An aghast citizen snaps a photo of a BTD van making an illegal right turn on red at Stuart and Dartmouth:
The light was red and there is a clear no right on red sign and a walk sign. There were pedestrians in the crosswalk.
Really? After moving up here in March, I just assumed no turn on red signs were optional within the Boston city limits. I have yet to drive one time without seeing someone violate that sign.
Cambridge subverted the national right on red law by posting No Turn On Red signs at virtually every light in the city.
Some drivers subvert Cambridge by ignoring them.
the Massachusetts response was to post signs at only those intersections where you could take a right on red. Once FHWA caught on and mandated that Massachusetts change their signing practice to the national standard (i.e. right on red unless there's a sign), "No Turn On Red" signs magically appeared on just about every corner.
A large number of those signs have since been removed, as the locations did not meet the MUTCD guidelines for posting No Turn On Red.
RTOR is an outdated assault on the pedestrian, as entitled drivers believe they MUST turn on red, regardless of whats going on in the crosswalk. And if they dont, the car behind them lays on the horn.
If NYC can ban ALL right turns on red, then Boston should be able to do the same, at least in the denser areas.
Back Bay, downtown etc? Universal ban.
The outlying areas? Intersection by intersection.
it should be double-parking to write tickets, like they frequently do on Medford Street in Charlestown and on School Street in Downtown Boston. The rule should be: if you can't LEGALLY park to write tickets, then don't b*tch about other people parking incorrectly or running out of meter time!
"No Turn on Red" signs are a joke: cities and towns, especially Boston, Cambridge and Somerville, like to slap them up and take them down whenever they feel like it. The sign at N. Washington and Causeway (coming off the Charlestown Bridge) has been put up and taken down at least three times in the last five years (currently up).
A select few of the signs serve a purpose--to not have drivers turn right on red onto very busy streets or streets with limited line-of-sight. The rest of them, like the one at the aforementioned location, are stupid, plain and simple. During rush hours and local events, the cities station cops at intersections with those signs to wave people on to make a right turn--how about just taking the sign down in the first place!
applies to both vehicle and foot traffic. Per current MUTCD guidelines, having an exclusive pedestrian phase or high pedestrian traffic (and thus, high potential for pedestrian/car "conflicts") are factors to consider in implementing RTOR restrictions at a given location.
That having been said, prohibiting RTOR where there isn't a logical reason to do so is worse than allowing it - as it often causes drivers to disregard RTOR at those locations where the restriction is necessary as well.
IMO if there's an exclusive pedestrian phase, then rights on red *should* be allowed, since almost all of the time there will be nobody in the crosswalk and no oncoming cross traffic during the walk light.
You can also take a left on red
At any intersection on ways, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, in which vehicular traffic is facing a steady red indication in a traffic control signal, the driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk or the near side of the intersections or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to such red or stop signal, may make either (1) a right turn or (2) if on a one-way street may make a left turn to another one-way street, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at said intersection
Not only do I do what they say, but people behind me start getting on their horns. Why are they all made at me for following the rules of the road? Damned both ways.
I don't see a photo of a BTD van making an illegal right turn on red. I see one of a van approaching a red light.
Even though I believe the Citizen is being truthful, that picture doesn't catch the van in the act.
You must not be wearing the special UHub decoder glasses.
No, it shows the van after the act, as if to verify which van it was. (Stuart is behind the camera in this photo)
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2022 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy