to end. If you're just facing a red arrow, you don't inherently know which other movements currently have green and for how much longer. There's a lot more information to process, and a lot more risk involved, and I just don't trust the average motorist to do it safely.

Generally I'm inclined to believe that if a turn is protected instead of permissive, there's a reason (outside of states like CA and NH that like to make everything protected for no good reason).

[jakeroot]

But that's a typical left turn everywhere, unless someone is one of those people that refuse to go beyond the stop line waiting to turn.

I'd say it's different for two reasons:
1) because the vast majority of permissive left turns where you're creeping into the intersection waiting to turn are single lane, and thus less complicated.
2) because a permissive left turn signal is only green (or FYA) for PART of the signal cycle. It still indicates to you when you only have one conflicting direction of traffic, and when that interval is about to end. If you're just facing a red arrow, you don't inherently know which other movements currently have green and for how much longer. There's a lot more information to process, and a lot more risk involved, and I just don't trust the average motorist to do it safely.

Generally I'm inclined to believe that if a turn is protected instead of permissive, there's a reason (outside of states like CA and NH that like to make everything protected for no good reason).

In my experience, left turns on red actually are safer than right turns on red, because the visibility of traffic is much better. Plus, the signals are usually easier to see. The key is to watch the pedestrian countdown timers, as well as the through traffic's signal, which is only a short glance to the right.

Compare this to a right turn on red, where you basically have to block a crosswalk to see if it's clear, and your ability to see the side-street's signal is not exactly any better (might even be worse in those states that use tunnel visors). Plus, most (all?) states permit double right turns on red, even if they often sign against it (VA). I doubt this would be the case if drivers, by and large, weren't able to keep from turning simultaneously without hitting each other.

In most states, such as WA, double left turns are almost always protected only (although there are exceptions of course). In the case of left turns onto one-way streets, even if visibility were excellent, they are going to end up as protected only turns. It's just fortunate that, in WA (and OR, MI, ID, and BC), the state/province gives a thumbs-up for movements on red, allowing drivers the freedom to make the choice to turn (or not), since left turns onto one-way streets are arguably much safer turns on red than two-way to two-way, and not radically different from right turns on red.

[mrsman]

^^^^

Sorry for chiming in late, I'm so behind on general posts (maybe I can catch up over the holidays).

Anyways, a generic two-way to one-way left turn (at intersections without arrows) is basically equivalent to a RTOR, so it explains why such a movement is allowed in a few states.  In some ways, being allowed to turn on red (when there is a gap in cross traffic) may be easier when the one-way is relatively low traffic and the two-way is high traffic.  LTOR in that situation is like a protected turn vis a vi opposing traffic, and like a RTOR vis a vi cross traffic.

But given the complexity of signalization that now exists in many intersections with left turn arrows LPIs and other implements, I don't think the above is true anymore.  Deathtopumpkins objections begin to make more sense because it is now harder for drivers to realize who has the green.  Yielding to opposing traffic and yielding to cross traffic are different skills and the driver must be aware which one he is yielding to.  And I also believe that this may be too much for average drivers to keep track of.

FWIW, there's a rare situation allowing a left on red from a two-way to two-way in NYC, where even RTOR is generally not permitted.  It involves a cross street with very little traffic, essentially lefts from the main to the cross street on red should yield to the very little cross street traffic with the right of way.  Essentially, except for the need to yield to cross traffic, LTOR is like a protected left vis a vi main street traffic.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6079926,-73.8193506,3a,75y,182.34h,84.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO1MuQWZ8nYB9TEgWNgCS1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

[mrsman]

Looks like Beverly was inspired by NYC.

Possibly. It is pretty similar.

Though with the railroad running through the intersection I think there would be a good case for prohibiting that right turn on red.

And that's why I've always found that setup interesting. Functionally it's two intersections with a railroad crossing in between, and that sign is there to tell you that you can go straight on red and through the crossing, so long as you're going to turn right at the second intersection.

For the record, when the intersection was rebuilt around 2016 they made that right turn the through movement, which means that sign came down, and you can no longer go through the first signal on red.

Does anyone know why Beverly changed that intersection so dramatically?  It looks nice, but is there a compelling reason to make the old right turn into the straight movement.