The funny thing is everyone knows the right turn on red but they are never taught why that's allowed and that sometimes left turn on red is allowed too when the same conditions apply.
What is there to teach exactly? Turning right on red or left in a one way street is equivalent to a stop sign. At least that's how I see it. Am I missing some subtlety here?
But what your doing is mapping one concept on to another. Stop signs and stop lights are different. The only times they should be considered the same is when the lights are totally out or when they're flashing red.
Creating the mental equivalency means more confusing of you come to an unfamiliar road layout. Plus your left on red of one way when explaining it becomes is that one way to one way, or one way to two way or two way to one way? Then you're juggling these concepts and (maybe not you) but people will make mistakes.
When you distil it down to a simple concept of turning on red is allowed when you don't cross a lane of traffic, none of that mapping of one way or stop signs is needed. We only need one other fundamental driving concept of what a lane of traffic is.
Although I will admit it seems that some people don't know what a lane of traffic is.
The only real solution for pedestrian safety is to remove cars from roads through severe pedestrianization.
Until we have the courage to put the value of walking and biking in front of the value of parking and the fear of traffic, our roads will continue to be unsafe for anyone not in a massive SUV.
Comical. California politicians are going in the wrong direction on essentially every single thing people care about. No, we want traffic to go faster. Yes, turns on red are safe.
How about a crack down on vagrancy, shoplifting, and illegal immigration instead of taking away faster traffic?
If the evidence is strong enough that this will save lives, then it is exactly the thing elected officials should be doing. It's not like this is some radical policy. It works just fine in NYC.
"Even a small change can have many unintended knockon effects."
As I stated, the policy works in NYC. Do you have any actual evidence of harm caused by this policy where it has actually been implemented? Because it sounds like you are grasping at straws to oppose a policy that will, based on the evidence, save human lives.
Banning it instead of fixing the drivers. I guess that is the easiest way to fix the immediate problem but it's not a long term solution to the problem that as cars have gotten smarter drivers have gotten dumber, more distracted and more of them on the road.
I really think there needs to be some continuing education requirements for driving. What we have in this country is the vast majority of people learned to drive when they were teenagers in a basic driving skills course and then never learned anything else. So there's decades of experience in only the most perfunctory driving skills. I firmly believe that most have forgotten the rules of the road and could no longer pass the written test. Considering most written tests have been redone to no longer require obscure fixed distance measurements, this is pretty scary. Anyone who has a driver's license should be able to pass the written test as the same thing you do when driving.
Maybe some sort of randomized testing lottery every year. Each year everyone's name gets tossed in to a hat and 20% get pulled for taking the test and luck protection so it's at least once in 5 years. Taking and passing an accredited advanced driving class with behind the wheel time would exempt you from the lottery for 10 years.
I don't know if that's the right solution but something needs done to get people to realize they are in charge of heavy equipment and mishandling it is dangerous. Too many times have I pulled up second to a stop sign and the first person seems confused about who goes, or they have no clue what to do for a flashing yellow light. Idiots not knowing how (and when) to safely make a right turn on red is a symptom of a much larger problem.
I walk, drive and bike in SF, and I think a super unpopular opinion that needs to gain more traction is that non-vehicles should get more intelligent too.
People here seem to have zero sense of self-preservation here: constantly staring at phones, ignoring crossing signals and stop signs, not even glancing to confirm they're not hiding in an A pillar, even sometimes seemingly wanting to challenge cars.
I personally had a horrifyingly close call with a pedestrian while driving: a lady in all black, on a rainy night, jaywalking in an intersection with poor visibility due to a steep incline. The person didn't even break stride after what was a close enough call for me to pull over for a moment...
_
At the end of the day I get it's super hip to push the cars are disgusting and drivers are evil angle in this city, but if a car hits you, you lose: all the laws and punishments and moral superiority in the world will not unbreak your bones. It will console no one that the driver was summarily shot out of a cannon or never drove again compared to if you had just not been hurt.
The notion that your safety is primarily someone else's responsibility crumbles under that simple reality. Safety is a collective concept, we all play a part in it.
I am appalled for one that many cyclists seem to think everyone is responsible for their safety except their own. For that matter, police seem about as ignorant as everyone else about the "bicycle is a vehicle" principle, I see them out riding bikes and setting a bad example riding on the sidewalk on a wrong-way street, etc. I'd give them a break if they were chasing a suspect or something but often this is clearly not the case.
None of this says "we shouldn't eliminate unsafe rules" which is exactly what right on red is.
Right on red leads to drivers "stopping" in the sidewalk (or California stopping), failing to check to their right due to hyper focus on finding an opening in opposite traffic, and leads to less safe opportunities where pedestrians know they can cross.
Jaywalking and similar is particularly due to this. What is the benefit of walking all the way to the crosswalk if you are expected to avoid all collisions whether you are there or elsewhere?
To make it worse intersections have four ways cars come from at least roads otherwise only have two.
It's not that the rules are unsafe it's that bad drivers are doing bad behavior that is unsafe. Everything that the article cites as the problem with right turn on red has nothing at all to do with the law it has to do with bad drivers even in your examples it's about drivers who are bad and not paying attention to their surroundings.
This is my point changing the rule is a short-term solution that does nothing to address the long-term problem of making people better drivers.
I hear this argument a lot, that we just need to improve bad, selfish or distracted people, not make things safer in general.
Maybe I'm cynical, but they will always exist, and we are also them sometimes too.
Speaking for myself as a UK resident, we do not have this turn on a red light rule, and I feel much safer knowing that when a light is red, traffic almost always isn't coming at me.
If you need the throughput gains of right on red 9 times out of 10 you have a dedicated arrow that avoids turning on when pedestrians can cross.
There is no meaningful impact on delay when you have to wait for the green. People are just impatient.
You are arguing that good drivers don't get into accidents which is fundamentally flawed reasoning. We could remove all signage if everyone was good drivers, in fact some places with low traffic have and reduced accidents due to everyone focusing on others instead of signage.
I moved to SF from NYC a little over a year ago and didn't realize I could make right hand turns on red.
Their time would be better spent fixing all the 2 way stop signs at 4 way intersections with crazy speed differentials (and maybe fixing their terrible light timing)
I can't think of any situations where a roundabout isn't preferable to a two way stop, if space allows for the installation. In my opinion they're often safer than traffic lights too, due to drivers feeling less need to beat the light changes.
If they wanted to generate revenue they could simply post up at literally any traffic light in the city and ticket the 99% of drivers that just roll through the red light when turning right.
I don't like the turns on red, it makes things a little harder. Here, where we don't have that rule, they put in a little cutaway lane on the intersections where you can turn to avoid the lights. Usually with a stop sign or a merging lane. It makes it unambiguous.
Although, in the area I live there's only one set of traffic lights within an hours drive, and they're in a kids playground for learning road rules.
28 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 59.8 ms ] threadCreating the mental equivalency means more confusing of you come to an unfamiliar road layout. Plus your left on red of one way when explaining it becomes is that one way to one way, or one way to two way or two way to one way? Then you're juggling these concepts and (maybe not you) but people will make mistakes.
When you distil it down to a simple concept of turning on red is allowed when you don't cross a lane of traffic, none of that mapping of one way or stop signs is needed. We only need one other fundamental driving concept of what a lane of traffic is.
Although I will admit it seems that some people don't know what a lane of traffic is.
Until we have the courage to put the value of walking and biking in front of the value of parking and the fear of traffic, our roads will continue to be unsafe for anyone not in a massive SUV.
How about a crack down on vagrancy, shoplifting, and illegal immigration instead of taking away faster traffic?
Here's a quick example: banning turns will not stop people making turns. It will mean only the rich can afford them.
As I stated, the policy works in NYC. Do you have any actual evidence of harm caused by this policy where it has actually been implemented? Because it sounds like you are grasping at straws to oppose a policy that will, based on the evidence, save human lives.
Not that I like car-oriented cities. I find them very unlivable. But making it harder to drive without making it easier to transport seems backwards.
I really think there needs to be some continuing education requirements for driving. What we have in this country is the vast majority of people learned to drive when they were teenagers in a basic driving skills course and then never learned anything else. So there's decades of experience in only the most perfunctory driving skills. I firmly believe that most have forgotten the rules of the road and could no longer pass the written test. Considering most written tests have been redone to no longer require obscure fixed distance measurements, this is pretty scary. Anyone who has a driver's license should be able to pass the written test as the same thing you do when driving.
Maybe some sort of randomized testing lottery every year. Each year everyone's name gets tossed in to a hat and 20% get pulled for taking the test and luck protection so it's at least once in 5 years. Taking and passing an accredited advanced driving class with behind the wheel time would exempt you from the lottery for 10 years.
I don't know if that's the right solution but something needs done to get people to realize they are in charge of heavy equipment and mishandling it is dangerous. Too many times have I pulled up second to a stop sign and the first person seems confused about who goes, or they have no clue what to do for a flashing yellow light. Idiots not knowing how (and when) to safely make a right turn on red is a symptom of a much larger problem.
People here seem to have zero sense of self-preservation here: constantly staring at phones, ignoring crossing signals and stop signs, not even glancing to confirm they're not hiding in an A pillar, even sometimes seemingly wanting to challenge cars.
I personally had a horrifyingly close call with a pedestrian while driving: a lady in all black, on a rainy night, jaywalking in an intersection with poor visibility due to a steep incline. The person didn't even break stride after what was a close enough call for me to pull over for a moment...
_
At the end of the day I get it's super hip to push the cars are disgusting and drivers are evil angle in this city, but if a car hits you, you lose: all the laws and punishments and moral superiority in the world will not unbreak your bones. It will console no one that the driver was summarily shot out of a cannon or never drove again compared to if you had just not been hurt.
The notion that your safety is primarily someone else's responsibility crumbles under that simple reality. Safety is a collective concept, we all play a part in it.
Right on red leads to drivers "stopping" in the sidewalk (or California stopping), failing to check to their right due to hyper focus on finding an opening in opposite traffic, and leads to less safe opportunities where pedestrians know they can cross.
Jaywalking and similar is particularly due to this. What is the benefit of walking all the way to the crosswalk if you are expected to avoid all collisions whether you are there or elsewhere?
To make it worse intersections have four ways cars come from at least roads otherwise only have two.
This is my point changing the rule is a short-term solution that does nothing to address the long-term problem of making people better drivers.
Maybe I'm cynical, but they will always exist, and we are also them sometimes too.
Speaking for myself as a UK resident, we do not have this turn on a red light rule, and I feel much safer knowing that when a light is red, traffic almost always isn't coming at me.
There is no meaningful impact on delay when you have to wait for the green. People are just impatient.
You are arguing that good drivers don't get into accidents which is fundamentally flawed reasoning. We could remove all signage if everyone was good drivers, in fact some places with low traffic have and reduced accidents due to everyone focusing on others instead of signage.
Their time would be better spent fixing all the 2 way stop signs at 4 way intersections with crazy speed differentials (and maybe fixing their terrible light timing)
Although, in the area I live there's only one set of traffic lights within an hours drive, and they're in a kids playground for learning road rules.