Hacker News Reader

Comment by mstade | Hacker News Reader

> In the US, and other countries where you drive on the right side of the road, right turns are free, but for a left turn you need to wait for a green light.

I don't know of any other country than the US where turning right on red is allowed, unless there's specific signage or additional traffic lights to allow it. Indeed, the turn-on-red rule in the US seems to work inverse to how I've seen it elsewhere – i.e. it's always allowed unless there's specific signage saying it isn't.

I was just in the US, and I love their turn-on-red rules, and I kept thinking that sometimes it's got to be smarter to turn right than go straight ahead, when there's a red light, even if it may be a longer drive. Glad to see someone took the time to figure this out.

View on HN

Turning right on red is one of those idea that once you've been exposed to it you wonder why isn't everybody adopting it...

A similar idea is the train system in Munich where they built their platforms such that they can open doors on both sides, making one side of the train the exit, and the other side the entrance. Ever since I saw that, every single time I wait for people getting off a crowded train, I wonder "Why?".

There's an elevator in one of the London tube stations like this (Everyone uses the elevator, like 150 stairs). Just makes so much sense, moves so many more people that way.

It's not as commonly done because it's considerably more expensive to build triple platforms, and the bends required to make it work slow the train down and cause wear. It's good for high-capacity stations though.

What bends?

When trains run in tunnels, or even when on aboveground rights-of-way, the rails are generally spaced very close together. A 3-platform station therefore requires the tracks to turn away from each other to make room for the central platform.

They don't usually have to be that sharp, but they tend to be noticeably sharper than the turns in the route.

So it should be in every tube/metro/LRT station of every major metropolitan!

I get that it's more expensive, but then train spend a lot less time in stations for people to load/unload.

> Turning right on red is one of those idea that once you've been exposed to it you wonder why isn't everybody adopting it...

Because someone who comes from your left may go forward, or someone who comes from your front mau turn left?

Where I live, we do not assume that we can turn right on red lights. Where and when that's possible, we have a blinking yellow light (basically meaning proceed with caution)..

when the idea is baked into how your whole traffic system operates, you don't have these issues. People turning right have the same right-of-way as people going straight through an intersection. People turning left must wait for all traffic to clear from the opposing lane before turning.

As for someone to your left going straight thru the intersection... you, turning right, must yield to those going straight. However, there is not always traffic coming straight through the light. If someone on the perpendicular street turns right instead of going straight thru, you may turn right from your lane into their lane because there is a pause in traffic flow coming through the intersection.

That probably doesn't make much sense but the bottom line is that when everyone knows the rules and everyone observes them, right on red is mostly painless.

People turning right have the same right-of-way as people going straight through an intersection.

No they don't, They must come to a complete stop and yield to all traffic, including people turning left. At least in NJ, I don't know about other states.

http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/Manuals/drivermanual.pdf

or someone who comes from your front mau turn left?

so I guess you're right in the scenario that one direction has a green light with no green arrow and the opposite direction has a red light, but how often does that scenario exist?

If both directions have a green light, left-turners yield to right-turners because of traffic behind the right-turners and stop signs are always turn based.

I believe the GP is saying that they have the same right-of-way as if they were going straight. Admittedly, the difficulty in talking about this stuff precisely does leave me wondering if some people ITT are total menaces on the roads.

Turning right on a red light is only permitted after establishing that it is safe to do so. Obviously you can't just assume that it'll be fine to go. The difference between your country and the US is the default value: do you have a blinking light permitting it in some places, or a sign prohibiting it where it would be unsafe?

Blinking light permiting it when it is considered safe to turn (with caution).

NYC has no right on red. After getting used to I loved it. Now I live in another city with right on red and a fair amount of bike and pedestrian traffic.

Turning right on red means looking out for cars, people, bikes and having the pressure of a car behind you - perhaps honking because it wants you to go.

Driving in (the busiest parts of) NYC is an outlier experience that doesn't resemble much else.

(I'm curious what other city you're talking about.)

> having the pressure of a car behind you - perhaps honking because it wants you to go

Don't let assholes stress you. The honk shouldn't be used for that, plus you can take as much time as you need to make sure you're driving safely.

> Turning right on red is one of those idea that once you've been exposed to it you wonder why isn't everybody adopting it...

I believe Jeremy Clarkson once called it, "America's only useful contribution to Western civilization" :)

> Turning right on red is one of those idea that once you've been exposed to it you wonder why isn't everybody adopting it...

It was first introduced in the 70s in the US in response to high oil prices, and only after road safety tests apparently demonstrated its safety. But since then there's been a fair amount of research indicating it increases accidents and pedestrian fatalities, amounting to somewhere under 100 deaths per year. The original studies were not large enough to detect the effect.

https://www.statisticsdonewrong.com/power.html#the-wrong-tur...

And now, turning right on a red light is just a cash cow for the slimy red light camera companies. Some areas report that upwards of 95% of the tickets issued by red light cameras were for not stopping for 6 seconds before turning right on a red light.

("In a two-month period in 2010 in South San Francisco, 98 percent of the 672 red-light violations recorded at El Camino Real and Westborough Boulevard were for right turns. Other cities say 4 in 5 tickets go to people turning right at intersections."

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/01/06/roadshow-right-on-red-...

> "And now, turning right on a red light is just a cash cow for the slimy red light camera companies."

Hm? I'm pretty sure that revenues from red light camera tickets generally go to municipalities, not the companies that make the cameras themselves.

The cameras are sold as a service, so the companies only make money if there are enough tickets for the municipality to justify the expense.

Sure, but the vast majority of the funds from tickets go to the city - that's who it's really a "cash cow" for. And the municipalities are the ones actually making the rules that govern the tickets themselves. Why "slimy companies", and not "slimy City Halls"?

Look up "redflex bribery" and you'll see why.

But yes, city hall is slimy as well. Citizens do not get any say in the matter. Citizens do not get to vote to add red light cameras. You just see them going up, and fighting them is a long, hard road. Some cities in Texas have finally banned them, fortunately.

Redflex/etc are definitely profiting plenty off of the devices. No question about that.

I thought California DMV rules only said you had to treat a red-light right like a stop sign. Make a complete stop then move. I don't recall reading anything about 6 seconds and the article doesn't mention that either.

NB: you should always make a complete stop when turning right on red (even if state regs don't require it). And slow down a LOT when turning right in general. There's always a risk of hitting a pedestrian or bicyclist coming up from behind you.

Apparently I was wrong about the 6 second thing. That's how long the cameras are recording before and after you trigger them. oops.

If modern fuel-injected cars had automagic engine running management a-la hybrids, mucho idling gas could be saved. Modern engines apparently can save gas by shutting off if expected to stop for any more than 10 seconds.

http://www.aarp.org/money/budgeting-saving/info-05-2009/ask_...

This is OT but do others have this experience?

You're a pedestrian at an intersection and patiently waiting for the crosswalk signal to flash walk because you want to be safe and not jaywalk. As soon as it flashes walk, a "right turner" comes zooming in and proceeds to take their right. Either they abruptly stop when they finally notice me or they don't and just roll on through and I have to jump back on the sidewalk to avoid them. I try to intentionally wait in a position that is very visible to the right turners and it still happens.

I don't feel safe legally crossing the street. It sucks.

I have only been to the USA once and I noticed this. It didn't help that I was in Florida in the late summer (very hot) so none of the locals expected there to be pedestrians!

> Ever since I saw that, every single time I wait for people getting off a crowded train, I wonder "Why?".

Cost reasons. Wherever you adopt this, you need two platforms to serve a train instead of one. Not saying it doesn't make sense to do, just that someone probably sat down and did a cost/benefit calculation.

I guess the train thing isn't done everywhere because it basically requires that you rebuild every single train station for it to work (plus, you have to re-do all the railing to have space for an additional platform in between).

I do agree that new stations should do this.

> Indeed, the turn-on-red rule in the US seems to work inverse to how I've seen it elsewhere – i.e. it's always allowed unless there's specific signage saying it isn't.

Driving laws vary widely by state. You cannot say "$x is [il]legal in the US" because it's likely there's at least one state where the inverse is true. That being said, my state does allow turning on red unless it's explicitly prohibited, including left turns if you are on a one-way street turning onto a one-way street.

> I kept thinking that sometimes it's got to be smarter to turn right than go straight ahead, when there's a red light, even if it may be a longer drive.

The city I live in actually times the light cycles to prevent this, you will end up exactly where you would have been had you not turned, or behind.

Having been across the US, I would say that the right-on-red rule is so consistent that you can say it's legal in the US. It's just a rule with an exception.

According to Wikipedia [1], "as of 1992, right turn on red is governed federally by 42 U.S.C. § 6322(c)", which reads [2]:

> Each proposed State energy conservation plan to be eligible > for Federal assistance under this part shall include [...] > a traffic law or regulation which, to the maximum extent > practicable consistent with safety, permits the operator of a > motor vehicle to turn such vehicle right at a red stop light > after stopping and to turn such vehicle left from a one-way > street onto a one-way street at a red light after stopping

I'm not sure how exactly the NYC exception works.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/6322

New York got to be the exception (!?)

This is not "governed federally". Making a state eligible for Federal assistance is not the same as being a legal requirement. How you confuse these things is an example a simple comprehension failure or possibly someone who doesn't understand US law to any degree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red shows a handy little map in the bottom right highlighting the differences between states.

If you're talking about the US map near the bottom of the page that is specific to left turns on red, not right turns.

The portion you take issue with is a quote from the same article that you're referring to, and clearly marked as such. I'm sorry that your "comprehension failure" insult backfired.

By the way, the map on the bottom right is for left turns on red, which isn't the topic here.

It is legal to turn right on a red light in Canada, except the Isle of Montreal. It actually used to be illegal in all of Quebec until 2003.

And in Quebec, you still see people turning right on red lights while looking solely to the right, instead of looking for oncoming traffic from the left.

in NYC right turn on red is illegal, and it makes sense due to the number of pedestrians.

It gets even better -- you can also make an "Oregon left" - in Oregon it is legal to turn left on red if you are turning onto a one way street.

http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2015/10/turn_l...

Georgia has this too. Who doesn't have this?

In Washington we are advised pretty strongly that Oregon has this but California and Idaho very much do not.

(Incidentally, highway on-ramps are considered one way streets for the purpose of this law.)

You're wrong about Idaho. Here's a PDF source[1] of the official driving manual. Check out Turning At a Red Light on page 35.

[1] http://itd.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/driver_manua...

In California you can turn left on red from a one-way to a one-way street.

Same in Ohio. Never heard it called an "Oregon left" before.

In Milwaukee there are a few spots you can turn left on red technically "after stopping". The locations I know are freeway off-ramps onto one way streets, and simple left turns onto one way streets.

It's legal to turn right at a red light in parts of Germany (if there s a sign saying so at the traffic light). One of the few things that were adopted from East Germany after the reunification. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grünpfeil

My brother came to Michigan to visit from the UK. After a few days he said:

"So, I can go on a red light for a right turn, but sometimes I have to wait at a green light for a left turn?"

It was then I realised how peculiar the signals in the US can be.

If you have to cross lanes of traffic, you have to wait for a light. If you are merely "changing lanes" you just have to wait for right of way.

(in my state at least) you're allowed to turn left from a one way to a one way on red, because you're not crossing any other lanes.

So do the math... how many lanes are involved. If it's just "current lane" and "target lane", you can go when the coast is clear. If there are ANY other lanes involved, wait for a light.

Flip side, having driven in England 20+ years ago. In England, when stopped at a red they politely blink a yellow light when your stop light is about to turn green. In the US not only do we not do that, but many localities put extended shields around the lights, polarized lenses, etc. To prevent you from knowing when your light is about to turn by observing the lights for the perpendicular street.

In other words...

England provides more information to the driver expecting the driver to use that information to make good driving decisions.

The US hides information from drivers in an attempt to control their behavior because they don't trust the driver to make good driving decisions.

and now I'm once again angry about it.....

The majority of cars in the UK are manual (ie not automatic) gears. Consequently that forewarning gives the driver something to do as it does take a second or two to get into gear.

It's apocryphal but my history professor stated US stoplights used to actually have the red to green warning in order to assist large trucks which need a few seconds to build momentum. It caused more wrecks because of red light runners not clearing the intersection in time and people with a fresh green light trying to immediately enter the same intersection.

Keep in mind everywhere in NYC unless noted does not allow right on red. however on Long Island and in Upstate New York it is typically allowed unless noted. laws not only vary by state but also by locality [pardon if this is not the correct usage of the term]

> I don't know of any other country than the US where turning right on red is allowed

The DDR (East Germany) had this law and IIRC it was one of the two things they tried to preserve in the unification agreement (the other was abortion rights). Neither survived.

It's not just about turning on red. Even where that's not allowed, when the light is green the right turning traffic is less impeded and more cars pass through in a cycle. Those turning left have to wait longer for gaps in the oncoming traffic, in general at least.

ToR was not allowed in all states until the late 70's, especially back East. It's not like pedestrians have enough dangers to worry about.

Popular expedience != sensible policies.

Curiously also, only California allows motorcycle lane-splitting.

It is common in Germany," too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com