- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
I dislike these kinds of articles (as someone who bikes to work everyday) because of how they treat an urban perspective as if its the only perspective. Some highway stoplights are in the middle of nowhere, have no crosswalk, can go a full year without a single pedestrian, and often have mimal cars. People who sit at those lights every day get mad from articles (like this one) that are completely tonedeaf to their situation.
Yes, in a busy city it makes no sense to allow turn on red, and the article has some great info but it also makes no sense to wait 2 minutes on red when there isn’t a car or human within a 5 mile radius.
If we want people to be onboard with change we’ve got to include them. We can solve both; like getting rual lights to use a flashing red to indicate “allows for turning on red” and THEN get city lights to ban turning right on solid red. Solving one problem expense of another is a quick way to create enemies.
Germany got a ‘right on red’ with reunification - it is allowed when there’s a small sign on the light that explicitly allows it. In any event even if it is allowed “stop sign” rules apply.
Interestingly the number of lights with such a sign drops each year (after a peak in the 90s) because of higher than normal accident rates and other drivers honking the horn if one driver does not choose to use the “right on red” (which is perfectly fine, you are free to wait till the light is green, turning on red is only an option)
After all for German cities right on red has rather been disappointing
Yes absolutely. Also the problems of right on red are solved by bettee designs of the streets themselves. Dedicated, separate bicycle lanes. Curb bulbs. Raised pedestrian crossings. Stop lines farther back from the intersection.
Stop lines farther back from the intersection.
People don’t stop for the stop lines, nor the crosswalk, nor the red light. We haven’t even solved stop-on-red. Solutions that will only be implemented in the occasional rich neighborhood are a joke. The problem is that we never had a proper conversation of whether the general public can be trusted to operate heavy machinery. Some dickheads got rich selling the heavy machinery and that was enough to quash any discussion about people being squashed. We need car-free places where people can truly live their lives not only without cars, but without other people zipping by on their cars. Not just 14th Street but all of Manhattan. Make that the go-to move for rich parents who prioritize their childrens’ safety above all else. Make other cities get jealous of the money flowing into car-free Manhattan and implement their own car-free zones.
Tinkering around the edges is Vision Maybe-Marginally-Less.
Well yeah we should ideally abolish cars for all but the most necessary uses - rural living, etc. But that is something I think falls squarely in the “what we can do after overthrowing capitalism” vision bucket. Folks can grasp that even things more realizable under capitalism are simple and can be fought for. Those fights will also usually fail but in doing so can teach valuable lessons about the nature of bourgeois electoralism.
Car-free Manhattan is just the 78% of households without cars winning out over the 22% with and the daily invaders from out of town. Those percentages are way beyond pro-weed vs. anti-weed and weed has won in a lot of places even without overthrowing capitalism. It’s long overdue there and even the late mayor Koch considered it before I was born.
It will lose because 78% isn’t organized and willing to force change down the throats of those with power.
By the time they were, we could do the necessary overthrow of capitalism first because it is the capitalists that will prevent a car-free Manhattan.
But I’m also saying that you can try. When you do, remember who the enemy is and see who prevents you - and who they align with!
There’s a light next to where i used to live that, like you suggested, used the flashing to indicate when right turns were allowed. I liked it especially since there was a lot of pedestrian traffic during the day but basically none at night (and was thus able to handle the different needs of the road depending on time of day), and it was a really intuitive way to let drivers know what the pedestrian signals were doing. Best part was it was for a right-turn-only lane, and had flashing-yellow (no green at all) to remind you to check for pedestrians and bikes.
Flashing red is stop sign procedures here. Some, but not enough problematic places have no right on red signs which often get ignored. I mainly have issue with trying to go right on green but that’s when people are crossing, and when I have no choice but to drive near the stadium during a game or concert and people cross endlessly regardless of signals. We really need a separate all way pedestrian sequence in busy intersections and intersections with only 3 crossings at least, and some kind way of ensuring no actions are taken in a pedestrian only phase.
to wait 2 minutes on red when there isn’t a car or human within a 5 mile radius.
that sounds like a signaling issue? Using shorter signal cycles, tighten up the intersection and use medians for two stage ped crossings, more detection, better monitoring and remote adjustments can all make it so you don’t need to wait long at all.
(Edit: If it’s done really well it can actually be better than allowing turns on red, because the signal can detect you and give you a green if there’s nobody around before you’ve even come to a stop)
It also would be more better for the driving experience if it was consistent everywhere. When I’m driving, all these hodgepodge no turn on red signs is exhausting. I wish it was just banned everywhere (with better signals).
Some places are getting much better with signaling too. When I leave my hometown (Madison WI) I’m always amazed how long and annoying the time waiting at a traffic light is.
Sure, there’s lots of solutions, but we have to talk about them. Even something as simple as “turning on red is often used as a crutch for signaling issues. We shouldnt be waiting at stop lights in the middle of nowhere when theres nobody nearby in the first place”
The key point is *include these people, their situation, their perspective, in the discussion"
Recently in my area they posted signs saying no right on red on certain intersections, which is fine, until a few months in they change the rules again where it is only Mon-Fri, at rush hours. The signs posting the hours are small and hard to read. Everyone’s confused if they’re allowed to turn or not. I’d rather they just stick with a blanket no right on red.
And when you legally stop at a red light, people will lay on their horn behind you because there’s no cross-traffic, even if it is a blanket “no right turn on red”.
And even when “right on red” is allowed, they will still lay on the horn when you stop. As if they don’t know you have to stop at the red and only proceed with your turn after a full stop and if the way is clear.
Actually, maybe they don’t know you have to come to a full stop before turning?
Yeah they did that where I live. I get it that it’s work hours but the text was so small! As a driver it’s hard to tell.
I have to admit this thread and post are very informative. I have never questioned it, right on red has just always been something I could do since I got my driver’s license. Didn’t realize it was so controversial! TIL after ~20 years lol
Didn’t realize it was so controversial!
If by controversial you mean dangerous, then yes, it is. It is one of the main ways in which pedestrians are killed in North America. In most developed countries it is illegal.
Those last two sentences, replace pedestrians with hot topic victims and this could be any thread.
It’s problematic at best, dangerously stupid at worst.
- It introduces a conflict point between traffic coming from the left heading straight and traffic intending to turn right.
- The driver that wants to turn right has to look very far to the left and to the right.
- The driver that wants to turn right has to determine if they have the right of way.
In most European countries (maybe all), right-turning lanes often have an additional signal that allows cars to turn right even if the main signal is red. It serves the same purpose as right-on-red, but eliminates the issues I’ve listed because it’s green only when traffic from the left is stopped.
Makes sense. I’m never against more rules governing cars, personally. Sounds like right on red is a bit too much discretion for drivers.
There are times when, as a driver, I’m glad turning right on red is legal. I’d be perfectly fine if it was abolished, though. The risks massively outweigh the benefits.
A person turning right on red fundamentally lacks right of way: when someone doing that gets in a collision, it was inherently an illegal right turn without the law changing. I don’t see how changing the law from one kind of that turn being illegal to another would change the risks in any meaningful way.
Making right turns on red illegal would reduce the number of people attempting them. I think that would change the risks.
That’s an awful and enshitified website with ads for trucks.
But yes I agree it’s a very dangerous law
Another pro-car law that you can only see in North America. After 10 years here, coming from Europe, I still feel iffy every time I turn right on red.
The city I live added the right to turn right on red as I was still a pedestrian. And I clearly saw the difference in danger of crossing the streets. Now ad a driver I don’t understand why so many drivers are in such a rush to buch up at the next red light. Here at least, you are supposed to do a complete stop for 4 seconds while checking both side before going only if it is safe to do so. But I see cars go right without even slowing down that much, and they will go even if a car is incoming thinking that they will slow down to let them pass. It’s so infuriating. Impatience is so dangerous.
Don’t read the comments. You’d think gasoline was still leaded with the aggressive position commenters are taking.
I was there’s like seven comments and nothing so bad, then I checked the article comments and wow are you right !
Jalopnik used to be great. Unfortunately, when a new company bought the site years ago, things started going downhill.
Ironically, it’s a site for car enthusiasts, and not the first place you’d expect to see an article like this. Yeah, they’re a bit more laid back and progressive than other sites covering similar topics, but still.
I was shocked the first time I went to a country that allowed this. What is the point of having a red light if it doesn’t mean stop? As a pedestrian, it seems ridiculous and dangerous.
TBF you are supposed to stop first
Of course, it’s because countries that allow this don’t care about pedestrians.
Am an American, can confirm that’s the attitude. It’s a real shame
I am an American, too. I care about pedestrians. A right turn on red is a perfectly safe maneuver when done properly. The problem presents with one or more of inattentive drivers, inattentive pedestrians, inattentive cyclists (believe it or not, all 3 exist, probably in equal proportion). I’m fairly certain the “actively trying to kill pedestrians because I don’t care” attitude is a pretty small minority, even for Americans.
But, bruh, America bad amirite lmfaorofllol
I’ve had drivers honk at me for crossing the street after narrowly swiping me on a fast right turn… when I had the crossing signal. Drivers are definitely assholes towards pedestrians, and this attitude has prevailed even more so after the pandemic, when people seem to have lost their cooperation skills.
I’ve had the same experience with crossing signals as a pedestrian. And pedestrians crossing dangerously illegally yell at me for driving normally. You can think what you like, but if your assertion were true, pedestrian deaths would be much higher. I don’t think it has anything to do with the pandemic; I’d bet it’s more attributed to tech. But again, think what you like.
Exactly. Red means unsafe, green means safe.
That’s precisely my point, in the UK red is stop. That’s it, just stop, no going under any circumstances. If I see a car going through a red light then they are breaking the law, so it’s pretty surprising to see it happen.
The driver is legally supposed to stop, and look.
The problem is they have to accept they have no right of way, and need to check far in both directions, making it potentially dangerous.
As always, the BEST solution is to just get the pedestrians and cyclists away from the cars with better design, but that isn’t always practical.
Unfortunately as a pedestrian although you may have the right of way, that doesn’t really matter. Your neighbor is a multi thousand pound metal sled. Never normalize bring near such a machine. I think of it line standing next to a running wood chipper… I’d always be very cautious near that, why not moving cars.
Here on the Island of Montreal we have no right turn on red. It’s great, highly recommend.
We also have intersections with dedicated pedestrian green light. All cars stop and pedestrians can cross any direction. Allowing cars to enter a busy intersection when pedestriana are in it is insane, especially if the driver has to look one way for vehicles and the opposite way for people.
MTL + NYC.
Get on board everyone else!
Hm, this Saskatchewanian was under the impression it was your whole province. Too bad.
Unfortunately not. They have big signs on all bridges going onto the island reminding people that there’s no turn on red on the island.
You don’t turn right on red when there are pedestrians in the way. Banning right on red is not a solution to people breaking the law in the first place.
Back in the 1990 after the German wall fell but before reunification, it was illegal in West Germany to turn right on red and legal in East Germany. I didn’t drive, but I remember my dad commenting on how he had to always remember which country he was in.
In Germany it’s solved like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Grüner_Pfeil.jpg/440px-Grüner_Pfeil.jpg
No green arrow means it’s disallowed to turn right on red.
Definitely in cities. Absolutely always near schools/universities. Not so much in rural areas.
I want to go further and state every intersection with a crossing should be a scramble with their own time to cross independent of cars. It’s safer and pedestrians deserve it. Cars can wait the extra light, they are in cars, sit there and wait.
deleted by creator
It can get worse! Some intersections in my area have blinking yellow turn lights that allow left-turns when the other lights are red. It’s insanity.
I didnt upvote this, but why are people downvoting it??? I don’t understand.
So we are ok with left on red? Which is a thing if it is a one way street you are turning into.
We drive on the correct side of the road here (highly recommended) and left on red is only legal if there’s a sign permitting it.
If sounding arrogant was your intent, you’ve done an excellent job. If it wasn’t, maybe some editing is called for.
Look I’m a patriotic Brit too but the side you drive on really doesn’t matter as long as everyone drives on it within that country.
the statistics for head on crashes begs to differ.
it’s the best kind of trolling because it’s an objectively correct, defensible position, and literally no one is going to change their mind on the matter.
