Citizen complaint of the day: Goofus and Gallant get on Storrow Drive

There is a police station right there. Drivers know that these things aren't enforced.

Back in the 1980s, when this was "unimproved", they had a State Cop there at rush hour making people behave.

that, being totally automated, has no ability to use judgment in assessing the possible situation behind the apparent violation, presumes the owner of the vehicle was driving when the apparent violation occurred, where the system of administering and processing violations is totally handled by for-profit companies who get a share of the fines collected, and provides no practical means for a driver to appeal the apparent violation.

Not to mention that it is all too easy to rig systems to force otherwise law-abiding people into breaking the law (witness the "let's reduce the yellow time so people will end up running red lights" ploy that has happened in cities like Chicago).

Say what you will about Massachusetts police being lax on traffic enforcement, the Legislature's continued decision to not legalize traffic enforcement cameras is still a good one.

Personally I don't want to deal with shortened yellow light times in an effort to raise more money. Of course, the process of selecting a company and that company's operations would be totally above board in MA.

Try "has to build things according to ADA specifications".

MassDOT would also be under those mandates. Both are already under those mandates, and the mandate for HIA, too.

The purpose of the entire world isn't to make traffic flow nicely - like that is possible when so many people insist on driving alone anyway.

Next up: Roadman starts bitching incessantly about the traffic "caused" by construction of the overpasses.

Rather than the real cause of traffic, of course,

It's a bad thing in the sense that people expect each other to follow the signs/lane markings.

It's also bad if you're a bicyclist going straight across to Martha Rd. You would certainly not be expecting someone to be turning right from the middle lane.

The reason they were reluctant to legalize ROTR was because they knew that Massholes would turn right on every red light, whether or not it was posted, or whether or not it was safe to proceed. And based on my experience in the following thirty years, they were 100% correct.

I don't know who these unicorns are who you're describing, sitting at red lights and refusing to turn red, in case they're members of the tiny population who actually wait until it's safe to proceed before hitting the gas.

When the Feds first permitted RTOR on a national basis, Massachusetts responded by posting signs at locations re RTOR was allowed - which was opposite of the "RTOR unless there's a sign prohibiting it" standard the rest of the country was using. A little over a year later, the Feds came in and told Massachusetts to conform to the national standard.

Note that the majority of the No Turn On Red signs put up immediately thereafter by the NTOR fairies were installed by local cities and towns, not the state. Like 15 mph speed limits on through streets and Slow - Children Playing signs, politicians consider NTOR another "magic bullet" that will instantly solve every traffic safety problem in the community. It's also one of the reasons why NTOR restrictions are ignored by so many drivers.

And yes, the Federal MUTCD does give guidelines for the placement of No Turn On Red restrictions. However, unlike standards for traffic signal installations, they are guidelines, not actual "you SHALL meet these requirements first" warrants.

Personally, I believe the national standard for RTOR should be "can make right turn on red WHEN there's a sign posted." This change would be consistent with the national standard for right turn on red arrow, which prohibits RTOR at an arrow unless there's a sign posted that allows it (although Massachusetts RTOR law does not distinguish between a red 'ball" and a red arrow, but just states "red indication").