US US pedestrian deaths are soaring. Is it time to ban right turns on red lights? - "See this here? He's turning right on a red light. That is America's only contribution to Western Civilization."

US pedestrian deaths are soaring. Is it time to ban right turns on red lights?​

Nearly fifty years after the federal government pushed for looser rules, cities across the country are considering a change

Matthew Cantor in Los Angeles

@CantorMatthew
Tue 17 Oct 2023 13.00 BST

For the past 50 years, red-blooded Americans have enjoyed a freedom the Founding Fathers hardly dreamed of: the ability to turn right on a red light. But with pedestrian fatalities at a four-decade high, a movement is afoot to change that.

This month, San Francisco supervisors unanimously voiced support for a ban on right-on-red. Last year, the practice was banned in Cambridge, Massachusetts. New York has long barred it, Denver could soon, and Washington DC has taken steps toward a ban. Seattle, meanwhile, has made no-right-on-red the city’s “default” policy at new traffic signals. A growing media chorus agrees it’s time for change.


The shift comes as pedestrian deaths in the US soar to their highest levels since 1981. Last year, at least 7,508 people were killed while walking, according to a report by the non-profit Governors Highway Safety Association, which also found a 77% increase in fatalities between 2010 and 2021.

There are many possible reasons for this, including the popularity of SUVs, more people walking in suburbs built for cars, and reckless driving that worsened during Covid. Banning right turns on red lights certainly wouldn’t eliminate all pedestrian deaths – but it could help, advocates say.

“The key to safe streets is predictability – me knowing what you’re going to do and you knowing what I’m going to do and therefore we navigate the space together,” says John Yi, executive director of Los Angeles Walks, a pedestrian advocacy non-profit in a city known for its car culture. A ban on right-on-red, he says, “creates more predictability”.

People for Bikes, a national organization aimed at getting more people cycling, includes a call for a ban in its model legislation. “Intersections are a really important part of improving road safety. It’s where we tend to see the most conflicts between people biking and people driving,” says Martina Haggerty, the organization’s senior director of local innovation.

Turning right on red was only legal in a few states until the 1970s, when the federal government, facing an oil crisis, told states to allow it – or lose their energy funding. The idea was that cars would use less fuel if they avoided sitting at red lights. That law remains in place, despite research from 1984 showing that at intersections allowing right-on-red, crashes jump 23%, pedestrian crashes increase by 60%, and cyclist crashes double.

Perhaps this was partially related to uncertainty over new laws – but a study last year raises similar concerns. When University of Toronto researchers equipped drivers with glasses that tracked their eye movements, they found that drivers generally kept a close eye on pedestrians – but their attention was “heavily skewed” toward the left at intersections, as they looked for a gap in traffic so they could turn right. (Canada, like the US, generally allows right-on-red.)

“Attention is a limited resource,” says Birsen Donmez, an author of the study. When drivers are focused on finding a gap, they have less capacity to track pedestrians trying to cross in front of them.

Donmez, who has lived in the US and Canada, says she would support banning right turns on red lights – in fact, she says, the best-case scenario would be “fully protected” turns, in which pedestrian and vehicle crossings are entirely isolated from each other.

But supporters of a ban acknowledge the barriers to change, especially at a federal level. “There’s a car-centric culture in parts of the US,” she says. “If your main form of transportation is with a car and you don’t get the chance to walk because it’s not walkable, I can see why people say: ‘This is going to hurt me and I don’t see the value.’”

Yi, the pedestrian advocate, agrees. “I’m a driver myself, and oftentimes, we are in streets that are incredibly busy, traffic congested, and many see a right turn on red as a means of getting home faster,” he says. Especially in Los Angeles, anything that would slow traffic “causes anxiety”.

And some engineers still see fuel savings and a reduction in air pollution as perks in favor of turning right on red. But Haggerty, of People for Bikes, argues “the benefit of saving lives far outweighs the fuel savings here, especially as we push to reduce vehicle miles travelled and switch to more fuel efficient cars and EVs”.

What’s more, when it comes to eco-friendly cycling, “infrastructure tends to be the biggest barrier to participation because of the very real fear of personal safety when riding a bike,” she notes. “And so to create a more bike-friendly environment for people, we really have to improve road safety everywhere.”

Donmez says when we allow right turns on red, “we are putting the drivers in a situation where they’re gonna fail for sure. Not all the time, right? It’s rare these things happen,” she notes. “But at the same time, we’re looking at millions of interactions, and crashes do happen, and people die. Even a single person’s life being lost due to this – that’s unacceptable.”

SOURCE
 
A ban on right-on-red, he says, “creates more predictability”.
Wouldn't it actually do the exact opposite since it's so normalized now that when people inevitably do it anyways pedestrians would be surprised? If you know cars will turn right on red, that's already predictability. Drivers and pedestrians just need to practice awareness. Right on red is a completely sensible thing that shouldn't be stopped because it isn't done perfectly.

Bicycle advocates should also always be completely disregarded.
 
Anything except ceasing to give driver's licenses to illegals who repeatedly run people over drunk, ditch the car, and move to another state unless the victim was too high profile which means they leave the country for a few years.

Better dead than denying illegals free reign. Citizens pound sand.
 
Nothing that can't be fixed by both drivers and pedestrians paying attention to what they are doing.
Have they stopped teaching kids how to cross a road properly and to look both ways? Is that considered racist or something?
Anything except ceasing to give driver's licenses to illegals who repeatedly run people over drunk, ditch the car, and move to another state unless the victim was too high profile which means they leave the country for a few years.

Better dead than denying illegals free reign. Citizens pound sand.
"Look up from your phone" is too much to ask of neighborcattle.
 
Look left before crossing JFC if I can do it while high as a kite everybody can
It's not like banning right turns on red is going to get the totally rules-abiding retards who don't think of pedestrians in the first place from blasting through the turn.
 
Banning right turns on red lights certainly wouldn’t eliminate all pedestrian deaths – but it could help, advocates say.
Dumb. A red light on a right turn means yield. If there is oncoming traffic or oncoming pedestrians, the driver is supposed to yield. Maybe they are giving out drivers licenses to easily, maybe it as as someone else pointed out illegals without licenses. But there are other ways, and preventing right on red compounds commute and travel times.
I actually agree with some of the tenets of the Not Just Bikes City Nerd crowd about suburban sprawl, but too many in that movement are just not people I want making decisions about anything.
 
I'm a bong in kiwiland, and turning right on red is one of those quirks I have to consciously remember when driving in the US, but it's not fucking rocket science.
That SF is the only place that's felt the need to ban it is proof to me that it's a retarded move to pander to subhuman niggercattle.
Sometimes evolution is the result of a change of food supply, sometimes it's the result of a new virus, and sometimes it's a Mack truck.

 
US pedestrian deaths are soaring. Is it time to ban right turns on red lights?
Betteridge.

For the past 50 years, red-blooded Americans have enjoyed a freedom the Founding Fathers hardly dreamed of: the ability to turn right on a red light. But with pedestrian fatalities at a four-decade high,
"Everything was fine for a half-century after the law was enacted, but now that things are worse than any other time in the past 40 years we want something to blame." is not an argument for anything except that the person making the argument is a moron. Come to think of it., "San Francisco supervisors unanimously voiced support" is an argument against.

There are many possible reasons for this, including the popularity of SUVs, more people walking in suburbs built for cars, and reckless driving that worsened during Covid.
Is this writer actively trying to undermine the pro-ban argument? I can't honestly tell subtle mockery from idiotic support in articles anymore.

Banning right turns on red lights certainly wouldn’t eliminate all pedestrian deaths – but it could help, advocates say.
Or it could not. Or it could make the situation worse. "I don't know, let's just try something." is what you do when improvising a tune or experimenting with spices in your cooking, not what you do with laws affecting millions of people.

“The key to safe streets is predictability
Better get rid of humans then. Including the pedestrians. If I had a dollar for every person I saw jaywalk across six lanes of traffic I wouldn't need to commute anymore.

Donmez, who has lived in the US and Canada, says she would support banning right turns on red lights – in fact, she says, the best-case scenario would be “fully protected” turns, in which pedestrian and vehicle crossings are entirely isolated from each other.
Put down the needle drugs. That concept is such a logistical and financial nightmare it's insulting to an entire genre to call it a fantasy. The real best-case scenario is pedestrians magically grow wings and fly away from the cars but that's about as realistic.

“There’s a car-centric culture in parts of the US,” she says. “If your main form of transportation is with a car and you don’t get the chance to walk because it’s not walkable,
Make the middle of Montana walkable. The "car-centric" culture is because the country is HUGE. Let me guess, you want everyone in a pod in a "15 minute city"?

we’re looking at millions of interactions, and crashes do happen, and people die.
Look at millions of pedestrian-pedestrian interactions and you will find people dying. Maybe we should ban pedestrians instead.

Even a single person’s life being lost due to this – that’s unacceptable.
Of course. This genius stepped right out of this video:




Maybe look for something a little closer to the time of the problem, like magic TV screens that fit in the palm of your hand and offer constant distraction. But no, I bet every one of these "advocates" is too busy posting on social media about how we need to change traffic laws to fit the bizarre carless utopia they imagine in their heads.
 
I can't help but notice all these places are big to huge cities.

“But at the same time, we’re looking at millions of interactions, and crashes do happen, and people die. Even a single person’s life being lost due to this – that’s unacceptable.”
Same argument they use for gun control, every death is too much. So just advocate for cars to not be able to go over 25mph, because high speed crashes kill a lot more people than right-turn-on-red does.
 
Back