Why is that? My problem as a pedestrian is that cars 1) don't actually bother to stop at the red, sometimes barely slowing down, before turning and 2) if they do stop, they're looking left, to see if it's safe for them, and not right, to check for oncoming pedestrians.
When i lived in California people would honk their horns at me for stopping at the red light before making my turn, sometimes even when there were pedestrians in the crosswalk.
In a lot of intersections, pedestrians cross a road at the same time that cars going in the same direction do. That means that a right on green is turning directly into a pedestrian lane that has the walk signal. A right on red, in contrast, is turning into a pedestrian lane with the 'do not walk' signal, and so is safer for pedestrians.
So I think I get the aim which is if the light to your left where you're crossing is red you know there aren't any cars coming but that doesn't really work because of lefts from the other direction. Am I missing the goal?
There was a discussion on the Portland subreddit about someone who was making bumper stickers essentially saying “I don’t turn right on red” - because, at least in Oregon, it’s entirely optional. Anyhow the amount of visceral negative reactions to it was pretty shocking to me, people suggesting this person shouldn’t be allowed on the road, calling them names, and it was just generally very surprising to me for something that is technically optional.
If a driver believes it's safer not to turn right on red, and they probably have the best opinion as they're likely to have the most vision, why is it irresponsible?
The question being asked is precisely the opposite one. Who are you to forbid me to turn right on red when I can plainly see there is no risk to anyone?
Irrational laws lead to contempt for the law in general. See unreasonably low speed limits for a classic example.
> “I don’t turn right on red” - because, at least in Oregon, it’s entirely optional.
I thought it was entirely optional everywhere, and prohibited in NYC and Montreal.
A red does generally mean red, so no one can fault you for not turning on red. If I don't feel safe turning right on red (i.e. obstructed view) I just sit there.
Little known fun fact: in Oregon you can turn left on red as long as you're turning onto a one way street, even if you're turning from a two way street.
As a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcycle, and driver, I'd sure miss right on red.
When I was 14 I was hit by a car while I was riding my bike in this same scenario. I was okay, it just rattled me a bit. Overall, I just hate cars and hope to some day live in a world where they aren’t pet of the everyday. Maybe I can move to Amsterdam or something..
I am a frequent pedestrian so I try my best to be careful when driving, but view-obstructing A-pillars make it really difficult. Pedestrians and even whole vehicles at an intersection can be obstructed from view.
The first time I was in the US I was shocked to see a car go straight through a crosswalk when it was red and I was crossing. I was very surprised when a friend later told me that this is normal in the US, it seems sensible that this should be banned.
I also wonder how traffic routing works with right on red; since you cannot prohibit right turns under any circumstances, how do you direct traffic on T-junctions and 4-way junctions?
> The first time I was in the US I was shocked to see a car go straight through a crosswalk when it was red and I was crossing. I was very surprised when a friend later told me that this is normal in the US, it seems sensible that this should be banned.
Went straight through in the sense of not stopping at all? Running a light is still illegal. (Also pedestrians have right of way if cars have a red light, so that sounds illegal regardless)
> I also wonder how traffic routing works with right on red; since you cannot prohibit right turns under any circumstances, how do you direct traffic on T-junctions and 4-way junctions?
The traffic with the green light has right of way; everyone else is only allowed to turn if there's an opening. Does that answer the question, or did I misunderstand?
It's not at all uncommon to see No Turn On Red signs at some intersections even in smaller cities, although enforcement may not be very strong. Additionally, where a specific right turn arrow signal has been provided, in some states that implies no turn on red ("no turn on a red arrow").
Traffic making a right on red must yield to all other traffic (driving straight from your left, and making a left turn from the opposite side) and pedestrians (in front of you and to the right). I think there is a law that U-turns yield to right turns on red though? Not sure about that.
I was taught it's illegal to drive thru a crosswalk when a pedestrian is in any part of the crosswalk, actually regardless of what the traffic signal is. Now, nobody follows that, but yeah..
The precise rules vary from state to state, but the general rule of thumb is you must stop for a pedestrian that has not yet cleared your direction of the road.
Honestly as a pedestrian people following that rule are more confusing than anything else. I’ll be 50 feet from the lane they could be turning into and they’re just chilling. Good to see they’re not a road maniac, but also they should feel free to use their senses to realize there’s absolutely no way I could get hurt.
What? Right turns being generally permitted on red (after stopping, while yielding to traffic that has the right of way) does not mean you "cannot prohibit right turns under any circumstances"-- there just needs to be a sign prohibiting them (or a red right arrow means the same-- you may not turn right while it's lit, although around here you'll usually see that paired with a sign because people are stupid).
Cases where it's prohibited are plentiful, usually in cases where a right on red can't be executed safely (like if there's poor visibility around a corner) or if right on red would be disruptive to traffic flow.
They are supposed to yield (to pedestrians or cars) on a red light. That said, I walk across a road that is the exit from a freeway every morning, and you have to make sure you have eye contact with the driver that’s turning right, even if you have the walk signal or you may get run over…
The biggest problem isn’t right turn on red. It’s the rising percentages of massive SUVs and jacked up trucks where the hood is so high they can’t see pedestrians and the bumpers are higher and instead of pedestrians flying over the hoods, more force gets transferred into bodies and then possibly run over.
Hear! hear! Why don’t we just start rolling back truck subsidies? If that’s not enough, maybe start incentivizing cars that aren’t tanks. The world is not more safe when everyone drives a tank. This is a tragedy of the commons
The real trick is actually enforcement. Nobody obeys the rules because none of the rules are enforced. So sure, make the law that prohibits just certain vehicles from doing a right on red. 100% guarantee you that the drivers of those cars will not obey the new rule and 100% guarantee you that cops won't enforce it.
I wish they would just make the licensing requirement stricter for driving these behemoth vehicles. But this would have to happen on a state by state basis..
| According to a national report by the Governors Highway Safety Association, more than 7,500 people walking were struck and killed by automobiles in 2022, the highest number since 1981. The spike, which included all accidents — not just those involving right turns on red, was attributed in part to an increase in larger vehicles such as SUVs and pickup trucks on the road.
| The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that the odds a pedestrian would be killed when struck by an automobile turning right were 89% higher when the vehicle was a pickup and 63% higher when it was an SUV, due to larger blind spots and the deadlier force associated with heavier models.
SUVs and pickups (I have a pickup, but I mostly only use it for activities that require a pickup) are extremely dangerous and should not be incentivized as they are by the current rules, and more, they should be taxed more heavily than sedans, coupes, and station wagons.
Then a bit further down:
| But Beeber said the National Motorists Association study of California found that even when there was an accident associated with right turns on red, at least 96% of the injuries sustained by pedestrians or cyclists were minor.
Mr. Beeber is biased, and so is the NMA, so it's hard to say, but not much other data is offered regarding right-on-red injuries/fatalities, so I'm inclined to want to see more data before agreeing that we should ban right-on-red generally, or even in the cities as opposed to in areas with high pedestrian traffic. (Even where pedestrian traffic is high, it being high means drivers will tend to not miss them.)
TFA makes a point of the dearth of data on right-on-red accidents. According to TFA there have been no new studies on the topic since 1994(!). I think the first step then would be to commission several studies.
| “One injury or death is too many,” said Washington state Sen. John Lovick, the primary sponsor of a bill this year that would have prohibited right on red statewide near schools, parks and certain other locations. “If it were me at that intersection crossing, I would want something done.”
This "one injury or death is too many" idea in general is very dangerous because it ignores unintended consequences completely. It's an idea that appeals to emotions rather than to reason.
it's also people fucking scrolling on their fucking phones WHILE PERFORMING THE MANOEUVRE that's part of it
or people not being used to seeing pedestrians because they live in sparse suburbs where nobody walks or goes outside, really, so they roll through that right on red as that's what they're used to
Add to the dangerous vehicle weight window tinting. Maybe this is just a New York problem (certainly a NY regulation) illegally tinted windows greater than >30%. If you can’t see the driver, then you can’t be sure they see you.
Not really. I've had people driving perfectly normal sedans with 1,000-yard stare off to their left as they're turning right on red, who don't see me at all as a pedestrian trying to walk across the crosswalk from their right. I first noticed this a few decades ago (before even iPhones).
The average American doesn't understand the concept of "have your head on a swivel" and maintaining situational awareness of what is going on in two different directions. Or of just always be looking the direction that you're going (if you're about to stomp on the accelerator you better first be looking forward).
The massive SUVs and trucks just make the problem worse, but they didn't start the problem.
And that is apart from the horrible level of driver education, and education in general in the US, where a lot of drivers don't seem to understand that you actually need to stop for a right on red, or even that you need to yield to traffic from the left and just blow straight through the light.
This is my feeling as well. People are just trying to get where they’re going. That means, when turning on red, entering the intersection without stopping behind the line first. This almost always means driving straight through the crosswalk as well. And like you said, people have optimized their turning by staring left, prepared to barely even slow down before turning if the coast is clear. No thought is given to a potential pedestrian.
Entering straight into intersections on a red light is an extremely bad habit that the US has. Along with getting rid of right turns on red (80% of pop would still do it), some countries also move the traffic lights to the close side of the street (above the traffic it controls, as opposed to across the intersection), forcing cars to stop further back to be able to see the light. I think that would be a huge impact to traffic patterns that is more physics based rather than legislature based.
How apropos... this just happened to me today. "Walk" displays for 3 seconds, then "Don't walk" flashes for 36 seconds. Multiple drivers, completely ignoring the pedestrians, were turning right. One driver yelled out "that means don't walk" while a few of us were patiently waiting in the middle of the crosswalk (since we can't teleport).
Clearly just bad UX, since this would be solved by having "Walk" flash instead.
People are just shit drivers. Nowhere I've visited has had flashing red mean "stop in place" for pedestrians. This is something drivers are making up from whole cloth.
While the UX isn't ideal, the driver's exam that everyone has to pass already covers this point -- "don't walk" flashing means finish crossing if you've already started. So the yelling driver is just wrong.
Would be nice to see cops aggressively ticketing drivers who turn right while pedestrians are trying to cross. At some of these intersections, it seems like you could just park a cop there all day and generate crazy money for the city.
Wasn't on my exam either. Half of my written test was things done so infrequently/never, that it was basically a joke. We took the exam in our high school, everyone crammed the questions and answers right before the test, and only one person failed.
Your mental model is wrong. Cops aren’t there to maximize revenue or enforce the law.
Multiple police officers in multiple towns in the US have told me they can’t write tickets for every traffic violation they see or the locals would turn against the police.
They are there to tax the most egregious offenders. It would be trivial for police officers to simply wait outside bars at 01:50 and breathalyze people every night driving home drunk, but they don’t. They’d be giving out a DUI every single night if they did that.
On several occasions, I've walked into the crosswalk immediately after it changes to "Walk" and been honked at by a car that has nearly run me over. I've even experienced a few times where the next car wanting to turn right will follow closely behind the first, and I'm forced to go back and wait for the next light cycle... all while the sign still displayed "Walk".
As a result, there are a few intersections where I've accepted that I cannot cross regardless what the sign says so long as there are any cars waiting to turn right present.
Yep! Same. In that circumstance, at least, I'm able to point to the "Walk" and it's clear who's in the wrong. With a flashing "Don't walk" it's not immediately as obvious.
It makes sense to prohibit right on red turns in areas with lots of pedestrian traffic. It does not make sense to prohibit right on red everywhere in a city unless to cost of signage were prohibitive.
When I was learning to drive, I am taking a right at an intersection with a sign "No Turn on Red 8am-6pm". It was 5:55pm and as someone with only a couple hours of driving under my belt, I wasn't going to push it and waited for the light to turn.
Guy behind me just laid on his horn non-stop. My uncle in the passenger seat just told me calmly "Ignore that jerk" it's almost 20 years later and that memory sticks with me, in particular, how calm my uncle was about it given what a gruff grumpy dude he is.
If I jumped into traffic every time somebody honked at me, I'd have killed a few dozen, myself included. Ignore that jerk, indeed. Somebody tried to bully me out of a parking spot I'd been waiting several minutes for, just today. When a jerk decides to jump out of their car because you ignore the horn... best to leave the window up.
Amusingly, there was space to go around until the aggro jerk decided to block both directions, honk and yell, trapping the car that I was waiting to depart. Rather than wait another 30 seconds, they turned the situation into a 10 minute confrontation.
Here I am resisting the urge to use my car horn even when I probably should and there are assholes on the road using it because they aren’t allowed to do something illegal and need to wait a few seconds. I would love a world where being a dick on the road quickly escalated to license suspensions.
Happened in Seattle today actually, I think. Car running a red light, possibly doing a right-turn-on-red, a bus hits the car and a pedestrian died.
As the years go by I'm getting more militant about enforcement of driving laws. Nobody obeys the rules because there is never enforcement. And it's getting worse and worse, anecdotally. I haven't seen a car actually stop at a stop sign probably in months. It's all straight through, or slowing down. Never stopping. Even if there is someone crossing in front of them, the cars rarely stop. They will even accelerate towards you while you cross, hoping you'll run out of their way so that they can get somewhere 2s faster.
Edit: Another aside, in Montreal I think there's a sign as you enter the city that says "Welcome to Montreal No Right on Red" lol. Some cities have "A beautiful and welcoming place" or whatever but MTL goes with "No right on red".
Why do we use high level programming languages? Just train everyone better to write machine code. Heck, if programmers could read binary we wouldn't need languages at all!!!
More training is unlikely to fix it. Someone can pass the training and still take out their cell phone while driving.
Having a system where everyone basically has to drive to live a normal life (no matter how irresponsible or dumb they are) is simply inherently dangerous.
Yeah, since we drove on the right side, a right turn is relatively safe to treat as a yield at a red light. As long as it's safe and clear to go, you're allowed to.
The problem is not the law, it's that people ignore it. The law still requires you to stop -- not slow down -- and yield to pedestrians before making a right turn. When the law went into effect, a big slogan was "Right on red after stop." These days some drivers don't even bother to slow down, much less stop.
Traffic laws are barely enforced as they are. Enforcing a federal ban on right-on-red (which I agree with) doesn't matter if we can't even enforce red-light cameras (which I think are mostly a good thing) or harsher punishment for phone use while driving or consistent speed limit enforcement (i.e. if you speed, you get a ticket, all the time, anywhere)
No, you can't do that. The US traffic rules must stay exceptional compared to the rest of the world. If you give in on that in the end people might even demand other stuff from the rest of the world, like using metric units or banning guns or fighting against climate change or calling football football.
85 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadOr rather, you should only be able to turn onto a road if that road has a green light for going straight.
I've nearly been run over several times by people making right turns as I'm trying to cross the street with a walk signal.
Nobody's saying that you should be required to turn right on red.
Irrational laws lead to contempt for the law in general. See unreasonably low speed limits for a classic example.
Nowhere else in the world is it allowed.
That's not what I gather from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#Table
I thought it was entirely optional everywhere, and prohibited in NYC and Montreal.
A red does generally mean red, so no one can fault you for not turning on red. If I don't feel safe turning right on red (i.e. obstructed view) I just sit there.
As a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcycle, and driver, I'd sure miss right on red.
https://axleaddict.com/safety/Obscure-Driving-Regulations-Ig...
I also wonder how traffic routing works with right on red; since you cannot prohibit right turns under any circumstances, how do you direct traffic on T-junctions and 4-way junctions?
Went straight through in the sense of not stopping at all? Running a light is still illegal. (Also pedestrians have right of way if cars have a red light, so that sounds illegal regardless)
> I also wonder how traffic routing works with right on red; since you cannot prohibit right turns under any circumstances, how do you direct traffic on T-junctions and 4-way junctions?
The traffic with the green light has right of way; everyone else is only allowed to turn if there's an opening. Does that answer the question, or did I misunderstand?
Traffic making a right on red must yield to all other traffic (driving straight from your left, and making a left turn from the opposite side) and pedestrians (in front of you and to the right). I think there is a law that U-turns yield to right turns on red though? Not sure about that.
Cases where it's prohibited are plentiful, usually in cases where a right on red can't be executed safely (like if there's poor visibility around a corner) or if right on red would be disruptive to traffic flow.
| According to a national report by the Governors Highway Safety Association, more than 7,500 people walking were struck and killed by automobiles in 2022, the highest number since 1981. The spike, which included all accidents — not just those involving right turns on red, was attributed in part to an increase in larger vehicles such as SUVs and pickup trucks on the road.
| The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that the odds a pedestrian would be killed when struck by an automobile turning right were 89% higher when the vehicle was a pickup and 63% higher when it was an SUV, due to larger blind spots and the deadlier force associated with heavier models.
SUVs and pickups (I have a pickup, but I mostly only use it for activities that require a pickup) are extremely dangerous and should not be incentivized as they are by the current rules, and more, they should be taxed more heavily than sedans, coupes, and station wagons.
Then a bit further down:
| But Beeber said the National Motorists Association study of California found that even when there was an accident associated with right turns on red, at least 96% of the injuries sustained by pedestrians or cyclists were minor.
Mr. Beeber is biased, and so is the NMA, so it's hard to say, but not much other data is offered regarding right-on-red injuries/fatalities, so I'm inclined to want to see more data before agreeing that we should ban right-on-red generally, or even in the cities as opposed to in areas with high pedestrian traffic. (Even where pedestrian traffic is high, it being high means drivers will tend to not miss them.)
TFA makes a point of the dearth of data on right-on-red accidents. According to TFA there have been no new studies on the topic since 1994(!). I think the first step then would be to commission several studies.
| “One injury or death is too many,” said Washington state Sen. John Lovick, the primary sponsor of a bill this year that would have prohibited right on red statewide near schools, parks and certain other locations. “If it were me at that intersection crossing, I would want something done.”
This "one injury or death is too many" idea in general is very dangerous because it ignores unintended consequences completely. It's an idea that appeals to emotions rather than to reason.
it's also people fucking scrolling on their fucking phones WHILE PERFORMING THE MANOEUVRE that's part of it
or people not being used to seeing pedestrians because they live in sparse suburbs where nobody walks or goes outside, really, so they roll through that right on red as that's what they're used to
driving is the fucking worst
The average American doesn't understand the concept of "have your head on a swivel" and maintaining situational awareness of what is going on in two different directions. Or of just always be looking the direction that you're going (if you're about to stomp on the accelerator you better first be looking forward).
The massive SUVs and trucks just make the problem worse, but they didn't start the problem.
And that is apart from the horrible level of driver education, and education in general in the US, where a lot of drivers don't seem to understand that you actually need to stop for a right on red, or even that you need to yield to traffic from the left and just blow straight through the light.
Entering straight into intersections on a red light is an extremely bad habit that the US has. Along with getting rid of right turns on red (80% of pop would still do it), some countries also move the traffic lights to the close side of the street (above the traffic it controls, as opposed to across the intersection), forcing cars to stop further back to be able to see the light. I think that would be a huge impact to traffic patterns that is more physics based rather than legislature based.
Clearly just bad UX, since this would be solved by having "Walk" flash instead.
Would be nice to see cops aggressively ticketing drivers who turn right while pedestrians are trying to cross. At some of these intersections, it seems like you could just park a cop there all day and generate crazy money for the city.
Multiple police officers in multiple towns in the US have told me they can’t write tickets for every traffic violation they see or the locals would turn against the police.
They are there to tax the most egregious offenders. It would be trivial for police officers to simply wait outside bars at 01:50 and breathalyze people every night driving home drunk, but they don’t. They’d be giving out a DUI every single night if they did that.
On several occasions, I've walked into the crosswalk immediately after it changes to "Walk" and been honked at by a car that has nearly run me over. I've even experienced a few times where the next car wanting to turn right will follow closely behind the first, and I'm forced to go back and wait for the next light cycle... all while the sign still displayed "Walk".
As a result, there are a few intersections where I've accepted that I cannot cross regardless what the sign says so long as there are any cars waiting to turn right present.
Guy behind me just laid on his horn non-stop. My uncle in the passenger seat just told me calmly "Ignore that jerk" it's almost 20 years later and that memory sticks with me, in particular, how calm my uncle was about it given what a gruff grumpy dude he is.
As the years go by I'm getting more militant about enforcement of driving laws. Nobody obeys the rules because there is never enforcement. And it's getting worse and worse, anecdotally. I haven't seen a car actually stop at a stop sign probably in months. It's all straight through, or slowing down. Never stopping. Even if there is someone crossing in front of them, the cars rarely stop. They will even accelerate towards you while you cross, hoping you'll run out of their way so that they can get somewhere 2s faster.
Edit: Another aside, in Montreal I think there's a sign as you enter the city that says "Welcome to Montreal No Right on Red" lol. Some cities have "A beautiful and welcoming place" or whatever but MTL goes with "No right on red".
Instead, there's a constant rush to make driving worse with erratic speed limits, "smart" traffic lights, etc.
Having a system where everyone basically has to drive to live a normal life (no matter how irresponsible or dumb they are) is simply inherently dangerous.