Slashdot Mirror

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

In MO, it's legal to make a right on red unless a sign prohibits this. I googled for the traffic code, and what I found was appalling: full stop on red is required before making a right, and this was added in the same bit of the traffic code that added the provisions for red light cameras.

Would you STOP SAYING THAT?! It is WRONG. Maybe the city of St. Louis never specified that a right turn on red required a full stop, but it has been state law for ages, and state laws apply in St. Louis just like anywhere else. Now, if St. Louis thought it necessary to reiterate the existing state law in their city ordinances when they added provisions for the traffic cameras, it doesn’t surprise me one bit.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Section 300.155
Traffic control signal legend--right turn on red light, when.

Item 3, all emphasis added by myself:

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until a green indication is shown except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision;

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

Revised, you say?

Not in 2009... or 2008... or 2007... or the 2007 special session... or 2006, 2005, 2005 special session, 2004, 2003, 2003 special session, 2002, 2001, 2001 special session, 2000...

Now, unless you have some sources that explain why I can’t find anything remotely similar to what you’re claiming, I suggest you stop spouting false information. Several people on several occasions have quoted both the law and the MO drive guide handbook all saying you’re wrong.

I grew up right across the river, have been driving since 1968, and you ALWAYS had to stop before turning right on red. It's state law in both Missouri and Illinois (and afaik everywhere else too).

You can get a book called "rules of the road" at any driver's licence facility, or just download it.

The right turn on red rules vary a bit in this state. In Clayton it was no right on red period for some time (found out the hard way, but since I don't live there the cop just gave me a warning ticket) durring the 90's, and may still be that way, as a local ordinance.
      For Missouri in general try http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutesearch/ for the laws.
      Unfortunately I don't know where each township and county keep their respective laws online if at all.
    It appears that the stop before right on red is state level :

(3) Steady red indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection at a clearly marked stop line but, if none, then before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown except as provided in paragraph (b);

(b) The driver of a vehicle which is stopped as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the entrance to the intersection in obedience to a red signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, except that the state highways and transportation commission with reference to an intersection involving a state highway, and local authorities with reference to an intersection involving other highways under their jurisdiction, may prohibit any such right turn against a red signal at any intersection where safety conditions so require, said prohibition shall be effective when a sign is erected at such intersection giving notice thereof;

    I suspect the stop before turning right rule predates the cameras by a decade or more, it's the same rule as for a stop sign. It's just the enforcement that has changed.
    That said it's a money grab alright.
When you get one of those camera based tickets in the mail that's 'timestamped' over a week before a ding clearly visible in the photo existed you know it's BS.
    Unfortunately it was a minor, non-traffic related ding (no police report or such) and the other minor oddities of the image where all unprovable without expensive experts.

    IANAL and all that.

Mycroft

Missouri:

  "(2) Steady yellow indication

(a) Vehicular traffic facing a steady yellow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection;

(b) Pedestrians facing a steady yellow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in section 304.291, are thereby advised that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway before a red indication is shown and no pedestrian shall then start to cross the roadway. "

    From http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C300-399/3040000281.HTM

Yellow is merely a warning that the green light is about to go out and/or a red light is about turn on and expresses nothing else.

Mycroft

If we take socio-economic mobility as an indication of innovation, and look at effective tax rates rather than book tax rates, the more highly taxed and strictly regulated economies of Europe and the thoroughly Europeanized former colonies have done better than the US in the era of plummeting taxes and deregulation that really kicked of with Reagan.

The only way you can make that claim is if you ignore the over regulation that happpened just before Reagan and during the Reagan years. Holding a mans balls in a vise and clamping it down tighter is not a fair comparison to what he could achieve before you did so.

Also, your wrong to attempt to use socio-economic mobility as a sign of innovation. The biggest innovations in the US would have left people deprived of income and completely offsetting the entire system. As innovation comes about, less work is needed from people which means less pay and a constant increase in less employment. Less taxes make investments possible buy lowing the net gain needed for profit or return on investment which increases the oppertunity for the work thereby increasing the opportunity for income. You need to ask yourself, when is the last time a poor man has given you a job that you could live off of. When is the last time that has happened to anyone you know. It doesn't happen. Taxes take money from people who will give the jobs making jobs less likely to be found. The government then attempts to spend the money which creates a demand which causes jobs to be done. However, because the government is more or less a middle man here, the problems is that the same money is less efficient when the government passes it around. Of course you then get into targeting sectors and stuff like that but that can just as easily be accomplished by targeted tax cuts and direct subsidies.

I often have to backtrack from what people assume my position is when I say things like that.

I can see how you might look at the numbers and come to the conclusions you have. But starting in the 1970's, we started over regulating things and getting concerned about worker safety and the environment. Now we also have two separate tax systems, the federal and the local (state and city) which brings the effective tax rates to a different conclusion. Take states like Road Island and South Carolina and California, you will notice that their effective tax rates are higher then others. It's also the case that their unemployment is higher then others. Now there are many factors for unemployment, GM and other automakers moving plants to Mexico for instance is a reason I didn't include it but when normal economic issues happen, the highest taxed areas generally feel it first and the longest with higher unemployment and so on. Being that the federal government's tax rates are universal across the states, it's easier to see the differences within the states. Here are a few pages you can look through for tax information and unemployment information. Like I said, there are a number of things that effect this stuff, but another indication is the cost of living indexes too. The higher taxes areas generally have a higher cost of living which exaggerate the socio-economic mobility effects you were alluding to before.

I certainly think consequences need to be considered. I even think that the consequences of government inaction, deregulation, loss of public goods, et cetera need to be considered.

Personally, I believe there is a balance that needs to be struck between neccesary services and taxes for them and freedom to keep what you earned. If you get too far to one side, it's off ballance, if you get to far to the other, it's the same. And I believe this g

Yes, people you know. For example, per my antivirus software the last XLS document on this page;
http://www.insurance.mo.gov/industry/forms/index.htm

has MS08-057 exploit in it. My local state government.

What does it matter where I live? ... that does not change the fact that passing on the right is illegal.

It matters because in the states that I'm familiar with, passing on the right is not illegal, and as far as I know, it is not illegal in any US state, so I challenge you to cite the law that says that it is.

Some examples: California: basically says that it's legal if there are at least two lanes going in your direction (an in certain other situations too).

Louisiana: pretty much the same.

Missouri: pretty much the same.

Texas: pretty much the same, except you have to be on a one-way street or a divided highway.

In general, passing on the right is legal in the situations where one would normally want to pass on the right, as long as you actually stay on the road, rather than passing on the shoulder or the grass. So where do you live where passing on the right is illegal? Provide a citation to the statute.

Now available!

"I Am Environmentally Friendly"

For a mere $15, demonstrate to your friends how environmentally friendly you are! This app simply displays a nice green plant on your screen, reminding everyone around you that you care about the environment. Clicking on the cursive i displays a pat-on-the-head mantra about how you helped save the planet.

50% of proceeds ($5.25 per sale) donated to an environmental cause.

This murder has resulted in a new law in Missouri that has a proposed effective date of 8/28/2008. Here is a link: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills081/bills/hb1505.htm This law seems to make it illegal to cuss or use "course language" on the phone, internet or any form of writing, make anonymous phone calls if the intent is to frighten or disturb... so ANY prank calls could now potentially be a felony if the person on the receiving end is a minor and the person on the other end is adult. Making repeated phone calls is in this too - so if you get a collection ageny on your butt, you could possibly use this law and say they were frigtening you... especially if you are a minor - just have your kid screen your calls... if the kid answers, you have a case... Basically, any flame forum threads can become a possible felony if a kid is reading and feels disturbed or threatened in any way when reading... Something interesting in it - adult is defined as 21 years or older, child is any person under 17 years. I guess if you are 18, 19, or 20 you are not considered an adult so any crimes you commit under this law would be a misdemeanor instead of felony?... Something else interesting - repeat harassment is considered "aggravated stalking" so if flame wars are going to definitely fall under here if they go on and on and on... and if the person doing that stalking (flame ware) is adult and person receiving it is child, you it's a class D felony! Second offense in 5 years and it's Class C felony! Now the real kicker is in number 6... Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrent, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section... WOW! That means cops can arrest anyone at any time if the see that person on a phone, near a computer, or anywhere at any time doing anything more or less... What ever happened to privacy, free speech, and not to mention illegal search policies that actually meant something... This is just as bad, if not worse than what Bush is doing with illegal wiretaps since this is on a state level so it can be implemented or made harsher in other states. Hopefully this thing can be found to be unconstitutional in the near future.

They appear to be offering degrees in Missouri without certification from the state. I think the Missouri Department of Higher Education will take this seriously. It's a criminal offense.

I also reported the lack of accreditation to Educause, so I imagine their registration will disappear in due course.

Wow really?

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills081/bills/hb1505.htm http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills081/biltxt/intro/HB1505I.htm What's interesting is this thing isn't limited to emails... or the web for that matter... 565.090. 1. A person commits the crime of harassment if for the purpose of frightening or disturbing another person, he (1) Communicates in writing or by telephone a threat to commit any felony; or (2) Makes a telephone call or communicates in writing and uses coarse language offensive to one of average sensibility; or (3) Makes a telephone call anonymously; or (4) Makes repeated telephone calls. === (3) "Electronic communications", the origination, emission, dissemination, transmission, or reception of data, images, signals, sounds, or other intelligence or equivalence of intelligence of any nature over any communications system by any method, including, but not limited to, a fiber optic, electronic, magnetic, optical, digital, or analog method. Such electronic communications shall include, but not be limited to electronic mail, Internet-based communications, pager service, and electronic text messaging; (4) "Electronic communications device", any instrument, equipment, machine, or other device that facilitates telecommunication, including, but not limited to, a computer, computer network, computer chip, computer circuit, scanner, telephone, cellular telephone, pager, personal communications device, transponder, receiver, radio, modem, or device that enables the use of a modem. So... written stuff and scanned and faxes as well as phone calls apply... In theory, this law could be applied to any "scary" advertisement on TV!

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills081/bills/hb1505.htm http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills081/biltxt/intro/HB1505I.htm What's interesting is this thing isn't limited to emails... or the web for that matter... 565.090. 1. A person commits the crime of harassment if for the purpose of frightening or disturbing another person, he (1) Communicates in writing or by telephone a threat to commit any felony; or (2) Makes a telephone call or communicates in writing and uses coarse language offensive to one of average sensibility; or (3) Makes a telephone call anonymously; or (4) Makes repeated telephone calls. === (3) "Electronic communications", the origination, emission, dissemination, transmission, or reception of data, images, signals, sounds, or other intelligence or equivalence of intelligence of any nature over any communications system by any method, including, but not limited to, a fiber optic, electronic, magnetic, optical, digital, or analog method. Such electronic communications shall include, but not be limited to electronic mail, Internet-based communications, pager service, and electronic text messaging; (4) "Electronic communications device", any instrument, equipment, machine, or other device that facilitates telecommunication, including, but not limited to, a computer, computer network, computer chip, computer circuit, scanner, telephone, cellular telephone, pager, personal communications device, transponder, receiver, radio, modem, or device that enables the use of a modem. So... written stuff and scanned and faxes as well as phone calls apply... In theory, this law could be applied to any "scary" advertisement on TV!

It was your broad statement - I just asked if you were part of the Missouri genus of right wingnut. Apparently your wingnuttery diverges from the Missouri wingnuts.

The key issue is this incredibly stupid bill introduced in the General Assembly - and here is the proper link to SB 818 http://www.senate.mo.gov/08info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=147/

By the terms of this law, an anonymous political statement (anonymity is a fundamental right in political speech) could be charged as either an A misdemeanor or a D felony.

Consider a pro-choice push poll. That would offend about 110% of Missouri wingnuts. Several of the wingnut prosecutors would love to can the opposition.

Consider a pro-Iran invasion push poll = the left wingnuts would be offended and if prosecutors were so inclined they would love to can the opposition.

Are ye for or agin it?

New Jersey is cheap by comparison

and not quite as nice IMO

Missouri is close to getting a law like this. There's a coalition of 38 states trying to do the same. Montana is only the first to get it through the process.

"Technically, he could have been out a lot quicker had his parents hired a lawyer and bailed him out..."

What horrible parents! You're absolutely right, every parent should have at least 100 grand in their pocket to hire attorneys or bail money to rescue their children from the "legal" system when the police make a little boo-boo.

In my wonderful state you can only sue for twice your loss income or 20 grand, whatever is greater. So this kid could get a whopping 20 grand from this mess from the police. Yippy! I'm sure that'd make the police think twice.

I'm tired of the illegal justice system in the US. The one that lets the rich go free and throws the poor in jail because they can't afford lawyers and don't want to sit in jail for a year for minor offenses while their public defender argues in court for months. Better to plead guilty to something you never did and get a few weeks in jail and probation and be labeled for life than wait in jail to see what happens only to find out they still found you guilty and you're getting even more jail time.

Poor example of the effects of a collision.

"They next tested shooting a full tank through the bottom. The tank flew around the tank like a rocket, reminiscent of CO2 cartridge cars."

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/07/special_jaws_sp ecial_1.html

This was however only after a bullet shot from a 30-06 riffle. This does not demonstrate what would happen to a tank if it was ruptured in a collision of significant force, where the breach was not as "controlled" as the nice round hole caused by a bullet. Say something like this...

http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov/MSHPWeb/PatrolDivisions /TFD/Images/DSC00542.JPG

Besides, a large enough tank to hold the necessary pressure flying "around like a rocket", would probably be more unsafe, and less localized to the accident scene that a mere explosion.

To name a few of the really, really serious biproducts of Coal usage. Hg precipitates out from exhaust at an alarming rate (*those states with coal-fired power plants all have massive Hg and CH2-Hg contamination: see, http://www.dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub2100.pdf/ and, http://www.moenviron.org/airqualitymercury.asp/ for one central US state's Hg warnings). Sulphur fom coal burning is the primary source of H2SO4 in acid rain that has decimated the lakes in the Northeast US and etched limestone (Cleopatra's Needle http://members.aol.com/Sokamoto31/ny.htm/ has been in NYC since 1881 and the two sides facing the prevailing wind have been etched free of inscription (perfect on all four sides when it was put it into place) due to acid rain) building materials. Nitrates (NOx) are the secondary sources of acid (HNO3 Nitric Acid being the most common) and a product of incomplete combustion of coal. About 75% of the coal-fired power plants scrub NOx out of the exhaust - but there appear to be no small-scale scrubbers consistent with vehicle use.

Releasing more Carbon from the carbon sink is just one more addition to the ever-increasing load of greenhouse gasses on the planet.

Iron - in its various forms will "poison" any catalytic converter small enough to fit on a vehicle.

The cost of scrubbing or converting Coal into a cleaner-burning fuel is problematic and the energy used to scrub may well exceed the energy realized from the converted coal.

Why do people feel they need to lie about things?

Why? Because I'm not, and you don't read far enough. This is why 90% of the people in America are uninformed:

(13) "Stem cell" means a cell that can divide multiple times and give rise to specialized cells in the body, and includes but is not limited to the stem cells generally referred to as (i) adult stem cells that are found in some body tissues (including but not limited to adult stem cells derived from adult body tissues and from discarded umbilical cords and placentas), and (ii) embryonic stem cells (including but not limited to stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts and from cell reprogramming techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer ). [Emphasis mine]

Please look up the term "somatic cell nuclear transfer" and find out what it means. Too lazy? Let me help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_ transfer

See that at the end of the first paragraph? "It can also be used as the first step in the process of reproductive cloning."

Missouri is claiming cloning is only cloning if you then bring the embryo to full term by implanting inside a uterus. That's the definition of clause #1 in section 6.2 http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppSt emCell.asp. In other words, they could allow the blastocyst to mature as far as they want so long as they don't implant it in a female human uterus. Nothing in there about using chimpanzees or any other surrogate uterus. It doesn't even say they can't implant it for the purpose of growing it to term and then aborting. Just that you can't do it to deliver a live human clone.

Read CLOSER

That's why the Missouri measure to legalize human cloning is called the "Stem Cell Research Amendment".

What are you talking about? Even the five sentence blurb on the ballot specifically says the the "Stem Cell Research Amendment" explicitly bans human cloning. Did you even read it or are you just basing that on the billboards?

The very first subclause is "(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."

Why do people feel they need to lie about things?

1. They wouldn't need them - they can always vote absentee.

2. No, they don't - read their website

3. A basic knowledge of voter fraud may help your willful ignorance.

2. Missouri requires photo id and proof of citzenship for all voters

Almost, but no cigar.

The Supreme Court has ruled the photo ID requirement for voting law unconstitutional

Or, from the Post
Missouri high court strikes down voter ID law

Take it from a lawyer in Missouri -- the parent post is correct. Federal and state court systems are separate. The U.S. District Courts are federal courts (as are the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals). The District Courts are the trial courts for the federal court system. Their terrories typically are all or part of the state where the court sits. Missouri has two U.S. District Courts -- the Eastern District (in Saint Louis) and the Western District (in Kansas City). All federal judges, including the U.S. District Court judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are not subject to retention votes. See http://www.uscourts.gov/index.html The State of Missouri has a Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals (in three districts, Eastern, Western, and Southern) and Circuit Courts (the trial courts); the judges of these courts are appointed by the Governor, and many are subject to retention votes under Missouri law. See http://www.courts.mo.gov/ The confusion is that there are several Limbaughs who are attorneys or judges in Missouri. The summary is wrong because it confuses the different Limbaughs who are judges in different courts.

I didn't know what the term pro se in TFA meant...

I know you're trying to be funny, but Google is your friend:

Query:

define:pro se

Definitions of pro se on the Web:

* A person who does not hire a lawyer and appears for himself/herself in court.
http://clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/glossary.asp

* To act on one's own behalf; appearing for oneself; representing oneself; to represent oneself in a court action without an attorney.
http://www.courts.mo.gov/osca/index.nsf/0/8b69295b 674dde2186256e15004ea27f

* Acting without the aid of an attorney; representing yourself.
http://www.oah.wa.gov/Glossary.htm

* Representing oneself. Serving as one's own lawyer.
http://www.uscourts.gov/journalistguide/glossary.h tml

* When the defendant is not represented by counsel, as he or she has waived the right to counsel in a criminal proceeding, or is otherwise not represented in a civil proceeding.
http://mova.missouri.org/cjterms.htm

* A person who does not have an attorney to represent him or her and who appears on his or her own behalf before the Court.
http://www.gaappeals.us/cguide/glossary.php

* Latin phrase ("in one's own behalf") applied to defendants who waive the right to counsel and act as their own lawyers in criminal cases.
http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/LocPubs/crimglossary.h tm

* A Latin phrase that means "for himself." A person who represents himself in a legal matter alone without the help of a lawyer is said to appear pro se.
http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/glossary.aspx

* A person appearing without representation by an attorney for himself; in his own behalf; in person.
http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/prose_man/glossary.ht ml

* When a person who chooses to act as his or her own attorney in a legal action.
https://www.co-childsupport.com/elpaso/glossary/gl ossary.htm

* When a party is not represented by a lawyer but is representing himself.
http://www.courts.state.mn.us/districts/fourth/Gen eral/LegalTerms6.htm

* Without the benefit of counsel; the act of speaking or representing oneself in a court of law.
http://www.alqlist.com/glossary.html

* A debtor who is not represent

Yes, it should. Some states have constitutional requirements to this effect. For example, the Missouri constitution contains the requirement that:

No bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title...

Unfortunately, there is no such requirement in the federal constitution.

They'll just have to become telemarketers for all the projects and services that the robots do. Hum, I'm on the Missouri No Call list.

I'm sure they will figure out something.

$75,955
http://www.sos.mo.gov/BlueBook/results.asp?selAgen cy=all&txtLName=brent&txtFName=ed&tTitle=&Submit=S earch

> Can't they just use an email -> fax gateway of some sort?

They ARE using such a system. I know it's fashionable to post without reading the article, but jeez. More info here:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/news.asp?id=375