Ridiculous "No right turn on red" lights

[stormchaser]

I've only lived in Omaha for a few years (since 2015) and have always wondered why Omaha insists on spending money on those "No right turn on red" lights at stop lights? Are people unable to see when cars/traffic are coming or something to know they can/can't go? Just always thought it was a huge waste of tax payer money that could be put towards fixing potholes, etc (admittedly I have no clue what they cost...but still)

[Louie]

I've only lived in Omaha for a few years (since 2015) and have always wondered why Omaha insists on spending money on those "No right turn on red" lights at stop lights? Are people unable to see when cars/traffic are coming or something to know they can/can't go? Just always thought it was a huge waste of tax payer money that could be put towards fixing potholes, etc (admittedly I have no clue what they cost...but still)

I believe the purpose of them is to give right of way to oncoming traffic turning left across your lane. Its just a safety thing, I guess.

[stormchaser]

I've only lived in Omaha for a few years (since 2015) and have always wondered why Omaha insists on spending money on those "No right turn on red" lights at stop lights? Are people unable to see when cars/traffic are coming or something to know they can/can't go? Just always thought it was a huge waste of tax payer money that could be put towards fixing potholes, etc (admittedly I have no clue what they cost...but still)

I believe the purpose of them is to give right of way to oncoming traffic turning left across your lane. Its just a safety thing, I guess.

Makes sense I guess from a legal standpoint anyway though I'd hope most know they have to yield to oncoming traffic. I'm just surprised they don't just use a metal sign up on the stop light saying to yield like most other cities...at the very least it seems like overkill IMO

[stormchaser]

Also, I'll probably get myself into trouble if I ever get ticketed for turning anyhow despite what that sign says when CLEARLY no traffic is coming. I guess that's the other concern I have - getting a ticket from disobeying "the light"

[nebugeater]

Also, I'll probably get myself into trouble if I ever get ticketed for turning anyhow despite what that sign says when CLEARLY no traffic is coming. I guess that's the other concern I have - getting a ticket from disobeying "the light"

Simple solution to that. Obey the sign.

[stormchaser]

Also, I'll probably get myself into trouble if I ever get ticketed for turning anyhow despite what that sign says when CLEARLY no traffic is coming. I guess that's the other concern I have - getting a ticket from disobeying "the light"

Simple solution to that. Obey the sign.

Lol yep (obviously). But I refuse to because the city wants to waste tax payer money on pointless signs like those seemingly just so they can ticket drivers who don't obey them (IMO that's really the only explanation for having them - easy money for the city). It's common sense IMO (and the law) that you have to yield to on coming traffic when turning right. I don't need a sign to tell me I have to stop and wait and twiddle my thumbs if it's safe to turn right. It's a waste of tax payer money and needlessly slows down traffic flow IMO. I've never been ticketed for it though. If I ever am, so be it I guess. I'll continue to do it because it's dumb IMO. I realize this all makes me sound like an idiot but that's okay .

On a side note, if the city really wants easy money, why not put an officer up near the intersection of 84th and L street during rush hour. In the 3 years that I've lived here I don't think I've EVER gone through that intersection during rush hour where I don't see multiple vehicles BLATANTLY driving through red lights (turning left which is obviously WAY more dangerous) - often times as many as 5 vehicles at a time driving through a red light before cross traffic can even go. But nah, lets worry about the drivers who are intelligent enough to look and know when to yield and when it's safe to go who are turning right and pose little risk to any other drivers in the intersection...

[nebugeater]

Also, I'll probably get myself into trouble if I ever get ticketed for turning anyhow despite what that sign says when CLEARLY no traffic is coming. I guess that's the other concern I have - getting a ticket from disobeying "the light"

Simple solution to that. Obey the sign.

Lol yep (obviously). But I refuse to because the city wants to waste tax payer money on pointless signs like those seemingly just so they can ticket drivers who don't obey them (IMO that's really the only explanation for having them - easy money for the city). It's common sense IMO (and the law) that you have to yield to on coming traffic when turning right. I don't need a sign to tell me I have to stop and wait and twiddle my thumbs if it's safe to turn right. It's a waste of tax payer money and needlessly slows down traffic flow IMO. I've never been ticketed for it though. If I ever am, so be it I guess. I'll continue to do it because it's dumb IMO. I realize this all makes me sound like an idiot but that's okay .

On a side note, if the city really wants easy money, why not put an officer up near the intersection of 84th and L street during rush hour. In the 3 years that I've lived here I don't think I've EVER gone through that intersection during rush hour where I don't see multiple vehicles BLATANTLY driving through red lights (turning left which is obviously WAY more dangerous) - often times as many as 5 vehicles at a time driving through a red light before cross traffic can even go. But nah, lets worry about the drivers who are intelligent enough to look and know when to yield and when it's safe to go who are turning right and pose little risk to any other drivers in the intersection...

Fair enough..... Can I decide which regulations and laws I want to ignore..

[stormchaser]

Also, I'll probably get myself into trouble if I ever get ticketed for turning anyhow despite what that sign says when CLEARLY no traffic is coming. I guess that's the other concern I have - getting a ticket from disobeying "the light"

Simple solution to that. Obey the sign.

Lol yep (obviously). But I refuse to because the city wants to waste tax payer money on pointless signs like those seemingly just so they can ticket drivers who don't obey them (IMO that's really the only explanation for having them - easy money for the city). It's common sense IMO (and the law) that you have to yield to on coming traffic when turning right. I don't need a sign to tell me I have to stop and wait and twiddle my thumbs if it's safe to turn right. It's a waste of tax payer money and needlessly slows down traffic flow IMO. I've never been ticketed for it though. If I ever am, so be it I guess. I'll continue to do it because it's dumb IMO. I realize this all makes me sound like an idiot but that's okay .

On a side note, if the city really wants easy money, why not put an officer up near the intersection of 84th and L street during rush hour. In the 3 years that I've lived here I don't think I've EVER gone through that intersection during rush hour where I don't see multiple vehicles BLATANTLY driving through red lights (turning left which is obviously WAY more dangerous) - often times as many as 5 vehicles at a time driving through a red light before cross traffic can even go. But nah, lets worry about the drivers who are intelligent enough to look and know when to yield and when it's safe to go who are turning right and pose little risk to any other drivers in the intersection...

Fair enough..... Can I decide which regulations and laws I want to ignore..

LOL, sure - I don't see why not

[iamjacobm]

I have only noticed them on intersections that don't have a clear line of sight.

[stormchaser]

I have only noticed them on intersections that don't have a clear line of sight.

Maybe some are like that I guess, not any that I've seen though. The ones that I've seen only "light up" when traffic from the opposite direction is turning left toward you (which is typically easy to see when those cars are coming since they are right across from you basically). The sign doesn't "light up" though if cross traffic has a green light to go straight which is actually harder to see sometimes because you occasionally have to pull further out into the intersection to see past the front of the cars next to you to see the oncoming cross traffic and those cars going straight in general are traveling at a higher rate of speed (i.e. so it's actually more dangerous to turn right at that time but based on the idiotic sign, that's when they've decided it's "okay" to go if you feel it's safe - which makes no sense). When you think about it, the city is spending tax payer money on regulating the SAFEST possible turn you can make in any intersection and in doing so, probably actually making it more dangerous than it needs to be...

[iamjacobm]

Ahh I see what you are saying. I was thinking about the ones, usually on the east side of town, that say no right turn b/c of an obstructed view.

Maybe the city traffic engineering department could have an answer as to why they find them necessary when oncoming traffic is turning left. I would guess that it is b/c usually right turns you look at cross traffic, so that is an abnormal situation that could lead to accidents. Just a guess though.

[nebugeater]

Many time they are were there is a cross walk also that doesn't have sensors to really know when someone is in the crosswalk and a changing sign from WALK to DON'T WALK

[Omababe]

Simple solution to that. Obey the sign.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been honked at from behind when I've obeyed those signs!

[BRoss]

I have only noticed them on intersections that don't have a clear line of sight.

This is usually the reason they put them up. Some intersections have some kind of obstruction which makes the intersection more accident prone in which point they put these signs up to reduce the number of collisions.

The ones that I've seen only "light up" when traffic from the opposite direction is turning left toward you (which is typically easy to see when those cars are coming since they are right across from you basically)

Those signs are usually on intersections with dual left turn lanes. Normally with a single left turn lane, the left turn is supposed to turn into the leftmost lane. And since right turns are supposed to go into the rightmost lane, they can technically go at the same time. But since traffic is going to be turning into both lanes, right turns cannot go at the same time, hence the no turn sign when traffic is turning left.

[Busguy2010]

Those signs are usually on intersections with dual left turn lanes. Normally with a single left turn lane, the left turn is supposed to turn into the leftmost lane. And since right turns are supposed to go into the rightmost lane, they can technically go at the same time. But since traffic is going to be turning into both lanes, right turns cannot go at the same time, hence the no turn sign when traffic is turning left.

Beat me to it. I do believe the light up ones are ONLY at double left turn intersections, at least I can't name a single turn lane intersection that has a light up no right turn sign.

I think they help, though. I've caught myself looking left for the cross traffic and when there's some late crossers, the light up sign is a good reminder that you're not gonna want to try and sneak in behind that person because you don't have a free lane to turn into.

This discussion has reminded me of another topic I'd like to discuss.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

I’ve found them somewhat useful. I can’t imagine they cost too much in taxpayer money.

[Brad]

A lot of them are on intersections with a double left turn lane. When the double left turns green, the no left turn light comes on. Its just an extra layer of safety. Too many drivers don't come to a complete stop on red when turning right.

[ChadJK]

A lot of them are on intersections with a double left turn lane. When the double left turns green, the no left turn light comes on. Its just an extra layer of safety. Too many drivers don't come to a complete stop on red when turning right.

I noticed the same. If the opposing side of the intersection has TWO left turn lanes then you'll get a "no right turn" lit-up sign while those two left turn lanes have green arrows. They don't trust people to watch BOTH turn lanes before making a right turn on red. I tend to ignore those lights. They're never enforced and I just know to "look again" and check both opposing left turn lanes before turning when the "no right turn" sign is lit.

There are intersections that have permanently posted "no right turn on red" sign. Again, I ignore those too. Many of those intersections I made right turns on red for years before the signs went up.

Traffic enforcement in the metro area's smaller communities (La Vista, Papillion, Bellevue, etc.) can be a bear, but in Omaha I find there is pretty much NO traffic enforcement at all. You can pretty much drive with impunity in Omaha. Sure, the interstates, expressways, and freeways can have occasional speed traps from the State Patrol or Douglas County Sheriff, but all of the other streets are largely unmonitored. If I'm north of Harrison I don't even worry about being ticketed.

[PWL73316]

A lot of them are on intersections with a double left turn lane. When the double left turns green, the no left turn light comes on. Its just an extra layer of safety. Too many drivers don't come to a complete stop on red when turning right.

I noticed the same. If the opposing side of the intersection has TWO left turn lanes then you'll get a "no right turn" lit-up sign while those two left turn lanes have green arrows. They don't trust people to watch BOTH turn lanes before making a right turn on red. I tend to ignore those lights. They're never enforced and I just know to "look again" and check both opposing left turn lanes before turning when the "no right turn" sign is lit.

There are intersections that have permanently posted "no right turn on red" sign. Again, I ignore those too. Many of those intersections I made right turns on red for years before the signs went up.

Traffic enforcement in the metro area's smaller communities (La Vista, Papillion, Bellevue, etc.) can be a bear, but in Omaha I find there is pretty much NO traffic enforcement at all. You can pretty much drive with impunity in Omaha. Sure, the interstates, expressways, and freeways can have occasional speed traps from the State Patrol or Douglas County Sheriff, but all of the other streets are largely unmonitored. If I'm north of Harrison I don't even worry about being ticketed.

Basically agree with this. There's a light at 57th and Leavenworth that has a no right on red sign, I ignore it almost every day, otherwise you wait 5 minutes for the light to change.

Omaha has little to no traffic enforcement, ever. I can't remember the last time I saw someone pulled over for traffic enforcement that wasn't on an interstate. Considering OPD still can't manage to scare off the street racers on Abbott Drive every week, I don't think the rest of us have anything to worry about for a long time.

[stormchaser]

Also, I'll probably get myself into trouble if I ever get ticketed for turning anyhow despite what that sign says when CLEARLY no traffic is coming. I guess that's the other concern I have - getting a ticket from disobeying "the light"

Simple solution to that. Obey the sign.

Lol yep (obviously). But I refuse to because the city wants to waste tax payer money on pointless signs like those seemingly just so they can ticket drivers who don't obey them (IMO that's really the only explanation for having them - easy money for the city). It's common sense IMO (and the law) that you have to yield to on coming traffic when turning right. I don't need a sign to tell me I have to stop and wait and twiddle my thumbs if it's safe to turn right. It's a waste of tax payer money and needlessly slows down traffic flow IMO. I've never been ticketed for it though. If I ever am, so be it I guess. I'll continue to do it because it's dumb IMO. I realize this all makes me sound like an idiot but that's okay .

On a side note, if the city really wants easy money, why not put an officer up near the intersection of 84th and L street during rush hour. In the 3 years that I've lived here I don't think I've EVER gone through that intersection during rush hour where I don't see multiple vehicles BLATANTLY driving through red lights (turning left which is obviously WAY more dangerous) - often times as many as 5 vehicles at a time driving through a red light before cross traffic can even go. But nah, lets worry about the drivers who are intelligent enough to look and know when to yield and when it's safe to go who are turning right and pose little risk to any other drivers in the intersection...

Fair enough..... Can I decide which regulations and laws I want to ignore..

Yep, actually you can - you just have to be prepared to face the consequences of doing so ;)

[ScrattyB]

What if the light no longer works? I guess we are free to make right turns.