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
 
It probably wouldn't hurt for police to start enforcing traffic laws again.
That would be racist, though.

Back to the article itself and its content:
This is the exact type of petty tyranny outlined in the now hackneyed "Harry Potter" series of books.
Clueless government officials fucking with every citizen to "look like they're doing something" and turn the fines into a predictable revenue source, since 95% of the rest of the country are used to the convention they're banning, and this guarantees any visitors get milked for fines.
 
To the roundabout aficionados:

They are a great replacement for those 4-way stop signs that are so popular in suburbia. If I'm sat on 7th and Oak*, I'd rather just give way to traffic from the left than worry that DeSwawnye in his stolen Toyota is counting cars properly, especially after that much weed. It's hard enough turning left when I hit the sign the same time as Pete in his Dodge.

But when it's multi-lane traffic in a main road, controlled filtering is the way to go.

-----

*(You bitches need some imagination with names. There must be a thousand intersections called 7th and Oak)
 
roundabouts are shit.
They're a massive waste of resources and land, and their expense guarantees they do not have the beautification added to prevent them being an eyesore as well.

A stop sign beats them in low traffic areas.
In high traffic areas a proper traffic light complex beats them, as gaps in the round-about traffic are nigh impossible to find and you end up waiting eons.
 
roundabouts are shit.
They're a massive waste of resources and land, and their expense guarantees they do not have the beautification added to prevent them being an eyesore as well.

A stop sign beats them in low traffic areas.
In high traffic areas a proper traffic light complex beats them, as gaps in the round-about traffic are nigh impossible to find and you end up waiting eons.
Round abouts are sometimes food. I have seen new roundabouts that improved traffic flow and those that were stupid pain in the ass. They aren't some holy grail of traffic but can work out if you really think where they are added. They are great if the intersection has frequent but uneven traffic, you need ensure that people actually slowdown or the roads are coming in on odd angles.
 
Bro we have too many pedestrian deaths. Could this be because people are fucking stupid and need education and to not be on their phones all the time?

Nah, we need to invent and implement more laws that will be different all over the country. This will certainly help people drive safer and cause less accidents.

I understand the concept of "states rights" and the fact that the US allows certain cities and shit to have their own laws about certain things, but every time I look into the legal side of things it sounds like a fucking nightmare because every fucking city/county/state can somehow have it's own opinion about what is legal and illegal, from traffic laws to gun laws to what you're allowed to do on your own property.

It's hard enough to know what the laws are when they're the same in the entire country, how are citizens supposed to keep track of and know specific laws for every city and state they visit?
 
I am familiar with this city-

Carmel, Indiana is internationally known for its roundabout network. Since the late 1990's Carmel has been building and replacing signalized intersections with roundabouts. Carmel now has more than 138 roundabouts, more than any other city in the United States.
Roundabouts | City of Carmel

And roundabouts are absolutely fantastic, until they're not.

They make traffic flow like butter until they hit a saturation point, and they start backing up traffic into one another, and then it all grinds to a near stop.

The roundabouts are one of the features that will make a city an attractive place to live, but that will cause the population to grow, and that population will growth will hit a point where the traffic locks up the roundabouts.
 
Last edited:
Back