There have been other threads on this sort of thing where there’s a rule in one (or a few) states that goes against the national uniform traffic code. It’s a huge disservice to the people of that state when they go traveling to other states and assume that the law in their home state applies everywhere.
In my experience (and this is driving experience in 30+ states), I’ve always assumed that a red right turn arrow means NO TURN ON RED. I’d also guess that there’s a red right turn arrow at one out of maybe 500 intersections, so it’s a rarity and I tend to notice them when I see one.
I can’t speak for New Hampshire…for all I know, there may be a red right turn arrow at EVERY intersection. I’ve never been there.
Here’s the relevant statute in Louisiana:
It says “may cautiously enter”, rather than “shall”. This pretty clearly means it’s optional.
I do agree that it’s stupid to sit at a red light waiting to turn right when there’s absolutely no reason to wait for a green light (except when a sign prohibits a turn).
I’m not seeing a big difference here. If you’re in a dedicated right turn lane, you “may turn” after stopping when it is safe in precisely the same way that you “may go” when it is safe at a green light.
Yep, option, not a requirement. I won’t pull out in front of oncoming traffic if it in anyway causes them to have to slow down for me. I’ll wait for the green. Impatient idiots do however pull out in front of people. Those, I suspect are the honkers. It’s up to me to determine if it is safe. Not you.
A judicial interpretation expert might be warranted here, because Michigan’s vehicle code has similar use of may. I interpret that as meaning that if the light turns green, I don’t have to proceed through the intersection, even if there’s someone behind me, and even if I’m going straight across. In fact, there’s no meaningful difference between going on a green, and turning right on a red in the language. If someone can demonstrate that proceeding on a green is required (when safe), then it’s reasonable to interpret that the same thing goes for making a right turn on a red.
In Michigan, we have “257.676b, (1) A person, without authority, shall not block, obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with the normal flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic upon a public street or highway in this state, by means of a barricade, object, or device, or with his or her person. This section shall not apply to persons maintaining, rearranging, or constructing public utility facilities in or adjacent to a street or highway.” (emphasis mine)
So again, if someone can demonstrate that proceeding on a green is required (when safe), then that sets a precedent for the what constitutes “normal flow of vehicular traffic.” One could then argue that not turning on a red when safe likewise interferes with the normal flow of vehicular traffic.
I’m not sure if I’ve noticed this in other states, but in Michigan it’s common to have NO TURN ON RED (standard DOT sign), with a smaller, MDOT sign expressing, for example, “7 am to 9 am, school days.”
In the last several years, Michigan has also been “dumbing down” the traffic lights for what I imagine are stupid people. It started with left turn arrows. It used to be that the round signal in the left turn lane would be solid red when you weren’t allowed to turn, amber for turn when safe, and green when protected. Now, we have arrows to express the same thing. (God forbid any dumb Michigander should drive into Ontario and be faced with a flashing green round light.)
Okay, maybe the above kind of makes sense, but in the last two to three years, MDOT’s been adding right turn arrow signals. In Michigan, the MCL/MVC simply states that arrow signals have the same meaning as round signals, so that means with a red right-pointing arrow, you can’t turn, even after stopping. But this is where our traffic engineers are dumb, or they hired bad systems programmers (I’ll describe). You get a green, right-pointing arrow, and so the cars in that lane start to proceed and make their right turns (typically this happens when the traffic on the perpendicular road is making its protected left turns), and is done in anticipation that the traffic on your same road and direction will shortly receive the green, okay to go straight signal. However in our case, the right-pointing arrow turns yellow, then red, and all traffic is expected to come to a complete stop for a fraction of a second while the main traffic light turns green. At this point, the right-pointing arrow is off completely, because (a) it’s not needed, and (b) it’s not protected (conceivably the oncoming traffic could turn to their left onto the same roadway as your right). I hope that description isn’t to convuluted, and in practice, I’ve never known anyone to get ticketed for violating the red in the exact circumstance described above (I’d be to afraid of being rear-ended to attempt to stop myself).
I think we need to back up a few steps - if you are driving somewhere in your car, it is a correct assumption that you are trying to go somewhere. To not proceed when it is legal and safe to do so is illogical.
Oh, so if I disobey one law (when no one is around) I’m obligated to break them all? Or am I only obligated to break the law when someone asks me to? Please feel free to read only the first and last words of this post. I’d also like to install a monitor on your car to monitor whether you come to a full and complete stop at every intersection, please.
I guess I’m a passive-aggressive jerk because, occasionally, I decline to make a right turn on red even if it it safe to do so. Sometimes, while driving, I feel the need to blow my nose. Or I may feel the need to double check that I have that piece of mail I’m supposed to drop at the mailbox. Or I may need to attend to a child’s needs. If I come to to stop light, I may take a second to get a tissue out, or look for the letter, or turn and give a warning to someone in the back seat. Or adjust a mirror. Or switch to my sunglasses. If I do that while sitting there at a light, with my blinker on to turn right, and you honk at me, you have probably lost your chance to turn right. Because even if I were about to turn, the fact that you are trying to rush me will make me angry, and I’d rather not drive when I’m angry. I have never once honked at someone because I thought they were doing something slower than I would like them to do it, and I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t, either.
We don’t have those red arrows in Ohio that I’m aware of, and after reading all the conflicting reports on what to do with them, I’m very glad. It seems too confusing and not logical.
It’s an option the same way that driving the minimum required speed on the interstate is an option – no one expects you to exercise that option under normal circumstances. Go already! Who gets behind the wheel to go nowhere slowly?
Okay, but how does the guy behind me know that? Is he entitled to honk and yell at cars on the off chance that they are also traffic-law-ignorers like him? Was this some sort of secret test that I don’t know about? Should my conscience have prompted me to make an illegal right turn since I am not without traffic sin? That just doesn’t make sense.
Also, when I break the law (traffic-wise), I do so when there are no other cars in sight. I certainly don’t try to pressure other drivers to break the law for my convenience, which is what this guy tried to do.
Don’t worry, you’re not a jerk at all. I rearrange my iPod playlists at traffic lights, and sometimes it takes a few cycles of green lights before I have everything straight.
This may or may not be relevant to this discussion; one morning a little while ago, I was driving to work, and there was a kid standing at the crosswalk in a school zone (which was in effect), looking like he was waiting to cross. I stopped for him, and he just stood there. A police car pulled up at another street on this intersection, and he had a stop sign, so he waited for me, and I waited for the kid. After a couple of minutes of this, the police officer came over to me and asked me why I wasn’t going. I said I was waiting for the kid in the crosswalk (interfering with a pedestrian in a crosswalk is a $500 fine here, and it may be double since it was in a school zone). The police officer asked the kid if he wanted to cross, the kid said no, the police officer sent me on my way.
Moral of the story - if you don’t go when it is safe and legal to do so, you may get the police inquiring as to why you are sitting at a light picking your nose.
Assuming you do really literally mean a couple of minutes of this, would you have been upset if someone honked at you from behind, after say, 15 seconds? That seems like a reasonable amount of time to determine whether someone has a real intention or not.
No one is going to con me into deliberately breaking the law because of their ignorance. Since right turns on red are usually allowed and safe, if a sign was posted prohibiting such, it was probably for a damn good reason.
If some guy thinks I am not going fast enough and tailgates me, all that will happen is I will be going slower, not faster. Some nut did that today, in a 45MPH zone, with very icy pavement and oncoming traffic, when I was going 45-50. He got within 1 foot of my bumper (literally), then he had to slow down to 30 because I wasn’t going to be intimidated. He should be grateful I didn’t stop and collect from his insurance.
Aw, jeez, this again? Look, the guy was an asshat for tailgating in icy conditions, sure - but is deliberately creating an accident situation really the way to go?