Thos article literally points out how drivers are not aware of the pedestrians routinely put at risk by this insane rule and links to studies supporting their point.
It’s a shame you find it so torturous to wait a few seconds at a red light but that is absolutely not worth risking other people’s lives.
Its not an insane rule, but an established norm in most areas. What has been for 50 years hasn’t suddenly become dangerous.
What has changed in my county is relaxed situational awareness, false security, and avoidance in basic nonverbal communication such as simple eye contact.
People complain my city isn’t walkable friendly, but I have a 3 mile exercise loop I do weekly for 4 years and never, never had a problem. Just be alert and smart. Eye contact, visibility, follow rules… that’s middle school stuff.
Also, the “few seconds” argument is long in the tooth as a recent “calming” measure removed a right lane and traffic now backs up 3 blocks. I waited 3 light cycles to get through an intersection. I don’t buy that “few seconds” fluff after that nonsence.
Who knew letting cars OUT of traffic efficiently REDUCES congestion?!
“That’s how we’ve always done it” is always about the worst argument you could ever make. It’s a well-established rule in the US and pretty much exclusively the US because the rest of us aren’t insane enough to implement a rule like that.
I’m pointing out that the accident data doesnt corelate with the implementation of the rules. There being a change now indicates something else is at play. Then I gave my opinion of what could cause it based on real world experiences.
There are real-world benefits to right on red and it can be done safely.
Its true “Because that’s how we’ve always done it” is not a strong argument of its self, but let me submit: changing the rules makes everybody student drivers again.
It’s not a change “now”, it was when the rule was implemented. From the article I’m sure you read before posting:
It’s unclear that right-on-red did much of anything to reduce gas consumption, but it had a sizable effect on roadway safety. A 1982 study found that the new policy triggered a sharp increase in crashes involving conflicts between a pedestrian or cyclist and a right-turning vehicle. In Ohio, for instance, such collisions rose 57% for pedestrians and 80% for cyclists; in Wisconsin, the figures were 107% and 72%, respectively.
Right on red does work, that’s why UPS and other delivery companies prioritize it. They save 10’s of thousands of cars worth of gas a year. Not only that, but any meaningful study would include congestion statistics of additional right-turning cars.
Don’t know about other cities, but the bike issue wouldn’t apply since they wouldn’t cross paths. Well… I guess now they do actually post-construction. Guess that adds to the cognitive load the author talked about.
All in all, I’m not a journalist, and I can only point out results of these measures as I’ve witnessed. What I have experienced is much more congestion due to cars unable to leave the main flow of traffic. I can not enphesize it enough; It’s significant
Just make eye contact peeps. Seriously. Problem solved.
“Saving the gas is worth hitting a few of those pesky cyclists or pedestrians anyway. Just a cost of effeciency in the system” -your selfish car brained argument in a nutshell.
changing the rules makes everybody student drivers again.
I know you are trying to make this big, meaningful statement, but no, it doesn’t. At all. Not even close. This is a bad statement and you shouldn’t use it, it makes zero sense
I hear you, but im going to stand by my statement.
I see the confusion on the roads; drivers with the right of way second guessing themselves on the rules of the road. Can I turn? In a neighboring city: looks wide enough and the line is dashed. Great! But in my city, no because there is a cement curb jutting out. Oops!
This is dangerous in the same way as a teen learning to drive. Its not standardized rules anymore, but city-centric. I have decades of experience to rely on and never caused an injury. knock on wood
But there have been some changes that had me confused especially in cities I don’t frequent. For example, a crosswalk that had horizontal flashing OR solid lights indicating different actions. The first time I encountered one one of those, it took longer to read and process the conditional argument then I had time before the situation was upon me. I lucked out, totally admit that, but it was a terrible, terrible design for out-of-towners learning on the road. I can not rely in my experience as I have in the past.
Our city downtown is a Mario cart track of green and white. There are hazards like curbs jutting out, bus only lanes, light rail in lanes. It is utter chaos. Drivers reach maximum cognitive saturation quicker. It is overwhelming at times; I get overwhelmed. It is simply not possible to read all the warnings and rules in real time. Its why we memorize them beforehand and take a test.
Rules for pedestrians and bicyclists keep changing. Are they going to run that stop sign? Who knows. At least they are on the right side of the road this time. Does that pedestrian between parked cars know they can’t cross with me approaching? Is that jogger with airpods going to ignore traffic control signs?
I guess we’re just a city that’s fed up. We all want our way and more rules are how we impose our will and wants on others. Some of us want predictable, some embrase the chaos.
Meeeh, going to be honest, it’s extremely late and I’m super exhausted. When the rules change frequently to mean what’s popular, they stop mattering when its important.
Figuring out you can’t do one unsafe action isn’t the same as having to learn to drive all over. It’s restrictive, not like having to all of sudden learn to do right on reds. The only problem I see, besides people sometimes having to wait when there is no traffic, is people behind the person front in line freaking out because they don’t understand it’s been banned. Eventually everyone would learn though.
What has been for 50 years hasn’t suddenly become dangerous
True, it’s been pretty constant in its high level of danger for at least 50 years. Only now are we starting to think it might be unacceptable.
Everyone should be alert and smart, but mistakes are ultimately unavoidable. We should design the system to reduce the chances of a mistake having fatal consequences.
Lololol no it hasn’t. It’s a very rare occurrence. You people are just looking for a fight. This is a waste of political capital and could be better spent on infrastructure.
yeah, i don’t understand why people just want to make driving more annoying. implement better public transportation options, don’t destroy something most people feel some sort of enjoyment of / nostalgia for / etc. just like the piracy argument about how you need to make legitimate services better than the bad option
deleted by creator
Thos article literally points out how drivers are not aware of the pedestrians routinely put at risk by this insane rule and links to studies supporting their point.
It’s a shame you find it so torturous to wait a few seconds at a red light but that is absolutely not worth risking other people’s lives.
Nah, it’s rare. https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/traftech/1995/tt086.htm
Its not an insane rule, but an established norm in most areas. What has been for 50 years hasn’t suddenly become dangerous.
What has changed in my county is relaxed situational awareness, false security, and avoidance in basic nonverbal communication such as simple eye contact.
People complain my city isn’t walkable friendly, but I have a 3 mile exercise loop I do weekly for 4 years and never, never had a problem. Just be alert and smart. Eye contact, visibility, follow rules… that’s middle school stuff.
Also, the “few seconds” argument is long in the tooth as a recent “calming” measure removed a right lane and traffic now backs up 3 blocks. I waited 3 light cycles to get through an intersection. I don’t buy that “few seconds” fluff after that nonsence.
Who knew letting cars OUT of traffic efficiently REDUCES congestion?!
Crowd gasps
“That’s how we’ve always done it” is always about the worst argument you could ever make. It’s a well-established rule in the US and pretty much exclusively the US because the rest of us aren’t insane enough to implement a rule like that.
I’m pointing out that the accident data doesnt corelate with the implementation of the rules. There being a change now indicates something else is at play. Then I gave my opinion of what could cause it based on real world experiences.
There are real-world benefits to right on red and it can be done safely.
Its true “Because that’s how we’ve always done it” is not a strong argument of its self, but let me submit: changing the rules makes everybody student drivers again.
Now that puts a shiver down my spine.
It’s not a change “now”, it was when the rule was implemented. From the article I’m sure you read before posting:
And this is the study linked in that paragraph.
Right on red does work, that’s why UPS and other delivery companies prioritize it. They save 10’s of thousands of cars worth of gas a year. Not only that, but any meaningful study would include congestion statistics of additional right-turning cars.
Don’t know about other cities, but the bike issue wouldn’t apply since they wouldn’t cross paths. Well… I guess now they do actually post-construction. Guess that adds to the cognitive load the author talked about.
All in all, I’m not a journalist, and I can only point out results of these measures as I’ve witnessed. What I have experienced is much more congestion due to cars unable to leave the main flow of traffic. I can not enphesize it enough; It’s significant
Just make eye contact peeps. Seriously. Problem solved.
“Saving the gas is worth hitting a few of those pesky cyclists or pedestrians anyway. Just a cost of effeciency in the system” -your selfish car brained argument in a nutshell.
I know you are trying to make this big, meaningful statement, but no, it doesn’t. At all. Not even close. This is a bad statement and you shouldn’t use it, it makes zero sense
I hear you, but im going to stand by my statement.
I see the confusion on the roads; drivers with the right of way second guessing themselves on the rules of the road. Can I turn? In a neighboring city: looks wide enough and the line is dashed. Great! But in my city, no because there is a cement curb jutting out. Oops!
This is dangerous in the same way as a teen learning to drive. Its not standardized rules anymore, but city-centric. I have decades of experience to rely on and never caused an injury. knock on wood
But there have been some changes that had me confused especially in cities I don’t frequent. For example, a crosswalk that had horizontal flashing OR solid lights indicating different actions. The first time I encountered one one of those, it took longer to read and process the conditional argument then I had time before the situation was upon me. I lucked out, totally admit that, but it was a terrible, terrible design for out-of-towners learning on the road. I can not rely in my experience as I have in the past.
Our city downtown is a Mario cart track of green and white. There are hazards like curbs jutting out, bus only lanes, light rail in lanes. It is utter chaos. Drivers reach maximum cognitive saturation quicker. It is overwhelming at times; I get overwhelmed. It is simply not possible to read all the warnings and rules in real time. Its why we memorize them beforehand and take a test.
Rules for pedestrians and bicyclists keep changing. Are they going to run that stop sign? Who knows. At least they are on the right side of the road this time. Does that pedestrian between parked cars know they can’t cross with me approaching? Is that jogger with airpods going to ignore traffic control signs?
I guess we’re just a city that’s fed up. We all want our way and more rules are how we impose our will and wants on others. Some of us want predictable, some embrase the chaos.
Meeeh, going to be honest, it’s extremely late and I’m super exhausted. When the rules change frequently to mean what’s popular, they stop mattering when its important.
Example A: San Jose
Q. E. D.
Peace out, it’s been fun. :)
Figuring out you can’t do one unsafe action isn’t the same as having to learn to drive all over. It’s restrictive, not like having to all of sudden learn to do right on reds. The only problem I see, besides people sometimes having to wait when there is no traffic, is people behind the person front in line freaking out because they don’t understand it’s been banned. Eventually everyone would learn though.
True, it’s been pretty constant in its high level of danger for at least 50 years. Only now are we starting to think it might be unacceptable.
Everyone should be alert and smart, but mistakes are ultimately unavoidable. We should design the system to reduce the chances of a mistake having fatal consequences.
Lololol no it hasn’t. It’s a very rare occurrence. You people are just looking for a fight. This is a waste of political capital and could be better spent on infrastructure.
Right, lets just keep building infrastructure without doing any research about how safe it is.
Holy irrelevance Batman!
What on earth does this have to do with infrastructure research?
Roads are infrastructure. People are getting injured on the infrastructure. Right turn on red is contributing to that.
Wow, just wow. What a line of reasoning to follow.
People who don’t make mistakes don’t need rules to reduce the number of mistakes they could have made if they do make mistakes.
Your statement is a tautology.
Did you ever see people drive in America?
deleted by creator
yeah, i don’t understand why people just want to make driving more annoying. implement better public transportation options, don’t destroy something most people feel some sort of enjoyment of / nostalgia for / etc. just like the piracy argument about how you need to make legitimate services better than the bad option
They want to make walking more safer.
That enjoyment/nostalgia comes at the expense of others safety, drains our economy and helps cause the ecological collapse of our planet
Right on red actually reduces pollution.