The word ONLY is an option and does not have to be painted on the roadway to
make it required to turn. In most states, the pavement markings are not
enforceable unles there is a sign as well.

I must be missing something. Did the lane have any markings or any signs
indicating a right turn requirement? What makes it a "Right Turn Lane?"
Regarding use of the painted word ONLY, it is not mandatory, but can be used to
supplement an Arrow and sign.

The lane was marked with a Sign which read "Right Turn Lane."


My question is, why is this sign different from other signs that read "Right
Lane MUST Turn Right"

Now I understand. You are a "victim" of what the MUTCD is supposed to
eliminate: un-Uniformity. Unless your state has its own MUTCD, the sign is
technically not "legal" but I doubt you could get a judge to understand or
agree.

Just out of professional curiousity (i.e. I'm not trying to be a smart-arse):
As you were in the lane and cognitively processing the meaning of the RIGHT
TURN LANE sign, what message, if any, did you conclude the sign was trying to
convey? Again, my aim is not to embarrass anyone, rather to take advantage of
an excellent object lesson in the human factors element of traffic engineering.

I can't speak for this driver, but it's reasonable to suppose that such a sign
does not mean one must turn into the health club driveway just ahead (the one
that he passed), because standard RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT signs installed on
many intersection approaches in advance of driveways that access corner
commercial properties have conditioned drivers to interpret the turning
requirement to apply (as it legally does) to the public street intersection,
not to the driveway; otherwise everyone in the right lane would have to turn
into the Krispy Kreme. If the "right turn lane" (marked with a series of RT
arrow markings) extends past multiple driveways, the requirement becomes
ambiguous. A driver preparing to enter the roadway from a driveway may assume
that an approaching driver in the RT lane will turn in, enter the roadway, then
collide with the proceeding driver (was the crash the original poster
experienced of just this type?). Law enforcement officers in Florida have
stated they cannot cite the proceeding driver for failure to turn into a
commercial driveway (i.e., except where the driveway is designed as a
conventional public street intersection, such as at the entrance to a large
shopping center). Such "continuous right turn lanes" also create an ambiguous
situation for through-riding cyclists; if they ride along the right, they are
subject to the same confusion re their intentions, and may be "right-hooked" by
overtaking motorists turning into driveways. If they ride along the left side
of the RT lane, they find themselves riding between cars merging in and out of
the RT lane. Because of the confusion such lanes have caused, installations
have been modified.

Only the responsible road agency could definitely tell you why they used a
RIGHT TURN LANE sign. It is not a standard sign recognized in the MUTCD or
federal Standard Highway Signs book. Perhaps your state has adopted this sign
in a supplemental manual. Regulatory signs whose legends are simple noun
phrases do not communicate "the applicability of...legal requirements"
(http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part2/part2b1.htm#section2B01) absent the
promulgation of such requirements, or authority for agency establishment of
such requirements, in state or local codes. For example, signs that designate
preferential lanes, such as HOV lanes or transit lanes
(http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part2/part2b2.htm#section2B26), but do
not include the word ONLY (e.g., RIGHT LANE BUSES ONLY, the R3-11b sign, which
implies the verb "use"), do not communicate a required or prohibited action
except where regulations establish such conditions with respect to lanes so
designated. In some cases, the word ONLY is not included in right-turn-only
lane markings if the channelizing geometry and markings are such that the
requirement should be obvious to drivers. This is consistent with the principle
of implementing only such traffic control devices as "fulfill a need"
(http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part1/part1a.htm#section1A02).
Unnecessary traffic control devices contribute to the situation the ADAC
(Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club, German equivalent of the AAA) refers to
as the "forest of signs" (http://tinyurl.com/qqvgx).

My guess is that the Health Club (private property) contractor put up any sign
they wanted because they had that one behind their shed in the yard and got the
project / improvements / final inspection approved because they know no one
from the government (Traffic Eng) checks signs or sometimes is even invited to
a final inspection. So it went unoticed and instead of putting up the agency's
standard RLMTR, they charged them for one anyway, put up whatever, and then a
collision occured. Happens all of the time. Who would hold up certificate of
occupancy for a traffic sign?

Listen, if the lane had an arrow going right painted on the pavement, you
should be able to assume that it is a RIGHT TURN ONLY lane. Look, if it had an
arrow going straight WITH an arrow going right extending out of it painted on
the pavement, or if it had no arrows AT ALL in that lane, i'd completely agree
with you. However, that was not the case, and I believe that in the future, you
should be more aware of the arrows on the pavement. And if you REALLY believe
the arrow needs an ONLY after it (because it sounds like the intent of the
roads commission was for that lane to be a RIGHT TURN ONLY lane), then you
should complain to whoever maintains the roads and ask them to put an ONLY in
that lane.

Just a few more details about the accident. I am a new driver, being only 18
years old. The woman who I hit is 43. I was guilty of driving through the
"Right Turn Lane," (like everyone going to the next intersection does when
traffic is backed up from the light). That was a mistake, duly noted. My
original post was questioning the discrepancy between the two sign usages. I
could not find any pattern in the usage of RLMTR signs and RTL signs. The idea
that the private owner of the club erected the sign himself may explain this,
thank you.

Believe it or not, although the police report submitted sited me at fault, my
insurance agent disagreed. Thankfully the woman I hit had the same insurance
company. The accident was like a T-bone; she was approaching from the opposite
direction and making a left hand turn, through two lanes of traffic (and my
'right turn lane'). The two lanes of traffic to my left acted as a barrier,
through which she emerged immediately in front of my car. Even if I were
turning right into the club there would have been an accident, because she
didn't notice my car and yield to it.

My age may have played into the police officers decision to put me at fault,
but I had to laugh because at the scene of the accident he had said, "Going
through this Right Turn Lane is completely understandable, I do it all the
time." Later that fact proved to be what made the accident my fault. The
insurance company places failure to yield to oncoming traffic as higher on the
traffic offense list. I didn't receive any blame or penalties.

Benjamin, congratulations. Justice does prevail sometimes. I used to see many
of the RTL signs in use when I lived in Mass. where they ignore accepted
standards all over the place. There was still a yellow YIELD sign on the street
the last time I visited.In my present location, they have removed most of the
RLMTR signs unless the lane is so many hundreds of feet long, thinking
(erroneously imho) that the pavement arrows suffice.

What state was your crash in? Knowing the city would also be interesting.

It occured in Eden Prairie, MN. About a 14 minute drive into downtown
Minneapolis.