Biking in Boston

From the Mass RMV Manual:

https://www.massrmv.com/Portals/30/docs/mcmanual/18_TrafficSignals.pdf
STEADY RED
A steady red light means “STOP.” Do not proceed until the light turns green. You may make a right turn on a red light only after coming to a complete stop. You must also yield to pedestrians or other vehicles in your path before turning. You may not turn on red if a NO TURN ON RED sign is posted.
If you are traveling on a one-way street and turning left onto another one-way street, you are allowed to turn left on a red light. Come to a complete stop and yield to pedestrians and other vehicles before turning.

STEADY RED ARROW
A steady red arrow means the same as a steady red stop circular signal (see the preceding Steady Red section), but a steady red arrow applies only to vehicles intending to proceed in the direction of the arrow. The same rules apply for TURNS ON RED.

https://www.massrmv.com/Portals/30/docs/mcmanual/25_Turns.pdf
TURNS ON RED
After coming to a complete stop at a red traffic light, you are allowed to turn right on red after giving the right-of-way to pedestrians and other vehicles, unless a NO TURN ON RED sign is posted. You may turn left on red following the same rules only if you are turning from a one-way street onto another one-way street.

MA is in conflict with MUTCD. The below is wordy, but basically it says a right turn on red arrow is only ALLOWED when their is a sign permitting the move, not the opposite that we have in MA where the sign is necessary to PROHIBIT:

Q: The 2000 MUTCD changed the meaning of a right turn red arrow signal by prohibiting right turns on a red arrow after stopping unless there is a sign specifically allowing it. Then, in the 2003 MUTCD, the R10-17a (Right on Red Arrow After Stop) sign was added to go along with this. In my State, turning right on a red arrow after stopping is legal. Why was the MUTCD changed?
A: The R10-17a sign and the revised definition of the meaning of a red arrow signal stem from a change in the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) that revised the meaning of the red arrow to include the prohibition of turns on red arrow after stopping unless a sign specifically permits it. The UVC change came about because of the lack of uniformity among State laws on this subject. The majority of States' laws prohibit the turn on red arrow after stopping without a permissive sign, while the minority of States allow turns on red arrows after stop unless a sign prohibits it. The UVC, which is written by a group comprised mostly of State motor vehicle administrators, adopted the majority practice. The change also took into account that a key use of red right arrows is with signal phasing that "protects" the pedestrian crossing from right turn traffic during a "leading pedestrian interval" by keeping the right turns stopped on a red arrow, while the parallel through movement receives a green. Although this isn't the only use for red right turn arrows, it is one in which the red arrow is critical. Allowing RTOR on red arrow under this condition is counter-productive to the purpose of using the red arrow. It was felt that, at the relatively few red right arrow locations where agencies might actually want to allow RTOR, this could be accommodated by posting the sign to specifically allow it there. For reasons of national uniformity, the MUTCD's text on the meanings of signal indications match the UVC.
 
Oh wow, very interesting. Leave it to MA to not follow the same rules as everyone else :)
 
MA also has the issue where right turn green arrows mean nothing.
 
Right turn green arrows are supposed to mean that it's a protected movement right, as in there is no conflicting traffic or pedestrians crossing?
 
Right turn green arrows are supposed to mean that it's a protected movement right, as in there is no conflicting traffic or pedestrians crossing?

It should but in plenty of cases around greater Boston there will be a green R or L arrow and the walk signs light up at the same time. So stupid...
 
I swung by the Staniford section of Connect Historic Boston last night, it's great!

My biggest worry was that the signals at the O'Connell Way T intersection would stop bike traffic every time they stop car traffic, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that they didn't. Instead they only turn red when a pedestrian is waiting to cross, otherwise they remain green:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpA7Gfu01tI:
 
Right turn green arrows are supposed to mean that it's a protected movement right, as in there is no conflicting traffic or pedestrians crossing?

Nationwide: Correct.

In Massachusetts: No. They just mean 'you can drive in that direction too"
 
Nationwide: Correct.

In Massachusetts: No. They just mean 'you can drive in that direction too"

It's the equivalent of the pavement arrows that show straight ahead and a turn with the word "ONLY" painted just before them.
 
BTD reinforced the Mass Ave bike lanes with flex posts:
Cx8whvzXAAAUu21.jpg


It was a harrowing month before these were added, people were parking or driving down the bike lane and blocking cyclists in. People were also parking directly on the buffer and eliminating its ability to buffer cyclists from passenger doors.
 
Nationwide: Correct.

In Massachusetts: No. They just mean 'you can drive in that direction too"

That's not true. I can't think of any location in Boston where a crosswalk conflicts with a right turn arrow. If you know of a location, please let me know. I bet the City would fix it ASAP if they knew too.
 
That's not true. I can't think of any location in Boston where a crosswalk conflicts with a right turn arrow. If you know of a location, please let me know. I bet the City would fix it ASAP if they knew too.

Exactly.This is why you don't see concurrent walk signals on Beacon St and other places in the Back Bay. There are right turn arrows on the signals, and the city (correctly) doesn't want to have a green arrow conflicting with a walk sign. (I say they should get rid of the green arrow and make the walk signals concurrent, but that's a whole other issue.)
 
That's not true. I can't think of any location in Boston where a crosswalk conflicts with a right turn arrow. If you know of a location, please let me know. I bet the City would fix it ASAP if they knew too.

Brand new stoplight (1 yr old) at Centre & Burroughs in JP. Babcock & Harvard in Brookline. There's a few others I can't think of at the moment.

Edit - if you want to tell the city to fix the JP issue, tell them to repaint the crosswalk at Lamartine & Lawndale Terrace that they didn't do after repaving 6 months ago... I've already called them twice, so good luck.
 
Brand new stoplight (1 yr old) at Centre & Burroughs in JP. Babcock & Harvard in Brookline. There's a few others I can't think of at the moment.

Edit - if you want to tell the city to fix the JP issue, tell them to repaint the crosswalk at Lamartine & Lawndale Terrace that they didn't do after repaving 6 months ago... I've already called them twice, so good luck.

Perfect. I live in JP. There are no arrows. They are regular green circles. Yes, I understand that obviously the only vehicular moves from Burroughs are over crosswalks with walk signals, but drivers are required to yield to peds on turns already. A green arrow would indicate that they have a protected turn without concern for pedestrians. That is not the case here.
 
If you are a bike commuter or anyone who rides a bike as "street transportation", please add the Ride Report app to your smartphone so we can crowdsource data on how well our grid is working for bikes:

https://ride.report
 
there arent pedestrian signal heads there (to cross Babcock) either.
that still amazes me. countless signalized intersections that do not have signal heads, and not just in quieter locations (as shown by Comm/Babcock).
 
there arent pedestrian signal heads there (to cross Babcock) either.
that still amazes me. countless signalized intersections that do not have signal heads, and not just in quieter locations (as shown by Comm/Babcock).

When can a pedestrian cross? Either comm ave has a right turn arrow or the cross street has green.

Its either always, or never.
 

Back
Top