U.S. cities consider banning "right on red" laws amid rise in pedestrian deaths
cbsnews.com
cbsnews.com
If you don't enforce the laws then making them more comprehensive is unlikely to fix anything.
It’s not like traffic cops are just watching drivers run rights-on-red. It’s not like red light cameras aren’t in use, and tickets aren’t being issued for violators that get caught, no matter how they enter or exit an intersection on red. The law isn’t unenforced.
The law, where it exists, is inherently dangerous. And it incentivizes dangerous behavior that makes being a pedestrian disproportionately less safe than being a driver. A ticket is far less risk to a driver than getting hit is to a pedestrian.
There is no good reason to continue to allow an inherently dangerous traffic maneuver, full stop.
I’ve seen cops ignore all manner of traffic violations, yes including running a right on red. I’ve also seen it enforced, and know people who’ve been on the enforcement end.
If you’re moving the goal posts to “enforcement must be total before stricter laws”, you’ve basically eliminated the basis for any traffic law besides vehicular manslaughter. Which is perhaps a logically consistent position, albeit one I can’t take seriously.
Do you have any interest in engaging the actual point I’m making? Which, again, is that right on red is inherently dangerous and unnecessary.
Here, I’ll even throw your preoccupation with enforcement a bone: prohibition of right on red is significantly more enforceable in the first place. To the earlier point about red light cameras, I imagine photographic evidence of a right-on-red violation is among the more worthless bases for automated enforcement. For actual traffic cops on duty, a no-stop violation is likely much easier to miss than a prohibition of the maneuver altogether.
And I’ll ask you this: what is your actual motivation here? Are you focused on enforcement of existing law on some principle? Or just a blanket reluctance to expansion of law in general? Do you specifically prefer allowing right on red, for any particular reason? Something else I haven’t considered?
So yes, I agree with the sentiment that larger vehicles should cost more. They’re literally using more road than others.
BTW, not sure where that proposing “new” tax comes from, but obviously you want defined the idea of using taxation as the first solution to deal with an infrastructure issue.
Calling someone a socialist because they propose aligning an existing tax regime with desirable social outcomes is pretty fucking reactionary.
BTW, I oppose solving this problem through taxation. It just makes you mad since other people prefer different changes, and makes you seeking help from commie vocabularies.
A large truck/SUV can’t see anything shorter than like 4 feet that is right in front of it… so it is more likely to kill someone just because it can’t see them.
Then of course there's the impact of the design on driver visibility and therefore accident frequency, especially if the pedestrian is a child, short, in a wheelchair, etc.
The problem is that driving instead of walking/cycling/transit and especially big vehicles have been a status symbol for many decades and so most of the political class and DOT leaders identify as drivers, and are loathe to make changes which might personally slow themselves down.
In impacts below 20mph, pedestrian deaths are rare. Right on red is a 0-10mph maneuver and that's being generous.
Of course, that would have been illegal, but I think right on red laws encourage it.
turn right, yes.
> If so, this is an obvious recipe for disaster.
i've driven quite a bit in the US (not from around there), but from what i've seen it depends on population density, walking infrastructure, traffic etc. i would say that for most places this isn't an issue (most places don't even have sidewalks), but in cities with higher density you will encounter a situation where the car that is turning also needs to wait for the pedestrian to cross.
on a side note, i've noticed the same thing in certain countries in Europe, but it felt a lot more dangerous: entering an intersection where you need to turn left: you first need to yield to oncoming cars, and then surprise, you immediately need to yield again to pedestrians that also have a green light. so you need to accelerate to turn left, and then immediately stop for pedestrians.
i prefer the UK way: when the intersection has traffic lights either pedestrians or cars can move. there's no overlap, there's no intersecting pathways. it leads to longer wait times for everyone, but much improved safety. as a driver i won't have to look out for pedestrians, and vice-versa when i'm walking.
Until texting while driving is made a DUI-level offense, with the same penalties, this is a bunch of posturing and theft from law-abiding drivers.
When compared to the EU (no right turn on red), US stands out as an extremely unsafe country for pedestrians, with pedestrian deaths actually increasing year-over-year. Sure, it's not all attributed to the right turn on red law, multiple new regulations are needed.
Again: Take inattentive drivers off the road; don't punish everyone all the time with more piecemeal bullshit.
You are talking about attention as if we can detect inattentive drivers by measuring their chakra energy from a mile away. No. There are inherently more dangerous situations on the road, right turn on red being one of those. We have the data to prove it, no need to sacrifice pedestrians in order to make the road—eventually—safer. Why do we need traffic lights at all? Let’s just all pay attention and punish drivers who are inattentive.
The suggestion to punish drivers who hit pedestrians is great. Oh wait, we are already doing that.
By what argument? Oh right: none floated here. You should start a scarecrow factory with all the strawmen you're churning out.
Play dumb elsewhere. This is boring. Buh-bye.
> By what argument? Oh right: none floated here.
> There's nothing wrong with turning right on red.
The fact that you are unable top pay attention to your own comments makes total sense. Explains everything you said earlier.
Please be careful when taking right turns on red, with your non-existent attention span you are bound to injure someone.
Literally the 1st case study in the article. I just stopped there. If your title is about deaths maybe start with that.
So yeah, not the best start to make your point.