Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewliebchen | Hacker News Reader

I use to live in Cambridge, which seemed to ban right-on-red citywide (more or less). This made the roads much safer for cyclists, pedestrians, and automobiles.

I think you're right about some cyclists in the US taking it WAAY to seriously. Because they're such a marginalized group, they define themselves by their difference. It's the American way :)

View on HN

There's nothing inherently wrong with right on red; it's a massive fuel saving. The only issue is if it's allowed without stopping first.

Ever since the introduction of roundabouts, car-on-cyclist accidents have risen in the Netherlands. Why? Because when a car leaves the roundabout, it basically has to take an almost blind right turn, where it's very difficult to see a cyclist approaching from the side / behind. Just a few months ago I was hit by a car in this exact scenario. It happens about two to three times a week where a car will not spot me in time when it leaves the roundabout (I cross about 50 roundabouts a week). I know this, so I adjust my cycling speed at roundabouts to near-nothing.

I'm not convinced right on red doesn't pose a dangerous situation, even if cars come to a full stop first. In a right on red scenario, the bicyclist always approaches from behind, in the blind spot of the mirror. I'm not saying the right on red policy should be abolished, just as I don't want roundabouts to be abolished in the Netherlands (I love those things). Just that, as a cyclist, it's primarily your duty to ensure cars have seen you. Let's hope that as cycling increases in the U.S., motorists become more aware of cyclists in the street.

It shouldn't be incumbent upon the cyclist to ensure motorists see her, beyond doing the things required by law. Cars are bigger, faster, and there's more of 'em. They need to watch out for everyone that is more vulnerable.

Right on red was introduced in the 70s to save on fuel back when cars had massive engines and weren't very fuel efficient. As there are more and more hybrid or pure electric cars on the road, the efficiency gains are going down. And here in Europe most manufacturers seem to be introducing stop-start systems on their new cars where the engine shuts off at stoplights. So in the near future there will be almost zero gains from right on red, but at that point it will be pretty embedded in American culture and will be hard to repeal, even if it does pose risks to other road users aka cyclists.

> There's nothing inherently wrong with right on red

As a pedestrian I disagree, because right-on-red means that I have to constantly keep scanning for vehicles that may not have been at the intersection when I started crossing.

The second aspect is that the drivers of the vehicles are invariably looking to their left for oncoming traffic, rather than to their right where cyclists and 'crunchy' pedestrians exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com