When would coming to a stop be required in these scenarios

[rob9000]

All scenarios in the image below involve a dedicated right turn lane at an intersection. The variances in the scenarios are the crosswalk and the red light in the island, which is another round light and not a red arrow.

I would think that scenario #2 would not exist since it could be a hazard to peds using the crosswalk from not having a light for the right-turning traffic, but I included it as a scenario just in case.

My assumption is if there is a crosswalk in the turn lane and a red light for any of the lanes in the forward direction, then the crosswalk in the turn lane must be treated as a stop sign. If the light is green, then proceed under yield conditions without needing to stop (unless you need to in order to merge with left turning traffic). I believe scenario #1 does not require a stop unless you need to do so as part of yielding to the traffic you are merging in to.

Scenario #3 exists near my office. I think I am the only person who stops on the red in the turn lane before proceeding (so treating it as a stop sign). I have even been honked at for stopping on the red there.

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/images/threads/000/188/040/2883863-red_light_scenarios.gif

[petehed]

I know that scenario #2 does exist in Berkeley... not sure what street, but it's right near the Uni. It *is* dangerous for peds. The cars have seemed to be pretty good about stopping when there are people wanting to cross the intersection, but that might also have to do with the large amount of foot traffic in the area, so they're looking for it.

[Junkie]

I also know of a 2, but it is down in San Luis Obispo. I treat it as yield, although I may be doing it wrong. There is also a 3 that I know of, and on the bike I treat all 3 of them as yield as long as it is reasonably safe - I'm less likely to stop for something I'm not sure of if it might result in the guy behind me hitting me, and if everyone else is treating it the same way I doubt I will get pulled over for it.

[SpeedyCorky]

there is a senerio 2, comming out of the Pleasant Hill bart station. always wondered if i had to legally stop...

[RolnCode3]

*Patrol, Not a traffic officer*

As soon as you put a Yield sign on that turn lane, there's no stop requirement.

Functionally, #1 and #2 are the same. #3 is different because of the seperate light for that lane. That would then be the controller for the turn lane.

We have the right turn lanes dedicated here in Sacramento (in some locations) for the light rail (similar to MUNI trains). There's a "no right turn" when a train is coming, but other than that, it's a yield.

It becomes much more obvious if you were to turn the stop light to a stop sign.

[Junkie]

so would the light in 3 have to be a turn arrow for it to be a stop, or just a normal light?

[RolnCode3]

Either. It would just have to apply to that lane. Typically, though, it'll be a red right arrow.

However, the yield sign directly competes with the light, so you'd have to take one of them away. Couldn't have both a yield and a light control.

[Junkie]

so if there is both the light and the yield, and the light isn't an arrow, it means the light isn't directed at that lane?

[RolnCode3]

Originally posted by Junkie
so if there is both the light and the yield, and the light isn't an arrow, it means the light isn't directed at that lane?
:confused

I'd hate to lead down the wrong path...not sure how to answer this question without causing further confusion.

[Nick]

If there is both a red light and a yield sign, the red light wouldn't be in the position shown above. The two cannot conflict.

#3 should look like this:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/9405/untitled1copyhn6.jpg

[JPM]

In your picture the only one you are required to stop at and wait for the light is in scenario 3. It can be a solid red or arrow red depending how sharp the curve is, how it is separated from the through lanes (How far they are split, cement curbs, island, ECT). If there is a red light AND a yield sign, you need to contact the city traffic engineer and have that resolved.

In all thee scenarios you have to yield to any pedestrians in the roadway.

[rob9000]

Thanks JPM. So if scenario 3 did not have the yield sign then the red light is treated as a stop sign then isn't it? You don't have to wait at the light until it turns green do you?

[JPM]

A red light is a red light, you have to wait for it to turn green. The only time a red light is like a stop sign is if its a flashing red light.

[rob9000]

But would a turn like the one in the diagram allow you to treat it like a stop sign because you are turning right on a red...just like at an intersection without a dedicated turn lane?

[JPM]

Originally posted by rob9000
But would a turn like the one in the diagram allow you to treat it like a stop sign because you are turning right on a red...just like at an intersection without a dedicated turn lane?

No, you are not making a right turn. It’s a separate traffic lane.

[FLATTOP]

what JPM said,...
the lane is going in it's own direction, the light (not needing to be an arrow) applies to that lane,
an arrow would be for a lane that points (constructed) straight, but has an option to turn,..(crossing oncoming traffic)
crosswalks are not stop (limit lines-unless accompanied with a stp sign,
but a pedestrian does have the "right away, if already in the crosswalk, none of that last minute jump inot it in front of car so he has to slam on his breakes (I hate that!)

[FLATTOP]

ok ok, so my car has brakes not breakes...(so I type too fast..my bad...)

[motorman4life]

Originally posted by JPM
A red light is a red light, you have to wait for it to turn green. The only time a red light is like a stop sign is if its a flashing red light.
Or if you are making a right on a red... as pictured in scenario #3.
Originally posted by JPM
No, you are not making a right turn. It’s a separate traffic lane. I disagree. It is a right turn lane. It is therefore a right turn and unless there was a "NO RIGHT ON RED" sign posted, it would be lawful to stop and proceed with the right turn when safe at that location, as shown. That would be after yielding to all approaching vehicles or pedestrians that would/could conflict.

[cardinal03]

#2 exists at Fillmore and Bay, drivers never yield to pedestrians.

#3 exists at the Gough St./S. Van Ness entrance to 101 in SF. There are giant signs that say NO RIGHT ON RED as described by MM4L, because it is a separate traffic lane, as described by JPM. It's not really a right turn, it's more continuing straight after the road veers right.

For a definitive answer to your specific situation you could call the PD that controls that intersection.

[JPM]

Originally posted by motorman4life
Or if you are making a right on a red... as pictured in scenario #3.
I disagree. It is a right turn lane. It is therefore a right turn and unless there was a "NO RIGHT ON RED" sign posted, it would be lawful to stop and proceed with the right turn when safe at that location, as shown. That would be after yielding to all approaching vehicles or pedestrians that would/could conflict.

No, if there is a SEPARATE light for the turn lane, it’s the same as a stop light. You can't just stop and go through it; you have to wait for it to turn green. We have this exact intersection in my area. People get cited for the red light violation and the judge finds them guilty every time.

[Junkie]

how can you tell whether its a separate light for the turn lane? if its not an arrow, and its on the island, is it for the turn lane?

[motorman4life]

Originally posted by JPM
No, if there is a SEPARATE light for the turn lane, it’s the same as a stop light. You can't just stop and go through it; you have to wait for it to turn green. We have this exact intersection in my area. People get cited for the red light violation and the judge finds them guilty every time.
If it is a right turn lane (you said yourself it was a turn lane), as pictured, there would need to be a NO TURN ON RED sign or similar, otherwise, 21453(b) CVC applies. If you disagree, please show me the applicable section that overrides the permission granted in 21453(b) CVC for a right turn on solid red.

OTOH, a red arrow (as shown in Nick's response) would prohibit the turn.

================
CVC 21453(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety.

[Traq]

In situation 3, is it a regular yield sign, or a yield to pedestrians sign? If its a regular yield sign, it probably was left in place when a new signal was installed, or it is an inappropriate sign to indicate yield to pedestrians. It is definately not correct signage if it is a regular yield sign.


Originally posted by motorman4life
I disagree. It is a right turn lane. It is therefore a right turn and unless there was a "NO RIGHT ON RED" sign posted, it would be lawful to stop and proceed with the right turn when safe at that location, as shown. That would be after yielding to all approaching vehicles or pedestrians that would/could conflict.
From a traffic engineering point of view I would assume it would be the intent of that signal to stop traffic and not allow for the turning movement until green...for clarity, however, a sign should also be in place or the use of a red arrow instead of a red circle. Although, I can see your interpretation of the signal if the configuration of the lane is such that the driver would not be able to see the signals at the intersection...in other words, a driver making the right turn wouldn't be able to easily see the regular signals have changed/were changing to red while they were making the turn.

[evor1]

i got pulled over for something just like this, case 1 and 2. ticket wsa thrown out because the cop was clearly wrong. i also asked a motorcycle cop and he said if the turn lane is not within the signals then you do not have to stop at the red light. therefore in case three the signal would have to be where the yield sign is. so in case 3 you still wouldnt have to stop at the red. i mean it makes sense...you are effectively making the turn before you reach the intersection that is governed by those stop lights.

[JPM]

Originally posted by motorman4life
If it is a right turn lane (you said yourself it was a turn lane), as pictured, there would need to be a NO TURN ON RED sign or similar, otherwise, 21453(b) CVC applies. If you disagree, please show me the applicable section that overrides the permission granted in 21453(b) CVC for a right turn on solid red.

OTOH, a red arrow (as shown in Nick's response) would prohibit the turn.

================
CVC 21453(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety.

Correct, it's a separate lane and therefore not governed by the light for the through lanes. Since this was a response to ONLY the question in scenario 3 where there is a separate light for the through lane and the right lane, you can not go through the light. 21453 does apply because once you are in the curved lane you are no longer turning at an intersection, you are following a lane. Using your logic, the bottom of a freeway on-ramp where traffic merges onto the freeway would be an intersection, and it is not. Once you are in the curved lane you are no longer at an intersection until that turn lane meets to another road.

Intersection

365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongations of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.

And then there is this section that also may be applicable depending on the length of the lane.

Signal at Other Places

21455. When an official traffic control signal is erected and maintained at a place other than an intersection, the provisions of this article shall be applicable except those provisions which by their nature can have no application. Any stop required shall be made at a sign or crosswalk or limit line indicating where the stop shall be made, but in the absence of any such sign or marking the stop shall be made at the signal.

[motorman4life]

Okay, I read what you wrote with an open mind, and I read the definition sections (which I have no-doubt read over 1001 times in the past... but it never hurts to read them again to ensure there isn't ONE word in there that you overlooked in the paraphrase stored in your head).

I also looked that the original and follow-up diagrams that were posted. I'm also thinking of 3 specific places where I know each of these various scenarios exist (without the YIELD sign and RED SIGNAL, mind you).

As for the scenario in #3, I can think of a couple of locations where that scenario exists (a channeled right turn lane with a dedicated signal light) and in both locations, there is a NO TURN ON RED sign posted. Now, I'm thinking of the other 2 locations and how traffic would be required to respond if the signal was added there... I keep coming up with the same answer, come to a full and complete stop and proceed with a right turn on red when safe to do so. Now, granted, some of these locations have raised curbs and some have a painted island, but as we both know, a painted island that large is the technically the same as a raised island.

Your freeway analogy.. well, like you, I don't see that as an intersection either, but at a 3 or 4-way intersection (like all of the exemplars for #1, #2 and #3 that I can conjure up in my mind from real life locations), the lane is a designated right turn lane. If it is a right turn lane, you are making a right turn. It happens to be at an intersection (not on a freeway on-ramp) and in all of the real life locations I have seen either a NO TURN ON RED sign posted or even a (quite rare) "RIGHT TURN ON RED PERMITTED AFTER STOPPING, WHEN SAFE TO PROCEED" sign, in Alameda... maybe it is actually Oakland there, but it is pretty much on the border between the two.

My contention is that if you were correct, the NO TURN ON RED signs would never be needed at a channeled right turn with a signal. I don't know why they have the RIGHT TURN ON RED PERMITTED sign posted either, except that some people may be confused (like you :teeth ) and stop there and the honking probably pissed off the neighbors and they got a sign posted to get people to make the right on the red in the RIGHT TURN LANE at the intersection.

Whatever the case, I think 21453(b) VC is clear enough. If there is an intersection and you are making a right turn at that intersection, going through some type of directional transition to the right (be it at precisely 90 degrees or not) at an intersection, unless there is a sign prohibiting it, you can make the right turn, even on a red light, if you have stopped first and proceed when safe to do so.

Clearly the fact that it is not an "open lane" situation and it is more of a channeled right turn lane has skewed your perspective. I contend that what is pictured is still a right turn at an intersection, therefore 21453(b) VC applies. Freeway on-ramps have their own rules as do the freeway metering lights set up at the base of an on-ramp.

If you show me a picture of an intersection that meets all of the criteria of sample #3, I may consider it and decide otherwise, but is it stands (as drawn), it seems pretty clear cut to me.

[NorCalBusa]

Ambiguity and dissent in the ranks!

On Tuesday's with a full moon and odd numbered day, you have to stop twice, then may proceed with the opposite blinker going but only if the left front tire has >30 psi and you have rotated your spare....

Sounds like time for some judicial clarification- which brings up a question;

Alameda County referees agree with MM4L, and rule accordingly

About the same time, CoCo county has a similar case- and their guy rules in favor of the defendant.

If the AlCo guy finds out CoCo let that guy walk- is there review/recourse?

[JPM]

Originally posted by motorman4life
If you show me a picture of an intersection that meets all of the criteria of sample #3, I may consider it and decide otherwise, but is it stands (as drawn), it seems pretty clear cut to me.

You enforce the laws in your city as you see and I do the same. As stated before, I and other officers have cited a lot of cars for this same violation and a number of local judges have upheld every citation that went to court; so to me the question has been already clarified by a higher power than I.

Originally posted by NorCalBusa
Sounds like time for some judicial clarification- which brings up a question;

Alameda County referees agree with MM4L, and rule accordingly

About the same time, CoCo county has a similar case- and their guy rules in favor of the defendant.

If the AlCo guy finds out CoCo let that guy walk- is there review/reourse

It's been clarified in my County. But someone can always try and take it to the California Supreme Court.

[motorman4life]

Originally posted by JPM
You enforce the laws in your city as you see and I do the same. As stated before, I and other officers have cited a lot of cars for this same violation and a number of local judges have upheld every citation that went to court; so to me the question has been already clarified by a higher power than I.
Again, if you show me a picture of an intersection that meets all of the criteria of sample #3, I may well see it your way.

I enforce the laws based upon the unique facts presented in each situation coupled with my understanding and unbiased application of the CVC. As it is here, we are looking at simple line drawings and trying to extrapolate them to a real-world situation that is likely more clear-cut than it seems in cyberspace. (That's my way of saying that as much as I'd like to agree with you on this, I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around how you could see a right turn on a red signal as being unlawful after stopping, waiting until it is safe to proceed and without any sign posted.)

I'm not going to say you are doing the wrong thing based upon your particular situation. I may well agree with you if I looked at it myself. That said, I would really appreciate it if you would consider posting a good picture of the intersection you are speaking of.

Happy New Year.

[ItsBen]

#2 exist on Telegraph in Berkeley. I've always yield and many drivers do too.

[StuntrHuntr]

Originally posted by FLATTOP
what JPM said...
the lane is going in it's own direction..
I've been watching this one with interest. Assuming we are talking about a modified version 3 pic (without the yeild sign or a red arrow, just a stand-alone signal for the right turn lane), I agree w/MM4L that if it is a right turn on a red light, 21453b applies and regardless of whether it is a channeled lane w/ raised island or not, it is still a R on RED and w/o a sign, you can go when safe and after coming to a full and complete stop behind the limit line or first crosswalk line, in this case.

I also agree w/ MM's somewhat diplomatic response, a picture would clarify where the drawing is a bit lacking. Each case is different and seeing exactly what JPM is talking about may shed some light. If it is unclear, then I'd say the tie goes to the runner and 21453b would be my call.

Happy New Year to you all. Be safe out there on amateur night! Stay home and have fun or designate a sober driver. The life you save might be your own (or mine)!

Back to lurking :cool

[speedydave]

Originally posted by petehed
I know that scenario #2 does exist in Berkeley... not sure what street, but it's right near the Uni.

Bancroft and Oxford, probably.