Talk:Turn on red

Other cities besides NYC prohibiting?
Are there other regions in the USA besides NYC prohibiting RTOR? --Abdull 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the situation in the rest of the world? It would be useful to know. I often get in a rental car at an airport and the first thing I encounter is a red light where I need to turn right. Then a bunch of cars come up behind me, then a police car appears. One day I'll remember to ask at the rental counter. RobS 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, "No Turn On Red" (NTOR) restrictions are commonplace throughout the entire United States, but not necessarily at every intersections as New York City tends to do. NTOR is also in increasing use throughout the world, particularly in countries which have largely developed along with the automobile (such as USA and Australia).  In Europe, motorists tend to have more responsibility with driving; but agencies are increasingly implementing NTOR restrictions. --Thisisbossi 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At least here in Finland, turning right on red is completely illegal maneuver as is bypassing a red light altogether except in emergency situation. However in some large intersections this is overridden by a special lane that veers right, past the traffic lights, allowing only a right turn. A sign indicates that drivers in this lane must give priority to those coming from left. Also additionally there is a sign in the lights indicating that right turn is prohibited, making the special lane the only available lane to turn right. This special intersection works like a normal intersection with RTOR-rule, but requires no special laws to allow running a red light, which helps to keep rules simpler... However I have wondered many times about the RTOR rules and american tourists. As here is no need for signs denying the RTOR, because it is by default illegal in any circumstances, and as americans do not always seem to be aware of the laws in foreing countries, are they prone to make mistakes like this while driving around in rented car? (Finnish traffic rules are in most respect somewhat similar to american standarts...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.93.188 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of making this more worldwide, I wonder if the article would be more appropriately titled "Turning on red light" or some such in recognition that not all countries drive on the right (if you drive on the left side of the road, then a left turn on red would be the equivalent to the general "right on red"). I believe this maneuver is illegal in the UK, but I don't know about anywhere else. In Mexico I occasionally saw signs reading "Continua con precaucion" with an arrow denoting a right turn, which leads me to believe that a right on red is permitted where this sign is in place, but since most of my driving there has been in Cozumel and Playa del Carmen and the surrounding area I have not encountered enough traffic lights to comment more broadly. The article does need a more global scope, although perhaps the answer may be that a turn on red is not permitted except where noted in the article. If so, the fix is easy! 1995hoo 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. "Turning in the direction of traffic flow" would be more precise, if tedious and incomprehensible. This would be rarely referenced directly and would be redirected from "Right Turn on Red" and "Left Turn on Red." It would have to explain its peculiar title in the lead. (Don't really expect an answer to a three year old remark, though!   :)  Student7 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "I believe this maneuver is illegal in the UK" - Correct. Turns on red have never been permitted in the U.K., except where a green arrow is showing at the same time, in which case a turn in direction(s) indicated by the arrow may be made without stopping.   Note also that red & amber arrows are not used in the U.K. (except for a brief experiment with a flashing amber arrow in a few places some years ago).  Neither is the flashing red as the equivalent of a stop sign used; flashing red lights can be found only at railway crossings, to stop traffic for emergency vehicles to emerge, and so on, which in all cases requires drivers to remain stopped until the lights are turned off.  184.12.246.105 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Turning on a red arrow
I'm just curious, is it legal, U.S. federal, or otherwise, to turn (right) on a red arrow if there is no sign posted prohibiting it?


 * In California, a sign must be present to fully restrict a right turn on red, even with an arrow. Source: —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  04:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * CVC 21453(c) specifically forbids turning right at a right red arrow ("A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow").

I would tend to think that, no it's not legal. Otherwise there wouldn't be a red/green turn signal there. There would just be a standard 'ball' light. Peter Tangney (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to vary by jurisdiction. I live in Virginia and about three miles from my house there is an intersection where one road has two right-turn lanes, both with red arrows, and the light for the left-most of these two lanes has a sign "No Turn on Red This Lane" (or something very similar). The clear implication is that right on red is legal from the curb lane even though there's a red arrow there, and almost everyone thus makes the turn (I've seen people do it in front of cops and I've never seen anyone ticketed). Nobody knows why there is a red arrow there, and it seems that allowing a right on red defeats the whole point of the red arrow! In the District of Columbia, by contrast, any time there's a red arrow it means that it's illegal to go in the direction of the arrow. This is how DC distinguishes when the straight-thru lanes have a green but turns (usually left turns) are not permitted. 1995hoo (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, is it mandatory to make the right turn on red if it is permitted and safe to do so. I see far too many people ignoring the RTOR rule because, I assume, they are stupid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.48.2 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is never mandatory to turn on red, although failing to go right on red (when it's safe) will inevitably provoke the wrath of other motorists. (I note "right on red" because in Virginia most people don't know that left on red is legal from a one-way street into another one-way street. I'm one of the only people I know who will make a left on red when it's allowed.) 1995hoo (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In most states, it is illegal to turn right on a red arrow. That is the reason for the arrow. Driver does not have to be able to read English to understand that there is no turn allowed. Student7 (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Turning left and one-way streets
The articles says "In 37 other states and Puerto Rico, it is legal to make a left turn on red only from a one-way street." Shouldn't that read "...on red only onto a one-way street?" I mean, it's irrelevant if the street one is coming off of is one- or two- way, isn't it? Hate for someone to get traffic law advice that's wrong and get stuck with a ticket so I wanted to check before updating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmacian (talk • contribs) 13:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Doubt the person who typed that will see this, but I'll answer in case some future editor has the same question. The normal rule is that a left on red is allowed from a one-way street into another one-way street. The one-way thing is in fact very important. Think about the maneuver in question in a country where you drive on the right (such as the US) and you'll understand why left on red is normally restricted in this way: The driver turning left from a two-way street would be turning across the other side of his own street and across traffic on the other street that is going the other way from the way he intends to go. In other words, a right on red is generally accepted because you only have the potential for conflict with one direction of other traffic, and that traffic is going the same way you intend to go. All that matters when you go right on red is that the other road is clear and no pedestrians are crossing. A left on red from a one-way street into another one-way street is the same, but a left on red from a two-way street into another two-way street is a totally different animal, unless of course you're in a country where you drive on the left, in which case the default rule would be to allow left on red, and then right on red only from a one-way street into another one-way street, this all assuming such maneuvers are allowed at all, which in most countries where you drive on the left is not the case.


 * It is absolutely maddening to be in a place that has a lot of one-way streets but doesn't allow lefts on red (the District of Columbia being the one I encounter the most). But even in places where left on red is allowed, the majority of drivers seem not to know that it's permitted. I routinely drive through an intersection where this is allowed and I'm the only person I ever see doing it. 1995hoo (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To explain my point, I'll quote the section to which I am referring. The heading of the section is "Left on Red in Countries With Right Hand Traffic." I'll use bold type for references to the numbers of states mentioned. "In the U.S., 36 states and Puerto Rico allow left turns on red only if both the origin and destination streets are one way. (See South Carolina law Section 56-5-970 C3,[32] for example.) Five other states, namely Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Oregon and Washington, allow left turns on red onto a one-way street even from a two-way street.[33][34][35][36][37] The following states and territories ban left turns on red: South Dakota (unless permitted by local ordinance), Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, the District of Columbia, and Guam.[citation needed] New York City also prohibits left turn on red lights, unless a sign indicates otherwise.[38] I've counted the states mentioned several times. First, 36 states are mentioned which allow left on red from a one way onto a one way. Next, five states are mentioned which allow left on red from a two way in addition to one way. Finally, eight states are named which do not permit left on red. That adds up to 49 states. I believe New York State was neglected probably because New York City was singled out. cm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.208.255 (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Red Arrow
"In some states, including California and New York, a right turn on red is prohibited when a red arrow is present." I've been living in New York state for 30 years and I've never seen a red arrow at any time, anywhere, under any circumstance. Until now, I've never even heard of a red arrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.81.49 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed California from that statement since this is not a true statement (see source sited above). I don't know about New York.  I added fact tag to get this address. —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  04:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This was an improper edit, as CVC 21453(c) specifically forbids turning right at a right red arrow.


 * What about New York? I checked the source and only found this line:
 * RED ARROW: Do not go in the direction of the arrow until the red arrow light goes out and a green light or arrow light goes on
 * Does it really say "no turn without green arrow on if red arrow is present"? I doubt it. I think it says "no turn unless green arrow is on or main section green is on". I also checked the NY traffic code and did not find any references which suggest red arrow presence is significant. Should we remove the whole sentence completely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoverny (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Format and content
This article resembles a list of heresay. I'm not sure the regionality is a good approach, since there will be a lot of redunancy between regions. The latest addition to the article on oceania is a good example. That content couldn't just as easily been added to several other sections for other regions in the article. Many areas have traffic islands and free right (left) turns. I suggest rewriting this article, keeping in mind the general concepts. If regional exceptions to those concepts then apply, they can be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Thought? —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 19:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who was first?
Georgia was allowing right turn on red in the 1950s. California may have "had a law" in 1947, but I lived there in the early 1960s and no one knew about it nor did it. I suspect that Jimmy Carter, from Georgia, was instrumental in getting this passed in the late 1970s after becoming President. Can't find anything to substantiate this though. Student7 (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The state of New York City?
An editor consistently tries to word the current paragraph to make it appear that NYC is a state. It is a municipality inside NY state. NY state law is "right turn on red", the law of all 50 states and territories. The city (not metropolis BTW) of NYC has issued an exception for the entire city. That is fine, but other cities probably have exceptions as well. Because it is large, the only one we know about is NYC. But it is still not a state and therefore not an "exception" to the rule for states nor territories either. Student7 (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Right Turn Signal sign
The article says that you may turn right on red in the US unless there is a "No Turn on Red" or "Right Turn Signal". I don't believe that last point is correct. The right turn signal sign tells motorists that the signal head next to it applies exclusively to traffic in the dedicated turn lane below that signal head. Separate signals control traffic in the through lane or lanes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.75.120 (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree that this seems ambiguous. Editors have obviously tried to "clarify by committee." I shortened, hoping to clarify. Student7 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @173.49.75.120 ambiguity is correct, there's disagreements amongst the states. In Michigan, a red arrow is not a "no turn on red" Mr kitehead (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

A strange sentence
"In Washington, freeway on-ramps are considered one-way streets for the purposes of the left turn on red law."

Is there some special meaning behind this sentence? Is there any sense in which a freeway on-ramp is not considered a one-way street in Washington? Or is there some other state that has two-way freeway on-ramps (whatever that would mean)?

I'm sure this sentence is true, but it's kind of like saying "Barack Obama has 5 fingers on his right hand". It's suggesting something, but what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.161.246 (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. I rm it. Not sure why state police bother to differentiate. Just odd and does not seem to contribute anything to the article. Student7 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * IIRC, some ramps in D.C. are one-way inbound during morning peak hours, outbound during evening peak, and two-way during off peak. That may have something to do with it. More research is needed.--Triskele Jim 20:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * According to this article which cites Washington State Patrol as their source, freeway on-ramps are not considered one-way streets, but rather "connected to the larger multi-directional highway system," and thus the left turn on red rule does not apply. -- 97.120.222.75 (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Gasoline usage
The enviornment is a factor. Here is a crude gestimate for gas consumption of right turn on red. 100 major cities 2500 ntor per city (this encludes a massive amount of suburban sprawl) 10 sec average wait time 1/16 tanks of gass used in 1 hour of idl 20 gal Average tank of gas 16 hours per day

Thats. 100 * 2500 * 1/12/60 * 1/16 * 20 * 16

So i get about 6944 galons or. 833 cubic feet of gas

A cube of gas 9.4 foot wide, high and deep.

Every day.

Thats some tire fire.

72.94.242.150 (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Self-contradictory traffic light photo


The image caption states "A self-contradictory "Right turn on red" traffic light in Belgrade, Serbia". Why is this contradictory? Many EU and surrounding countries place an arrow in the red/yellow lights to indicate that there is a side-section for that direction. The arrow in red light means there is a side-section for turning right. (It is not red arrow, it is black arrow in red light.) In this case, one can only go right when the side-section is green, and must give way to others. (If there wasn't a side-section, then they wouldn't have to give way.) — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Left turn on red in New Jersey
Apparently according to NJSA 39:4-115 (http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/39-motor-vehicles-and-traffic-regulation/4-115.html) New Jersey does not expressly permit left turns on red. I'm planning on updating that section of the article, adding New Jersey to the list of states that prohibit left turns on red and reducing the number of states that allow the maneuver from 38 to 37. I also plan to update the map, and color New Jersey red and also color Alaska the darker blue color since it apparently allows left turns on red from a two-way to one-way but the map doesn't indicate such. Any objections? AstareGod (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Left turn on red
Why is this article called "Right turn on red"? Why isn't it called something not specific to what side of the road a country drives on? It could just as easily be called "Left turn on red" in England or Japan (yes I know it's against the law in those two countries). megamalx (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename "Left turn on red" section
It appears there wasn't really any discussion on the renaming of the "Left turn on red" section. Right now it reads "Left turn on red in countries with right hand traffic (turning across traffic)" - 13 words. While I understand the need to specify to which countries that section applies, in my opinion, the section name as it reads now is too wordy. I propose renaming this section to "Left turn on red in countries that drive on the right". Plus, left turns from one-way streets into other one-way streets does not cross traffic - similarly to how a right turn on red does not cross any traffic. Only in those states/provinces that allow left turns on red from two-way streets onto one-way streets does crossing traffic come into play, and since that section is not totally dedicated to left turns on red from two-way streets onto one-way streets, I propose the "(turning across traffic)" verbiage also be removed from the name of the section. AstareGod ([[User talk:Astare

Number of states named/referred to in left on red section don't add up to fifty
In the section Left Turn on Red in Countries with Right Hand Traffic, I've counted the states mentioned several times. First, 36 states are said to allow left on red from a one way onto a one way. Next, five states are stated to allow left on red from a two way in addition to one way. Finally, eight states are named which do not permit left on red. That adds up to 49 states. I believe New York State was neglected probably because New York City was singled out. New York State should be added to the list of states which allow left on red from a one way onto a one way. In other words, 37 states, not 36, as stated in the article, allow this maneuver. cam8510
 * You do appear to be correct, however this section is under-sourced anyway. There are only references for South Carolina and the "five other states" plus New York City. Unless sourcing can be improved, I'd be looking towards removing mentions of any other states, including New York. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Free left in India
In most of the cities free left is allowed. Only in rare cases (multiple intersections), free left is not allowed. India times. So it is usually said "free left unless otherwise noted".

I will get more sources soon, so that the info in article can be corrected. —usernamekiran (talk ) 22:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

MASSACHUSETTS was the last U.S. state to allow turns on red..!
I was quite surprised to see a mention in the "Turn on red" article in Wikipedia, when the phrase "In June 1978, Maryland became the last state to allow right turns on red." was posted...

...As I distinctly remember, as a veteran Massachusetts motorist of forty years' experience behind the wheel, that the Bay State was the state that held that dubious honor!

That Bay State gubernatorial throwback to the motorist-hating state-level American legislators at the dawn of the 20th century, one Michael Dukakis, was infamous in Bay State history for stiffly resisting calls from the United States Congress in the late 1970s to allow right turns on red lights. When the Bay State finally allowed "RTOR", Dukakis promptly put up "No Turn On Red" signs at SO many Massachusetts road intersections that the United States Senate did a review of Dukakis' behavior in regards to that action, and found that roughly half of those signs simply had no justification for being posted at so MANY intersections.

Finding newspaper proof of how all this happened COULD be a challenge...!

The PIPE (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you may be right. This Harvard Crimson article indicates Massachusetts pased the law on August 8, 1979, to go into effect on January 1, 1980. The Crimson also states Massachusetts was the last state to change, and also notes that signs prohibiting the behavior were at least planned for 90% of intersections. I will change the article. MarginalCost (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

School Buses and Hazmats
"In the United States outside New York City, right turns are permitted on red (except for school buses and trucks carrying hazardous materials)"

I'm sticking a CN tag on that. The only source I can find is the picture caption itself, which google regurgitates as authoritative. Even truckers are confused. Eastcheap (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that statement could simply be removed. I've seen school buses in North Carolina where the state and/or district has applied a sticker on the back of their school buses reading "NC law says school buses can't turn right on red" (as an explanation for drivers that are behind the bus), which would probably be stated as a federal law if it existed at that level. 07:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Left On Red map
The map showing where left on red is legal or illegal needs a minor correction: Alaska should be in dark blue, not teal, as it's named as one of the few states that allow a left-on-red from a 2-way to a 1-way street. Mr kitehead (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction in text on USA?
Is it me or is this contradictory? What's correct? All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico have allowed right turns on red since 1980, except where prohibited by a sign or where right turns are controlled by dedicated traffic lights. (...) The few exceptions include New York City, where right turns on red are prohibited unless a sign indicates otherwise, and in Washington, DC , which will prohibit right turns on red in 2025. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Map requested
Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Pedestrian safety in intro paragraphs
I noticed the second paragraph in the intro mentions twice that RTOR is dangerous to pedestrians. Frankly, the shoehorned way it's written sounds like anti-car bias and the citations are a little weak. However, I fully accept that there are RTOR conflicts with pedestrians.

"North American traffic engineers first introduced this rule as a fuel savings measure in the 1970s, despite detrimental effects to the safety of pedestrians." The wording of this makes it sounds like engineers devised the plan in the 70s while knowing it was dangerous for pedestrians; but it appears it was first studied in 1984. It references Citation 4 which agrees that RTOR "can" be dangerous to pedestrians but doesn't go into specifics. Maybe it can say "North American traffic engineers first introduced this rule as a fuel-saving measure in the 1970s. Later studies suggest a higher risk of pedestrian crashes in pedestrian-dense areas" and use citation 4?

Citation 5 goes on about pedestrian crashes but explicitly says "There are no recent, nationwide studies of how many people are hurt or killed by right-turning drivers." Finally, Citation 6 makes mention of a 1984 study, which if you click the link, is a short paragraph by IIHS that says "From a review of the available literature it is estimated..." So to say pedestrian deaths jump 60% where RTOR is allowed is misleading because in 1984, there was only a few years of crash data (especially since MA only got RTOR in 1980) and also an "estimate" without explaining how it was determined. Car design, driver training, and DWI/seat belt laws, and driver habits have changed significantly in the last 40 years. Crispy1995 (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)