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?
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.
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.
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.