Thanks for honking - I _know_ I can...

[kaytieeldr]

Well, gee, Kelly - I hadn't thought of THAT! I've been in that position myself, but fortunately never to the point that three seconds was going to make a difference. Good point, though.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Respectfully, this one is a "may", not a "must", traffic allowance.

And again, I watched as oncoming traffic passed, and saw that light turn yellow, and knew that the next natural action of a traffic light turning yellow is it turning red and the intersecting light turning green, that I was about to get a green arrow. Again, I don't 'control' traffic every night. I simply knew from driving through this intersection about 180 times in the last six months exactly how the lights operate - and this one night, I opted to wait for the green arrow based on timing.

Hey there OP, I'm not going to beat you up over it but I just wanted to point something out.

Have you noticed how much this upsets people? Even here on the Dis where we are all far removed from our cars and the road this topic is getting a pretty harsh response. Now keeping that in mind consider all the horrible reports of outright violence that erupts from road rage. While considering these ideas does it really still seem like a good idea to go around provoking people on the road driving around in multi-ton weapons?

This isn't so much about right and wrong, its about safety.... yours. If I were you I'd be far more concerned about crossing paths with some nutjob substance abuser with a criminal past who was let out of jail because the State couldn't afford to keep him in than with getting hit in a clear intersection. Every time I read the papers someone seems to be tragically hurt in a road rage incident.

Personally, I had someone chase me down for 6 miles on a local road with 4 kids in my car 2 years ago because he was hallucinating that I did something I did not do. In the end I intentionally cut off another car and put my car in park in a major intersection because I realized that a big crowd would reduce the likelihood he would pull out the gun I saw him flashing around in my rear view mirror. When the Whitehall Pa police showed up they refused to check his car or give him a breathalyzer AND GAVE ME A TICKET FOR STOPPING IN THE INTERSECTION. That event cost us $ for my car, $1,500 for a defense attorney (I got off the guy admitted everything in court ) but I still consider myself very lucky because no-one was actually hurt.

I do not think it is wise to do something you know will definitely provoke people. I do think it would be better idea to find an alternate path to wherever you are going which does not require you to pass intersections like the one you describe. Sometimes being right just doesn't matter.

 

[KellyNY]

Hey there OP, I'm not going to beat you up over it but I just wanted to point something out.

Have you noticed how much this upsets people? Even here on the Dis where we are all far removed from our cars and the road this topic is getting a pretty harsh response. Now keeping that in mind consider all the horrible reports of outright violence that erupts from road rage. While considering these ideas does it really still seem like a good idea to go around provoking people on the road driving around in multi-ton weapons?

This isn't so much about right and wrong, its about safety.... yours. If I were you I'd be far more concerned about crossing paths with some nutjob substance abuser with a criminal past who was let out of jail because the State couldn't afford to keep him in than with getting hit in a clear intersection. Every time I read the papers someone seems to be tragically hurt in a road rage incident.

Personally, I had someone chase me down for 6 miles on a local road with 4 kids in my car 2 years ago because he was hallucinating that I did something I did not do. In the end I intentionally cut off another car and put my car in park in a major intersection because I realized that a big crowd would reduce the likelihood he would pull out the gun I saw him flashing around in my rear view mirror. When the Whitehall Pa police showed up they refused to check his car or give him a breathalyzer AND GAVE ME A TICKET FOR STOPPING IN THE INTERSECTION. That event cost us $ for my car, $1,500 for a defense attorney (I got off the guy admitted everything in court ) but I still consider myself very lucky because no-one was actually hurt.

I do not think it is wise to do something you know will definitely provoke people. I do think it would be better idea to find an alternate path to wherever you are going which does not require you to pass intersections like the one you describe. Sometimes being right just doesn't matter.

Yours is a terrible story but you cannot assume any driver is a potentional nutz. If you speed every time someone behind pushes you, you will end up with tickets or even worse, accidents. You know the popular scheme, when someone pushes you, you drive fasted, break speed limit and then car in front of you (part of the plan) slows down or stops and your insurance pays for damages and it is usually car full of people all getting "fake" injury.

 

[Handbag Lady]

If it is clear to go and you do not go, instead you "choose" to wait for a green light (WHY?) I will honk at you and if your radio isn't turned up loudly enough, you will also hear me curse you like a lady.

You are blocking the lane and that (here) is wrong. A lot of our lights are timed and you could also be creating a huge back-up while you wait willy-nilly for your precious little green light.

There are no other states NEAR here to allow me to assume no one knows that it is okay to turn right on red.

 

[Handbag Lady]

Respectfully, this one is a "may", not a "must", traffic allowance.

And again, I watched as oncoming traffic passed, and saw that light turn yellow, and knew that the next natural action of a traffic light turning yellow is it turning red and the intersecting light turning green, that I was about to get a green arrow. Again, I don't 'control' traffic every night. I simply knew from driving through this intersection about 180 times in the last six months exactly how the lights operate - and this one night, I opted to wait for the green arrow based on timing.

I also have to respectfully disagree with you. They can change light patterns any time the traffic departments wish to change them. Are you psychic? They can easily change the light patterns to hold your side to allow the opposite traffic to say, turn left in front of you.

I'm just glad there is little chance that you will be in front of me and we can drive in peace in different states. Although, I seem to have been behind your cousin once or twice lately!

 

[WriteDisney]

Yours is a terrible story but you cannot assume any driver is a potentional nutz. If you speed every time someone behind pushes you, you will end up with tickets or even worse, accidents. You know the popular scheme, when someone pushes you, you drive fasted, break speed limit and then car in front of you (part of the plan) slows down or stops and your insurance pays for damages and it is usually car full of people all getting "fake" injury.

I think they were just saying not to intentionally push people. If you can let someone in, move out of someone's way, go when you're suppose to go, etc, then you should because the one time when you don't do those things, the person behind you could be crazy. And I think it happens more then you think. I've had a crazy driver follow me and I've heard more then one story of friends having worse things than that happen. You really never know, and its better to be safe then sorry. I don't think this means breaking the law. It could even mean following the law more closely.

 

[happygirl]

Yours is a terrible story but you cannot assume any driver is a potentional nutz. If you speed every time someone behind pushes you, you will end up with tickets or even worse, accidents. You know the popular scheme, when someone pushes you, you drive fasted, break speed limit and then car in front of you (part of the plan) slows down or stops and your insurance pays for damages and it is usually car full of people all getting "fake" injury.

you can't assume that people are crazy but there are crazy people out there is no reason to make them more crazy by sitting still when you can turn and get out of there way.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

Out of curiousity I looked up the right on red statute in my own state (CT) and while you are correct that it is written as "may," so is the rule about proceeding on a green light. Does that mean it's acceptable for someone to not proceed if the light is green, because the law says they "may" go, not "must?"

Not quite. In the section you're referencing, the statute uses the word "may" rather than "shall" because there are three options for your movement (straight or left or right through the intersection) and once again, a requirement to yield to another entity under certain circumstances.

 

[punkin]

Not quite. In the section you're referencing, the statute uses the word "may" rather than "shall" because there are three options for your movement (straight or left or right through the intersection) and once again, a requirement to yield to another entity under certain circumstances.

...but as has been pointed out, the honker in back of her cannot necessarily see what you can at the intersection. There is probably a reason she is not moving. Now, if you see her putting on her makeup while talking on the phone and yelling at her kids, then go ahead and honk.

 

[Handbag Lady]

...but as has been pointed out, the honker in back of her cannot necessarily see what you can at the intersection. There is probably a reason she is not moving. Now, if you see her putting on her makeup while talking on the phone and yelling at her kids, then go ahead and honk.

Well, she's admitted she is not moving simply because she is waiting for the green light.

 

[Shannon G]

Not quite. In the section you're referencing, the statute uses the word "may" rather than "shall" because there are three options for your movement (straight or left or right through the intersection) and once again, a requirement to yield to another entity under certain circumstances.

Fair enough, although I would point out that no where does it say you MUST do any of those things. If we instead compare the language regarding a right turn on red to the language regarding a green arrow - it still uses the word may.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

Well, she's admitted she is not moving simply because she is waiting for the green light.

No. She admitted she was not moving because at that particular time, the intersection was not completely clear. She admitted that she normally makes the right on red, but on this particular occasion, she did not.

Fair enough, although I would point out that no where does it say you MUST do any of those things. If we instead compare the language regarding a right turn on red to the language regarding a green arrow - it still uses the word may.

If the statute used the term "must" or "shall" in the green light section, you would have an ambiguity regarding what the motorist could do. In addition, with the mandatory language, drivers would be less likely to heed or be confused by the other directives regarding yielding.

 

[KellyNY]

you can't assume that people are crazy but there are crazy people out there is no reason to make them more crazy by sitting still when you can turn and get out of there way.

The thing is, you do not really need to do anything to set a crazy person off. The fact that you are on his way is more then enough. Angry people on the other hand is another question. Although couple seconds delay is not enough to set them off, your reaction to them like a finger will make them angry and follow you. JMHO.

 

[Shannon G]

If the statute used the term "must" or "shall" in the green light section, you would have an ambiguity regarding what the motorist could do. In addition, with the mandatory language, drivers would be less likely to heed or be confused by the other directives regarding yielding.

That makes sense, but it still does not differentiate between the "may" used in the green arrow situation and the "may" used in the right turn on red section. In both of those sections, the driver MAY proceed, after yielding to pedestrians and other traffic that has the right to be in the intersection. The only real difference is that, with a right turn on red, the vehicle has to stop first.

Regarding a right turn on red: "vehicular traffic traveling in the travel lane nearest the right hand curb or other defined edge of the roadway, unless a sign has been erected in the appropriate place prohibiting this movement, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn onto a two-way street or onto another one-way street on which all the traffic is moving to such vehicle's right after such vehicle has stopped as required in this subdivision and yielded the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection."

Regarding a green arrow: "Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time, but such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully within the intersection."

Let's say you're at an intersection where you can't turn right on red, but there is a green arrow to turn right that either comes on before the full green, or stays on longer than the full green. I doubt many people would agree that's it's okay to not proceed on the green arrow, but to choose instead to wait for the full green light. Yet the language used in the statute is just as permissive vs. obligatory in both scenarios.

(By the way, I understand that the OP did not proceed because she did not think it safe. Just playing devil's advocate here for the people who have stated that it's okay not to turn right on red even when traffic is clear because there's no requirement that you do so.

 

[punkin]

No. She admitted she was not moving because at that particular time, the intersection was not completely clear. She admitted that she normally makes the right on red, but on this particular occasion, she did not.

Exactly!

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

That makes sense, but it still does not differentiate between the "may" used in the green arrow situation and the "may" used in the right turn on red section. In both of those sections, the driver MAY proceed, after yielding to pedestrians and other traffic that has the right to be in the intersection. The only real difference is that, with a right turn on red, the vehicle has to stop first.

Regarding a right turn on red: "vehicular traffic traveling in the travel lane nearest the right hand curb or other defined edge of the roadway, unless a sign has been erected in the appropriate place prohibiting this movement, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn onto a two-way street or onto another one-way street on which all the traffic is moving to such vehicle's right after such vehicle has stopped as required in this subdivision and yielded the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection."

Regarding a green arrow: "Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may cautiously enter the intersection only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time, but such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully within the intersection."

Let's say you're at an intersection where you can't turn right on red, but there is a green arrow to turn right that either comes on before the full green, or stays on longer than the full green. I doubt many people would agree that's it's okay to not proceed on the green arrow, but to choose instead to wait for the full green light. Yet the language used in the statute is just as permissive vs. obligatory in both scenarios.

(By the way, I understand that the OP did not proceed because she did not think it safe. Just playing devil's advocate here for the people who have stated that it's okay not to turn right on red even when traffic is clear because there's no requirement that you do so.

Let me see if I can improve my clarity. A legislature is going to avoid providing mandatory language where it has also provided caveats and exceptions. The "may" in the red section has a different purpose and meaning than the "may" in the green section. In other words, it really does matter what the definition of "is" is.

 

[disney1990]

... turn right on red; I choose to wait for the green arrow. I know it's coming. I've been through this intersection five days a week for the last six months.

It's going to change as soon as the right-of-way traffic clears. Honest. I stopped just this side of the stop line, so the sensors know there's a vehicle waiting. Five seconds, tops - once there's no oncoming traffic and it's safe to proceed, of course.

Right on red is a option, not a rule.

They did say they went, after being stopped for five seconds. This is the same thing that I do -- deal with it. So many people don't stop at all these days. Thank you for stopping. You may just save somebody's life by coming to a complete stop.

 

[shortbun]

Thanks for clearing that up. No, it was just this once. I described my experience with this light/route to demonstrate that I'm extremely familiar with the conditions, NOT that I do this every time. Heck, a few weeks ago, the car next to me was a town police vehicle - didn't matter, there was no oncoming traffic (don't ask me why the light didn't change THAT time ), I knew it was completely safe and legal to proceed. And did.

Yeah, the original post made me think you were not turning right on red at all-ever, that you had a choice and the choice you were making was to wait.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I do not think it is wise to do something you know will definitely provoke people. I do think it would be better idea to find an alternate path to wherever you are going which does not require you to pass intersections like the one you describe. Sometimes being right just doesn't matter.

While I can certainly appreciate and respect your advice, and empathize with your experience, again, I'm talking about three seconds, one time (tonight's experience to be posted momentarily ). In addition, should that have been my experience, I know where the Animal Control Officer lives - and that he's home at that time of night; and the police/fire station is about 1.5 miles from this intersection.

It's not a busy intersection, it's not a busy road. Sure, the 'main' road has a route number, but it's still a one-lane-in-each-direction rural road. In the four miles I travel, there are two(!) traffic lights - this one, and the "downtown" light.

If it is clear to go and you do not go, instead you "choose" to wait for a green light (WHY?) I will honk at you and if your radio isn't turned up loudly enough, you will also hear me curse you like a lady.

Again, three seconds and as I looked to my left to see if traffic was clear and then turned my head in the direction I intended to drive (safe/intelligent driving action), I could see that the cross light had turned yellow and our arrow would literally momentarily turn green.

I also have to respectfully disagree with you. They can change light patterns any time the traffic departments wish to change them. Are you psychic? They can easily change the light patterns to hold your side to allow the opposite traffic to say, turn left in front of you.

Psychic? No. Perceptive? Frequently. The oncoming traffic comes from a small subdivision, the primary purpose of the traffic light being for the main road and the road I was on. Again, the right turn arrow is vehicle-activated and programmed to change when traffic coming from the left is clear. It doesn't appear, given my repeated use of the interesection and the rare vehicles I've seen coming from the opposite street, that this is true of that road.

Combined with the lack of a work crew or any indication of road work anywhere in the area earlier in the day, it would appear no reprogramming had occurred (or was necessary). Had the oncoming light not turned yellow as I turned my head from left to right, I likely would have proceeded through the red light from a safe stop after ascertaining there was no oncoming traffic.

...but as has been pointed out, the honker in back of her cannot necessarily see what you can at the intersection. There is probably a reason she is not moving. Now, if you see her putting on her makeup while talking on the phone and yelling at her kids, then go ahead and honk.

Heck, if you see any of that, come whack on the hood of my car with a Nerf baseball bat THAT'LL get my attention!

 

[kaytieeldr]

One more post before tonight's right-on-red report On my previous commute, I frequently used a four-lane road that opened into a four-way intersection: left lane marked "left lane must turn left", the two lanes to its right were, by marking or understanding, the 'straight-ahead' lanes. No problem. It was that pesky right lane that made me find a different route home.

Two signs: "right lane must turn right" Sure. Except all those drivers who were too important to wait in the through-traffic lanes... and the other sign was one of those rare "right turn on red after stop" (note twice as much laughter due to drivers being twice as funny about this Stop? What do they mean, stop? Don't they know who I am????? But the 'funniest' drivers - read: biggest jerks - were the ones who ignored BOTH signs, driving straight through the intersection without stopping, despite not having any form of right of way.