Stoplight Question

[RoseRed]

Not sure how this comment is relevant.

If you traveled this route, perhaps you would have a better perspective.

I travel this route every work day. If the third lane from the base were allowed to empty n/b on 235, especially during rush hour, it would potentially create havoc on the three lanes already traveling n/b. How many people in the other 2 outbound lanes might get confused since lane 3 has a different set of rules to follow.

 

[Crow Bait]

If you traveled this route, perhaps you would have a better perspective.

I travel this route every work day. If the third lane from the base were allowed to empty n/b on 235, especially during rush hour, it would potentially create havoc on the three lanes already traveling n/b. How many people in the other 2 outbound lanes might get confused since lane 3 has a different set of rules to follow.

You have drawn a conclusion about me while trying to prove your point. I think it would serve your argument better to just focus on the issue.

 

[withrespect]

You have drawn a conclusion about me while trying to prove your point. I think it would serve your argument better to just focus on the issue.

What Rose meant to say was #### you.

She has keyboard problems sometimes.

 

[RoseRed]

You have drawn a conclusion about me while trying to prove your point. I think it would serve your argument better to just focus on the issue.

My opinion is that it would be foolish to let one lane exit and not the others. You stick to yours and I'll stick to mine.

What Rose meant to say was #### you.

She has keyboard problems sometimes.

Oh dear...

 

[withrespect]

My opinion is that it would be foolish to let one lane exit and not the others. You stick to yours and I'll stick to mine.



Oh dear...

You talk about anything you want. I thought your post was relevant to the tread.

 

[RoseRed]

You talk about anything you want. I thought your post was relevant to the tread.

Thank you.

 

[Crow Bait]

My opinion is that it would be foolish to let one lane exit and not the others. You stick to yours and I'll stick to mine.

Fair enough! As you say - perspective is everything.

 

[1stGenSMIB]

Unfortunately, that entire stretch of Rt 235 from Gate 1 all the way to Outback in both directions, including Rt 4 from L-town to Solomons is just one big continuous CF.

I can't wait to see the "bypass the traffic light flyover" as one solution from Solomons to southbound 235!!!

 

[inkah]

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

Yes it will. Ppl turning from pegg should keep to the two left lanes. That would leave the far right lane perfectly clear for base traffic.

 

[BernieP]

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

I would also add, 'and merge in from where?" When will chuckle heads take note and realize that 4th lane (the one on the right) is a RIGHT TURN LANE - it was put there to allow traffic to slow down to make right turns into driveways. That's why they have the arrows on the pavement and the signs that say "RIGHT TURN ONLY". It is not a merge lane, or an acceleration lane, it's not the express lane for the TJ Bridge. If seen several rear enders caused by "mergers" who didn't accept that the car in front of them was going to be making a sharp right into a driveway.

What it seems like to me is that some have decieded to interpret the law to suit their purpose and I think the "right on red" is often misued.
People making the right, on red, do not have the right of way over those who have a green light, but if you watch traffic at those intersections you'ld swear that wasn't the case. Vehicles come flying around the corner, maybe do a California stop, and then just force their way into traffic. Either forcing the vehicles with the right of way to slow down / stop or move to the left.
The other is the light jumper, they have the red and they see the traffic starting to move so they do a touch and go.
In both cases the provision to turn right on red is AFTER YOU STOP!!!!

Back to the gate 1 question, most drivers have adhered to the no turn on red. It's fairly clear, except to those who want an excuse to go. And I think someone touched on it, with the lights staggered like they are, it's not just northbound 235 you have to contend with, there is significant traffic making a left off Pegg Rd. (see comment about ignoring right of way above).

 

[FED_UP]

Yes it will. Ppl turning from pegg should keep to the two left lanes. That would leave the far right lane perfectly clear for base traffic.

Having and extra turn lane is a PLUS, I don't know how many times I had to go further right because the idiot to the left of me got to close or was not paying attention and forced me in the very last lane, WTF.

 

[Crow Bait]

I would also add, 'and merge in from where?" When will chuckle heads take note and realize that 4th lane (the one on the right) is a RIGHT TURN LANE - it was put there to allow traffic to slow down to make right turns into driveways. That's why they have the arrows on the pavement and the signs that say "RIGHT TURN ONLY". It is not a merge lane, or an acceleration lane, it's not the express lane for the TJ Bridge. If seen several rear enders caused by "mergers" who didn't accept that the car in front of them was going to be making a sharp right into a driveway.

Aside from the multiple turn lanes, how is this different from the lane in front of Wawa on SB 235? Is that not a merge lane?

 

[MMM_donuts]

Aside from the multiple turn lanes, how is this different from the lane in front of Wawa on SB 235? Is that not a merge lane?

I haaaaate that lane and getting into that Wawa I see very little value in it and think the only purpose it serves is to create hate and discontent among drivers.

 

[withrespect]

I haaaaate that lane and getting into that Wawa I see very little value in it and think the only purpose it serves is to create hate and discontent among drivers.

I hate WaWa

 

[FED_UP]

Aside from the multiple turn lanes, how is this different from the lane in front of Wawa on SB 235? Is that not a merge lane?

No it is not, people use it as such, but it seems technically you are to sit there and wait to get in the slow traffic right lane when clear to do so. Plenty of times of course people do use turns lanes for merging, why not if its clear. Up to the driver I guess.

 

[Crow Bait]

I haaaaate that lane and getting into that Wawa I see very little value in it and think the only purpose it serves is to create hate and discontent among drivers.

I suspect what you hate is that peolple turning from St.Andrews Church Road to SB 235 use it as a merge lane... (which is how it is designed). It can get a little sticky for those travelling SB on 235 and trying to get their first cup of coffee in the morning because they have to merge into the traffic that is trying to merge onto SB 235. Yet - I have never seen an accident in that part of the intersection.

 

[BernieP]

Aside from the multiple turn lanes, how is this different from the lane in front of Wawa on SB 235? Is that not a merge lane?

No, people use it as such but the signs along the shoulder state "Right turn only". There are house not to far down from Wa Wa and some jackazz tying to "merge" is going to tail end the person who is trying to make a right into their driveway.

 

[MMM_donuts]

I suspect what you hate is that peolple turning from St.Andrews Church Road to SB 235 use it as a merge lane... (which is how it is designed). It can get a little sticky for those travelling SB on 235 and trying to get their first cup of coffee in the morning because they have to merge into the traffic that is trying to merge onto SB 235. Yet - I have never seen an accident in that part of the intersection.

Yes, you are absolutely right. I hate it because I have no idea who has the right of way when someone from the left lane wants to get into Wawa but there's people in the rightest lane. The people turning right from St. Andrews Church road have a yield sign but drivers switching lanes are also responsible for yielding to traffic in the destination lane. I've never seen an accident there either and I always wondered about that because it's not uncommon for people to be honking at each other and slamming on their brakes right there.

And I also hate it because the confusion causes that right lane to back up and go so slow while people are trying to get into the rightest "merge" lane (or whatever it's called) to get into WaWa.

 

[Crow Bait]

No, people use it as such but the signs along the shoulder state "Right turn only". There are house not to far down from Wa Wa and some jackazz tying to "merge" is going to tail end the person who is trying to make a right into their driveway.

I think we are talking about two different WaWa's but the point remains the same. I think they are merge lanes. No matter how you enter that lane you have to be sure that is clear, and yield to any traffic already there.

 

[Merlin99]

I'm allowing for multiple outcomes... Some could be interesting!

"No Turn on Red" allows for only one outcome - and assumes that we are NOT competent at merging. Personally - I'd like to make that decision for myself.

Let's take the light out completely and just make it a 4 way stop and assume everyone is competent, it'll save a couple of bucks on electricity and cause you less inconvenience.