Stoplight Question

[MMM_donuts]

I realize this may be a silly question....

Coming out of Gate 1 and turning right onto 235 there are three turn lanes. Each lane has it's own arrow stoplight. There's a sign next to the middle stoplight that says "no turn on red".

I ASSumed that applied to all three lanes but I see an awful lot of people make a right on red from that furthest righthand turn lane. When they do that, they turn into another turn lane and are able to "merge" with other traffic.

Is that legal? If I'm the next one in that rightest lane are the people behind me expecting me to turn (am I the idiot blocking traffic)? Or does that sign only apply to the lefter righthand lanes?

 

[withrespect]

I realize this may be a silly question....

Coming out of Gate 1 and turning right onto 235 there are three turn lanes. Each lane has it's own arrow stoplight. There's a sign next to the middle stoplight that says "no turn on red".

I ASSumed that applied to all three lanes but I see an awful lot of people make a right on red from that furthest righthand turn lane. When they do that, they turn into another turn lane and are able to "merge" with other traffic.

Is that legal? If I'm the next one in that rightest lane are the people behind me expecting me to turn (am I the idiot blocking traffic)? Or does that sign only apply to the lefter righthand lanes?

Now, I am not the smartest person in the world but I always thought "No right on red" means No right on red.

Of course, I could be wrong... I reckon it has happened before a time or two.

 

[RoseRed]

There is also a no u-turn sign at the light for those turning left to go on the base. People don't pay attention to that one either.

 

[MMM_donuts]

Now, I am not the smartest person in the world but I always thought "No right on red" means No right on red.

Of course, I could be wrong... I reckon it has happened before a time or two.

That's what I thought, too. I just took it at face value but I bet I see it happen all the time. I figured I'd ask.

It wouldn't surprise me if:
a: it's some kind of weird Maryland law or,
b: people are just being stupid

Really. Wouldn't be surprised at all.

 

[merc669]

And of course St Mary's finest or the State is there to enforce these signs. I have also seen coming out Gate 2, the two left turning lanes only. The inside one cars go straight rather than turn left. They just haul-tail and hope they do not get slammed. I wish there was some enforcement of the laws of the road around here but its like a free-for-all sometimes it seems...

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

There is also a no u-turn sign at the light for those turning left to go on the base. People don't pay attention to that one either.

The proverbial "they" can put up signs all they want. If the local constabulary doesn't go after violators, then that type of thing is gonna continue.
Nothing; well hardly anything; is enforced, so nobody cares. I bet if the Troopers would hand out tickets, things might change; because the Sherriff's office ain't gonna do nothin'.

 

[Baja28]

And of course St Mary's finest or the State is there to enforce these signs. I have also seen coming out Gate 2, the two left turning lanes only. The inside one cars go straight rather than turn left. They just haul-tail and hope they do not get slammed. I wish there was some enforcement of the laws of the road around here but its like a free-for-all sometimes it seems...

The proverbial "they" can put up signs all they want. If the local constabulary doesn't go after violators, then that type of thing is gonna continue.
Nothing; well hardly anything; is enforced, so nobody cares. I bet if the Troopers would hand out tickets, things might change; because the Sherriff's office ain't gonna do nothin'.

Not being that familiar with the area I'm going to throw this out there....

She said these lights are as you are coming off base. If that is the case, how is an LEO supposed to get behind these cars to see the lights if they aren't on base?

 

[EmptyTimCup]

if there are multiple 'right turn lanes' it is usually illegal to 'right turn on red' from any lane other than the curb lane, or the lane furthest to the right



but as Mikey said I too am unfamilar with this intersection .......


usually there will be a sign post over the 'left' rt turn lane - NO Right Turn On RED from THIS Lane ....

 

[Vince]

Now, I am not the smartest person in the world but I always thought "No right on red" means No right on red.

Of course, I could be wrong... I reckon it has happened before a time or two.

There is also a no u-turn sign at the light for those turning left to go on the base. People don't pay attention to that one either.

Yep, see this all the time. Would love to see them do it with a cop there.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

Not being that familiar with the area I'm going to throw this out there....

She said these lights are as you are coming off base. If that is the case, how is an LEO supposed to get behind these cars to see the lights if they aren't on base?

This is a good point. I suppose the simple answer is, they can't see the lights; and the thing to hope for is that someone does not run a red and get run over. Only then is a LEO's job apparent.

 

[Nickel]

Now, I am not the smartest person in the world but I always thought "No right on red" means No right on red.

Of course, I could be wrong... I reckon it has happened before a time or two.

And doesn't a red arrow also indicate that you may not turn right on red at that light? I never turned right on red at that light because I assumed it wasn't permitted. Impatient people can honk if they want to - Chipotle will still be there when the light turns green.

 

[MMDad]

Not being that familiar with the area I'm going to throw this out there....

She said these lights are as you are coming off base. If that is the case, how is an LEO supposed to get behind these cars to see the lights if they aren't on base?

If Northbound 235 has a green, then the lanes in question have a red. They could also station someone in view of the light to radio ahead when people run it, then be waiting a block down to wave them over.

The issue isn't enforcability. It's a problem with people who think they are just too imprtant to follow those silly rules and need to get that 30 second head start to waiting in rush hour traffic.

The cops could sit at any light and pull people over all day for failing to stop before turning on red. Of cour, that would get certain people on here whining that it's obviously only about generating revenue. But are we willing to fund the Sheriff enough to hire enough deputies to do this? It seems to me that they prioritize enforcement based on publicity when people complain or when spectacular or frequent crashes happen. They also seem to concentrate more on the big issues like reckless speeds, running lughts, or DUI.

 

[MMM_donuts]

Ooh, I posted that incorrectly. There are two signal lights and three right turn arrow signs. And a signpost next to the road stating "no turn on red."

Yeah, I don't think you're supposed to turn right in red there.... But it's seemingly unenforceable so it's left up to driver integrity.

 

[MMDad]

And doesn't a red arrow also indicate that you may not turn right on red at that light? I never turned right on red at that light because I assumed it wasn't permitted. Impatient people can honk if they want to - Chipotle will still be there when the light turns green.

Usually a red arrow will have a "right turn on red after stop" sign if a turn is legal. There is a "no turns on red" sign at Gate 1, so there shouldn't be any doubt.

 

[G1G4]

If Northbound 235 has a green, then the lanes in question have a red. They could also station someone in view of the light to radio ahead when people run it, then be waiting a block down to wave them over.

The issue isn't enforcability. It's a problem with people who think they are just too imprtant to follow those silly rules and need to get that 30 second head start to waiting in rush hour traffic.

The cops could sit at any light and pull people over all day for failing to stop before turning on red. Of cour, that would get certain people on here whining that it's obviously only about generating revenue. But are we willing to fund the Sheriff enough to hire enough deputies to do this? It seems to me that they prioritize enforcement based on publicity when people complain or when spectacular or frequent crashes happen. They also seem to concentrate more on the big issues like reckless speeds, running lughts, or DUI.

There lies the issue. County doesn't enforce traffic violations a lot simply because they don't have enough on duty. If they're going from one call to another, they obviously watch for things. IMO, if you'd like stuff like that to be done, call MSP Leonardtown Barracks and ask them about it. See if they could get a trooper to sit somewhere near there and watch.

 

[FED_UP]

I realize this may be a silly question....

Coming out of Gate 1 and turning right onto 235 there are three turn lanes. Each lane has it's own arrow stoplight. There's a sign next to the middle stoplight that says "no turn on red".

I ASSumed that applied to all three lanes but I see an awful lot of people make a right on red from that furthest righthand turn lane. When they do that, they turn into another turn lane and are able to "merge" with other traffic.

Is that legal? If I'm the next one in that rightest lane are the people behind me expecting me to turn (am I the idiot blocking traffic)? Or does that sign only apply to the lefter righthand lanes?

NO means NO

 

[Crow Bait]

How about saving money and time by removing sign along with the enforcement concern? People in the right turn lane should be able to safely turn an merge in...

 

[SoMDGirl42]

the answer is:

Folks just don't care! They are above the law apparently. I saw two things this morning.

Rt 5 south toward the light at 5/249 an ambulance was headed north bound. Traffic was nearly at a stand still, but we all managed to pull to the right and yield to the oncoming emergency vehicle. All but one a$$hole who never even moved over an inch. Yes, you, a$$hole in the green Toyota Highlander, YOU are supposed to yield as well.

Then coming from 249 to turn south on rt 5, the lights were out. We all followed the law and treated the blinking light like a four way stop. Until it was my turn to go, then the car flying south on rt 5 that didn't even slow down for the blinking out of order light nearly took me out. WTF people???

 

[glhs837]

And the enforcement waves are not funded for stuff like this. The enforcement waves are meant to disrupt "aggressive driving" and fund overtime for those efforts. I disagree with how that effort is focused, but that's me.

I do feel that occasional efforts, say two hours a week on an irregular basis like picking one week out of the month would have a continuing deterrent effect. Draw common offenses out of a hat. Say this month we are doing red light blockers, next time it's right turn on red folks. Maybe failure to yields, improper lane changes. Of course, all of these would really require unmarked units to be effective.

I don't view officers enforcing traffic laws as revenue enhancement. It happens, but it's actually pretty rare. What I disagree with is the focus on speed. I think unsafe behaviors like failure to yield and improper lane changes and following to closely and not paying proper attention to driving take a backseat to speed, when these behaviors cause far more crashes.

Automated enforcement is revenue enhancement, officers are not.

 

[RoseRed]

How about saving money and time by removing sign along with the enforcement concern? People in the right turn lane should be able to safely turn an merge in...

That won't work out so well if the traffic from Pegg Road is turning north onto 235.