Red arrow means no turn no matter which lane
Richard Ulrich of Glen Arm had a question about driving rules, so he posed it to Getting There. While this blogger would like to think of himself as an expert on driving rules, it is the Motor Vehicle Administration that is the actual arbiter. So here's Ulrich's question, with the MVA's answer to follow:
I suspect this has probably come up for discussion before, but just in case it hasn't...
Four of us were having a discussion over breakfast the other day. We are all 50+, graduate degrees out the wazoo, 160+ years of licensed driving experience in the state of Maryland. The question was this:
At the intersection of Lombard and Light Streets, the two left-most lanes are turning lanes onto Light St. and each lane has a traffic light signal with left-turn red arrows. The third lane from the left on Lombard St. is marked for both left-turning as well as continuing straight on Lombard. The question: If the two left-turn arrows are red, is a car in that adjacent third lane required to stop in accordance with the red arrows, or is it allowed to proceed without stopping as long as the traffic signal for Lombard St. through traffic is green?
If the car is required to stop, would it then be allowed to make the left turn after stopping, or would the two red arrows trump being able to "turn left after stopping"?
We debated this question without coming to a definitive conclusion.
What struck me personally was that we couldn't decipher the law sitting down and breakfast, whereas a driver must decide how to react almost immediately. A couple of our group have witnessed a variety of responses by drivers at the intersection, and of course, those that stop before making the left turn from that third lane during the left-arrows-red/through-traffic-green condition incur the wrath of drivers behind wishing to continue without stopping.One-caveat: Being 50+, we couldn't remember if there is any signage posted at the intersection that would provide more direction.
Getting There turned to Buel Young, spokesman for the MVA, for the official ruling. Young came back with the relevant citation from the state traffic code:
Here is the controlling statute...
§21-202. Traffic lights with steady indication
(b) Green indication - Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or, unless a sign at the place prohibits the turn, turn right or left.
(h) Steady red indication - In general.
(2) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow signal:
(i) May not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow;
(ii) Unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at the near side of the intersection..; and
(iii) . shall remain stopped until a signal permitting the movement is shown.
There you have it. No matter which lane you're in, stay put until you have a green arrow before making a left turn. Of course, the presence of a red arrow didn't keep a jerk who was behind me in Anne Arundel County last year from blasting his horn as I remained stopped and yelling "right turn on red."
You just know he was a person who considered himself an above-average driver.
Comments
I can understand the red arrow at Light and Lombard that lights despite the "permissive" green ball, as it allows pedestrians a brief phase to pre-populate the intersection with less risk of being crushed by the onslaught of folks trying to leave town.
The one that always confuses me is the dead end of Kelly Avenue at Falls Road, where the right lane turns right, and the left lane turns left. Both of the signal heads here have red arrow lenses (as well as green and yellow arrows) in opposite directions for their respective lanes, which seems more to be a reinforcement of the lane control than a prohibition of a right on red, particularly since there is no "NO RIGHT ON RED" sign here to reinforce the message. Some people take the right on red, others won't.
If in fact this is the case, it would be nice to have a secondary sign prohibiting the right on red so that everyone can be on the same page.
Posted by: Adam | April 20, 2011 7:27 PM
We should forbid all turns on red. They sacrifice the safety of pedestrians for the convenience of drivers. The entire European Union forbids turns on red, except where specifically marked as allowed. This is a much more sensible policy.
Posted by: John | April 21, 2011 6:44 AM
@John: right turns on red are also prohibited in New York City --- in any borough.
Posted by: Liz Kay | April 21, 2011 8:53 AM
What happens at that intersection if you're the first car in line in the third lane from the left, and you want to continue straight on Lombard? Can you do that when the other lights turn green, even if your lane's light is showing red arrows?
COMMENT: When you have the green light to go straight, go right ahead. The red arrow only governs turns. Of course, if you're in a turn-only lane, it's a violation to go straight.
Posted by: NT | April 21, 2011 9:36 AM
Thank you for answering this question. I've debated with people for some time that a red arrow means no turn on red. Westbound Baltimore Street has an arrow-only traffic light at President Street - all traffic must turn right at the intersection - yet drivers tend to treat the red arrow as a "stop, then proceed" - if they stop at all. I don't know that additional signage would work - drivers don't pay much heed to the "Turning vehicles must yeild to pedestrians" signs hanging over almost every intersection downtown. I may just be an overly sensitive pedestrian, but I count any day where I'm not nearly run over downtown as a good day...
Posted by: Chris | April 21, 2011 9:54 AM
On the subject of turn arrows: recently (maybe 6 months ago?) at the intersection of Sharp and Pratt, the center lane of Sharp was changed from left-turn and straight to straight-only. Was this a permanent change? If so, do you have any idea whether the city plans to correct the left-turn arrow over that lane? It seems to lead a lot of people to make illegal left turns (and hold up a lane of southbound traffic behind them).
Posted by: MarkT | April 21, 2011 6:42 PM
The interpretation based on the state code as presented by the MVA is correct, and is in generally in concurrence with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (though the 2009 MUTCD clarifies "signs" in ยง21-202(b) as including "separate turn signal indications" which further reinforces the prohibitive force of an adjacent red-arrow indication).
That being said, such a situation is going to be hopelessly confusing to the average driver who barely possesses the mental capacity to properly pick their nose while driving in a straight line, let alone know what the current state code specifies with regard to traffic signal indications.
The answer? More frequent and more stringent drivers tests that force adults to maintain current knowledge of traffic law rather than allowing them to skate on some false sense of driver "seniority".
I guarantee that 50% of adults would utterly fail a comprehensive German-style examination of motor vehicle operation practice and principles. That needs to change.
Posted by: Todd Peterson | April 21, 2011 8:01 PM
Re: Sharp & Pratt straight only lane - I agree! They also need to fix the painted road markers if they are going to keep it permanent. There is a "straight only" sign next to the light, but no one heeds it. I've seen buses hold up traffic and turn from that lane.
Even before this change, I've seen many people in the middle lane, who are going straight and not turning, refusing to budge until the red arrow disappears!
Posted by: ACBmore | April 22, 2011 12:48 PM
At the Lombard and Light Street intersection there is a sign that says "no turns on red between X am and Y pm." (I can't remember the exact times) Doesn't that mean that if it is after Y pm and you are in the far left lane you can turn left onto Light even if the stop light is a red arrow (assuming there are no pedestrians crossing and there is a gap in the traffic heading south on Light)??
Posted by: Sadie | April 25, 2011 3:07 PM