Almost every major city in the United States generally allows drivers to turn right at red lights, but that could be changing.

Sophee Langerman was on her way to a bicycle safety rally in Chicago’s Lakeview neighborhood in June when a car turning right rolled through a red light and slammed into her bike, which she was walking off the curb and into the crosswalk.

The car was moving slowly enough that Langerman escaped serious injury, but the bicycle required extensive repairs. To Langerman, it’s another argument for ending a practice that almost all U.S. cities have embraced for decades: the legal prerogative for a driver to turn right after stopping at a red light.

A dramatic rise in accidents killing or injuring pedestrians and bicyclists has led to a myriad of policy and infrastructure changes, but moves to ban right on red have drawn some of the most intense sentiments on both sides.

Washington, D.C.'s City Council last year approved a right-on-red ban that takes effect in 2025. New Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s transition plan called for “restricting right turns on red,” but his administration hasn’t provided specifics. The college town of Ann Arbor, Michigan, now prohibits right turns at red lights in the downtown area.

  • @nBodyProblem
    -5•1 year ago

    Did you actually read anything I have written?

    The point is that simply lowering speed limits as the primary lever to improve quality of life isn’t useful. It does nothing to reallocate that space in a beneficial way.

    I’m literally arguing in favor of reducing space for cars for more pedestrian, cycling and transit infrastructure

    The bottom line is that if you build to accommodate cars, you will never have walkability. It’s geometrically impossible.

    Guess what? The city is already built. I agree with you.

    The question is how to move forward and slapping lower speed limits on everything isn’t the solution. You need to actually spend money on revamping the infrastructure so there are meaningful alternatives. Try to read more and jump to conclusions less.

    • @grueEnglish
      4•1 year ago

      I’m literally arguing in favor of reducing space for cars for more pedestrian, cycling and transit infrastructure

      You’re literally arguing for going about it ass-backwards in a way doomed to failure, which is a disingenuous, passive-aggressive way of opposing it.

      You need to actually spend money on revamping the infrastructure so there are meaningful alternatives.

      In order to actually spend money on bike/ped/transit, the politicians have to allocate it for that purpose. That doesn’t happen unless the public is made to hate driving first!