Bill Ward Director of Permitting and Inspections u xilsaaray arrinkan SCormier

Created RFS#3913 and issued to Traffic

This has been evaluated by our Traffic Technician and has closed the issue with the following statement:
In Vermont, by statute, all signs and signals must conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). These standards are very often spelled out again in specific state statutes. The MUTCD used to allow turns on a red arrow after stopping. This changed in the 2009 edition MUTCD to what it is today. The intersection was built in 2000, before the MUTCD change. Design of the intersection was driven by a desire to protect the south crosswalk from turning cars. Then, the lit sign was necessary to prohibit a permissive movement. Then, as now, despite the MUTCD change, drivers frequently turn right even with the sign lit. The sign is going to stay, to make it perfectly clear that a right on red (arrow) here is a blatant violation. The eastbound red arrows are lit only when conflicting movements are occurring. While generally it is desirable to allow permissive movements where possible, in this case, with the high non-compliance observed, making special provision to allow such movements only muddies the water and detracts from the effectiveness of the turn prohibition. Tying the sign to the red arrows removes any ambiguity but is needlessly wasteful. The sign buttresses the prohibition at the time it is most needed. Flashing the red arrows would be nice, if it were not for frequent observations of right-turning cars interfering with other movements that have the right-of-way.

I really appreciate the thoughtful response. The variability of the sign seems to be taken by most drivers as a right on red is permissible when the sign is not lit.
Perhaps a more educational approach would be more effective, and simply adding a metal sign to the existing design, stating something like "State law no turn on red arrow", would help both here and elsewhere.
Thanks again for your response.