Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

38 (46.9%)

No

30 (37%)

Cat

13 (16%)

Total Members Voted: 81

[Duke87]

In regards to TOR, the best fix would be to just roll back the 70s gas crisis rule that allowed turns on red to start with.  Make NTOR a national rule again.

That would decrease intersection throughput by so much you're probably talking about costs in lost productivity there. Right on red is a nationally accepted, safe maneuver that helps people get where they're going faster. In the few cases it is unsafe, a posted NTOR sign is generally sufficient.

It's not really safe, though, it costs pedestrian lives regularly.  And it's debatable on whether any efficiency gained actually outweighs the net negative impact on injuries and deaths caused, particularly since fuel efficiency has increased dramatically since the 70s.  Because it's not compatible with USDOT Vision Zero, it needs to go.

And what of the many signalized intersections where there are few to no pedestrians?

What is the argument against being able to legally turn right on red, say, here?

[Revive 755]

What is the argument against being able to legally turn right on red, say, here?

Even if there was a turn on red prohibition, there's no guarantee it will be well obeyed.  I think Cook County, Illinois may be a good example of this, where a many unnecessary right on red prohibitions are degrading compliance with the more legitimate prohibitions.

[jakeroot]

Found another of these (thanks to US 89 (OP here)).

The westbound-to-southbound double left turn from Isleta Blvd to...Isleta Blvd, in southwest Albuquerque, is a double permissive left, signalized with the relatively normal 5-section tower.

I understand there are others in Albuquerque, but I was not aware of any away from I-25.

Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/CNyuwfmRDaMmf1Yw9

[paulthemapguy]

Found one of these for the first time last weekend, on the east side of Sioux Falls, along a section of SD-42 that was reconstructed last year.  I'm guessing they're more commonly found in states with universally low traffic volumes.


SD-YB1 by Paul Drives, on Flickr

Discussions are more enjoyable with photos 

[jakeroot]

Found one of these for the first time last weekend, on the east side of Sioux Falls, along a section of SD-42 that was reconstructed last year.  I'm guessing they're more commonly found in states with universally low traffic volumes.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48751134258_df577b7585_c.jpg

Discussions are more enjoyable with photos 

Nice! I would guess that the side-street in the photo with the dual-FYA setup (Highline Ave) is relatively quiet, which is actually a great reason to install this type of signal: they can allow side-street traffic to clear far quicker than with protected-only phasing, giving more green time to the primary artery (Arrowhead Parkway in this case).

I can't recall hearing of any others in South Dakota, so I'm guessing their state DOT must not have an objection to these types of installs. Especially as this is along a state route. Of course, this installation might have been installed/maintained by Sioux Falls directly, so that's not something I could be sure of.

[stevashe]

It's not really safe, though, it costs pedestrian lives regularly.  And it's debatable on whether any efficiency gained actually outweighs the net negative impact on injuries and deaths caused, particularly since fuel efficiency has increased dramatically since the 70s.  Because it's not compatible with USDOT Vision Zero, it needs to go.

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1322/dot_1322_DS1.pdf

While the report does say that collisions involving right turns increased a lot, what you said was about it costing pedestrian lives, and every time the report mentions fatalities from the accidents, it says either none happened at all or there were very few. I'd hardly call that regular...

More on the topic of the thread, when I was in Minnesota I went through a light with a double permissive left to an on-ramp to I-494 a few times, it was a bit jarring since the protected phase lasted all of about 3 seconds. Unfortunately I didn't think to snap a picture of it and it was only put in this year so street view doesn't have it yet... https://goo.gl/maps/C8LHWNtqx99JS6Pd8

I believe that was the first permissive left with two exclusive left turn lanes I'd been to, since the only other double permissive I've encountered is the one at 6th and James in Seattle from the OP, which has one of the left turn lanes sharing with through traffic (which I think is even more rare!).

As for whether they should be allowed, the roadgeek in me wants more of them since they're such a novelty but I do worry that they might not be the safest in most situations since more people needing to make decisions about gaps in traffic at the same time would seem to compound the chances for an incident.

[mrsman]

I believe that the basic driving laws should be uniform across all 50 states.

In regards to TOR, the best fix would be to just roll back the 70s gas crisis rule that allowed turns on red to start with.  Make NTOR a national rule again.

That would decrease intersection throughput by so much you're probably talking about costs in lost productivity there. Right on red is a nationally accepted, safe maneuver that helps people get where they're going faster. In the few cases it is unsafe, a posted NTOR sign is generally sufficient.

It's not really safe, though, it costs pedestrian lives regularly.  And it's debatable on whether any efficiency gained actually outweighs the net negative impact on injuries and deaths caused, particularly since fuel efficiency has increased dramatically since the 70s.  Because it's not compatible with USDOT Vision Zero, it needs to go.

Oh stop with the bs. Love to see your proof of such. How do people manage to make left turns at stop signs? It's the same thing.

As far as Mrsman's comment, I do agree there should be more consistency. It'll just be a battle of which rules we should pick and choose at this point.

No need for a battle.  A uniform law of traffic safety should follow the majority practice.  Look at this map showing the different left turn on red laws. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#/media/File:Legality_of_left_turn_on_red_in_USA.svg

The vast majority of the states follow a consistent practice as shown in light blue.  The dark blue states are more permissive (MI and the PNW).  These can largely be rectified with a flashing red arrow, if warranted. 

The red states are more restrictive and do not allow left on red from one-way to one-way.  If they feel so strongly about it, they can put no turn on red signs at every relevant intersection.

IMO, NYC should be required to post their NTOR signs at every intersection where it applies, not just at the city limits.  This would require the DOT to determine if the restriction is warranted, since signs cost money.  NTOR is justified where there are a lot of pedestrian movements, but I can tell you that there are many intersections in the outer boroughs where RTOR is perfectly safe, even though currently illegal.

On top of all of this, we also have the question of right against a red right turn arrow.  In a majority of states it is prohibited, and in some states it is no different than a red orb (and permissible after complete stop).  Why should anyone have to research the state laws of 50 states just to drive in this country?  If this were a uniform rule as well, the treatment would be easy.  (IMO, this can be rectified with a flashing red arrow for states that currently permit turn against a red arrow.)

[sprjus4]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but North Carolina has one at the I-87 / Wendell Falls Pkwy interchange outside of Raleigh

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7833133,-78.4420373,3a,37.5y,301.81h,80.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sigXGx1Og4legzr1eTQ664Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[jakeroot]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but North Carolina has one at the I-87 / Wendell Falls Pkwy interchange outside of Raleigh

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7833133,-78.4420373,3a,37.5y,301.81h,80.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sigXGx1Og4legzr1eTQ664Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Had not been mentioned to my knowledge. Thanks for bringing it up. I know that NC uses this style of signal, but I hadn't seen one in a while. Not with a mast arm at least.

[jakeroot]

No need for a battle.  A uniform law of traffic safety should follow the majority practice.  Look at this map showing the different left turn on red laws. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#/media/File:Legality_of_left_turn_on_red_in_USA.svg

The vast majority of the states follow a consistent practice as shown in light blue.  The dark blue states are more permissive (MI and the PNW).  These can largely be rectified with a flashing red arrow, if warranted. 

The red states are more restrictive and do not allow left on red from one-way to one-way.  If they feel so strongly about it, they can put no turn on red signs at every relevant intersection.

IMO, NYC should be required to post their NTOR signs at every intersection where it applies, not just at the city limits.  This would require the DOT to determine if the restriction is warranted, since signs cost money.  NTOR is justified where there are a lot of pedestrian movements, but I can tell you that there are many intersections in the outer boroughs where RTOR is perfectly safe, even though currently illegal.

On top of all of this, we also have the question of right against a red right turn arrow.  In a majority of states it is prohibited, and in some states it is no different than a red orb (and permissible after complete stop).  Why should anyone have to research the state laws of 50 states just to drive in this country?  If this were a uniform rule as well, the treatment would be easy.  (IMO, this can be rectified with a flashing red arrow for states that currently permit turn against a red arrow.)

I've spent a huge amount of time thinking about this post. I was supposed to have been at the gym an hour ago, but here I am, still typing this post.

I am totally for FRA signals, but my primary worry continues to be that, in states like WA and OR, where protected left turns are remarkably common, many of the left turns onto one-way streets will not be swapped for FRA signals.

For example, both states disallow permissive left turns with more than one lane, but none of their double left turns onto on-ramps have NTOR signs that I've seen; basically, whether they realize it or not, they both have a ton of permissive left turns with two (or perhaps even three) lanes. Never mind the numerous left turns with only one lane that also allow turns on red, but again, would likely not be swapped for FRA signals.

I guess my only real course of action is to pursue a PE licence and take control of the signals myself!

[mrsman]

No need for a battle.  A uniform law of traffic safety should follow the majority practice.  Look at this map showing the different left turn on red laws. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#/media/File:Legality_of_left_turn_on_red_in_USA.svg

The vast majority of the states follow a consistent practice as shown in light blue.  The dark blue states are more permissive (MI and the PNW).  These can largely be rectified with a flashing red arrow, if warranted. 

The red states are more restrictive and do not allow left on red from one-way to one-way.  If they feel so strongly about it, they can put no turn on red signs at every relevant intersection.

IMO, NYC should be required to post their NTOR signs at every intersection where it applies, not just at the city limits.  This would require the DOT to determine if the restriction is warranted, since signs cost money.  NTOR is justified where there are a lot of pedestrian movements, but I can tell you that there are many intersections in the outer boroughs where RTOR is perfectly safe, even though currently illegal.

On top of all of this, we also have the question of right against a red right turn arrow.  In a majority of states it is prohibited, and in some states it is no different than a red orb (and permissible after complete stop).  Why should anyone have to research the state laws of 50 states just to drive in this country?  If this were a uniform rule as well, the treatment would be easy.  (IMO, this can be rectified with a flashing red arrow for states that currently permit turn against a red arrow.)

I've spent a huge amount of time thinking about this post. I was supposed to have been at the gym an hour ago, but here I am, still typing this post.

I am totally for FRA signals, but my primary worry continues to be that, in states like WA and OR, where protected left turns are remarkably common, many of the left turns onto one-way streets will not be swapped for FRA signals.

For example, both states disallow permissive left turns with more than one lane, but none of their double left turns onto on-ramps have NTOR signs that I've seen; basically, whether they realize it or not, they both have a ton of permissive left turns with two (or perhaps even three) lanes. Never mind the numerous left turns with only one lane that also allow turns on red, but again, would likely not be swapped for FRA signals.

I guess my only real course of action is to pursue a PE licence and take control of the signals myself!

Thinking is good for you!   

I think you've identified some key issues about implementing some of these suggestions I had made.  I never suggested changing the effect of the laws onto the PNW (or onto the very restrictive northeastern states) would be easy or cheap, it's just that it is so important that the driving laws be made uniform, with exceptions signed on an intersection by intersection basis.

Of course, the best course of action would be replacement with the 4 aspect FYA signal - which generally seem to be capable of signalling for multiple scenarios.

[MASTERNC]

Found a double right turn FYA between Greensboro and High Point, NC on NC 68 at Penny Road.  The red signals are balls instead of arrows, implying right on red is permitted.

[jakeroot]

Found a double right turn FYA between Greensboro and High Point, NC on NC 68 at Penny Road.  The red signals are balls instead of arrows, implying right on red is permitted.

Ah yes, found it here: https://goo.gl/maps/pQVs2jFKQmtbMpXD8

I don't see any pedestrian signal heads or crosswalks, however, so I'm not sure what purpose the dual FYA serves. Dual right turns with permissive phasing, requiring two lanes of traffic to yield to crossing pedestrians, doesn't appear to be as taboo as left turns (thanks to one less conflict), though they're fairly rare anyways, at least outside of downtown areas. A new one was just installed in my area last year, though it uses 5-section towers (despite the city's recent attempts to use right-facing FYAs for pedestrian crossings at T-intersections).

I think you've identified some key issues about implementing some of these suggestions I had made.  I never suggested changing the effect of the laws onto the PNW (or onto the very restrictive northeastern states) would be easy or cheap, it's just that it is so important that the driving laws be made uniform, with exceptions signed on an intersection by intersection basis.

Of course, the best course of action would be replacement with the 4 aspect FYA signal - which generally seem to be capable of signalling for multiple scenarios.

What I haven't considered is the possibility of alerting local authorities to this law. I genuinely believe that engineers, locally, don't realize how liberal left turn laws actually are around here. Perhaps I could encourage WSDOT to study the possibility of using flashing red arrows at some on-ramps? Not sure how receptive they might be to that, but it beats the law changing without any modification to the traffic control infrastructure.

[MASTERNC]

Found a double right turn FYA between Greensboro and High Point, NC on NC 68 at Penny Road.  The red signals are balls instead of arrows, implying right on red is permitted.

Ah yes, found it here: https://goo.gl/maps/pQVs2jFKQmtbMpXD8

I don't see any pedestrian signal heads or crosswalks, however, so I'm not sure what purpose the dual FYA serves. Dual right turns with permissive phasing, requiring two lanes of traffic to yield to crossing pedestrians, doesn't appear to be as taboo as left turns (thanks to one less conflict), though they're fairly rare anyways, at least outside of downtown areas. A new one was just installed in my area last year, though it uses 5-section towers (despite the city's recent attempts to use right-facing FYAs for pedestrian crossings at T-intersections).

Found another one around Biltmore Village outside Asheville that does appear to have a pedestrian crossing. Thru signal is green when the right turns have the FYA and the pedestrian signal is active.

[motorola870]

Found a double right turn FYA between Greensboro and High Point, NC on NC 68 at Penny Road.  The red signals are balls instead of arrows, implying right on red is permitted.

Ah yes, found it here: https://goo.gl/maps/pQVs2jFKQmtbMpXD8

I don't see any pedestrian signal heads or crosswalks, however, so I'm not sure what purpose the dual FYA serves. Dual right turns with permissive phasing, requiring two lanes of traffic to yield to crossing pedestrians, doesn't appear to be as taboo as left turns (thanks to one less conflict), though they're fairly rare anyways, at least outside of downtown areas. A new one was just installed in my area last year, though it uses 5-section towers (despite the city's recent attempts to use right-facing FYAs for pedestrian crossings at T-intersections).

Found another one around Biltmore Village outside Asheville that does appear to have a pedestrian crossing. Thru signal is green when the right turns have the FYA and the pedestrian signal is active.

We have double left FYAs now in Arlington Texas at a few of intersections one I think should not qualify as it is in a busy shopping area and it is in front of a chick fil a that is consistently packed and drive thru is usually bumper to bumper. We used to have a couple of solid green permissive 5 segment left on yield lights back in the 1990s on interstate 20 when they first opened a reconstructed bridge that went from 3 lanes to 8 lanes wide over time it was phased to two protected left turn lanes on each side of the bridge.

[MNHighwayMan]

[hard to read post]

Punctuation and complete sentences are your friends.

[jakeroot]

Found another one around Biltmore Village outside Asheville that does appear to have a pedestrian crossing. Thru signal is green when the right turns have the FYA and the pedestrian signal is active.

Any Google Maps link?

[MASTERNC]

Found another one around Biltmore Village outside Asheville that does appear to have a pedestrian crossing. Thru signal is green when the right turns have the FYA and the pedestrian signal is active.

Any Google Maps link?

https://goo.gl/maps/cLpjzYnQmNQUNup8A

[jakeroot]

Found another one around Biltmore Village outside Asheville that does appear to have a pedestrian crossing. Thru signal is green when the right turns have the FYA and the pedestrian signal is active.

Any Google Maps link?

https://goo.gl/maps/cLpjzYnQmNQUNup8A

Cheers. This one definitely has a crosswalk!

[jakeroot]

Found three new ones in Port Angeles, WA this afternoon. All are fully permissive, and are double left turns onto a one-way street from a two-way street with option lanes.

Historic imagery suggests that these have been in place since at least the turn of the century.

N Oak St @ W 1 St
N Race St @ E Front St (US-101)
N Lincoln St @ E Front St

(image below of the first link above)