DC - "No Right Turn On Red" - Why????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know how many millions of pounds of carbon will be released into the atmosphere each year because engines idling unnecessarily at red lights.

I guess we can blame the Council and the bike mafia for global warming now.

"Unnecessarily" why? There's nothing unnecessary about safer streets.

"Traffic calming" doesnt actually make the streets any safer. The number of people killed by speeding drivers in Washington DC is more or less the same every single year (around 10) for the past 25 years. Traffic calming does force drivers to sit in traffic longer which increases greenhouse gas emissions.

The number of people in DC killed by speeding drivers in past dozen years, per the government:

2022 -- 9
2021 -- 12
2020 -- 15
2019 -- 10
2018 -- 9
2017 -- 12
2016 -- 8
2015 -- 11
2014 -- 12
2013 -- 11
2012 -- 5
2011 -- 15
2010 -- 8

Not this shit again . . .

For the umpteenth time, unless you believe that crashes always have a single cause - or don’t care because you believe your point matters more than truth - these numbers (whoever compiled them) are absolutely meaningless.

No one ever said anything about crashes having a single cause. They are the official number of traffic deaths each year in Washington D.C. in which speeding was the "predominant" cause according to the DC government. Here's the numbers again:

2022 -- 9
2021 -- 12
2020 -- 15
2019 -- 10
2018 -- 9
2017 -- 12
2016 -- 8
2015 -- 11
2014 -- 12
2013 -- 11
2012 -- 5
2011 -- 15
2010 -- 8

If all the "traffic calming" measures the city has implemented over the years (and there are many!) have actually reduced deaths, please point out which year they began to reduce deaths.

In your previous post, you presented these numbers as the “number of people in DC killed by speeding drivers in past dozen years”.

Now you are claiming that they represent something different, which by the way is absolutely meaningless.

You are person who lies about data in order to make the streets of DC less safe. It’s hard to imagine of a more vile use of time. Please get lost and stay lost.

Those are the official numbers. I'm just asking when you think traffic calming began reducing traffic deaths. It's a simple and fair question. Your tortured, mealy mouthed excuses demonstrate to everyone reading this that you have no clue if traffic calming has accomplished, aside from aggravating drivers and increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Here's the numbers again for everyone to see.

The official number of traffic deaths each year in Washington D.C. in which speeding was the "predominant" cause according to the DC government:

2022 -- 9
2021 -- 12
2020 -- 15
2019 -- 10
2018 -- 9
2017 -- 12
2016 -- 8
2015 -- 11
2014 -- 12
2013 -- 11
2012 -- 5
2011 -- 15
2010 -- 8

You are the epitome of everything that is wrong with this era in American democracy.

After combing the internet incessantly for a patina of information to confirm your biases, you found a few numbers in an MPD publication that you seem to think help you out.

You have taken to posting these numbers on every single thread that is peripherally related to traffic safety and pretending to be an expert. Seemingly there are some gullible folk out there who share your biases and eagerly buy in to your nonsense.

The problem is that you understand absolutely nothing about crash investigations, statistics, causal inference, road traffic, or other topics relevant to the discussion.

Many others have pointed out to you the fatal flaws in your thesis and you just ignore them and carry on with your nonsense in defiance.

It’s pathetic and disgusting.

This is a weird tantrum to have when someone asks what, if anything, "traffic calming" has accomplished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alexandria recently added a bunch of "no right on red" signs at almost every intersection from Old Town to Del Ray. It's bonkers. I say this as a pedestrian over half the time.

Good drivers were mindful before the signs. Signs don't stop bad drivers.

The signs do absolutely nothing regarding safety.

Maybe drivers in Alexandria are special, but in my experience not in Alexandria, there are plenty of drivers who obey the no right on red signs. Not all, but a lot more than if there's no sign.

I agree that there are also plenty of drivers who ignore signs, which is why it takes more than just no right on red signs to make a crossing safe. But the no right on red signs do help.

How does no right on red make crossing safe? The whole point of right on red is that pedestrians are not supposed to be crossing the cross street when that light is green.

That is incorrect. The 'whole point' of turning right on red was to save fuel, which it didn't.

Also, the "whole point" of turning on red was never that pedestrians should not be crossing, because you actually are not allowed to turn on red if pedestrians are present, you must always yield to pedestrians if turning on red. Also, you may not block a crosswalk, which you are doing if you are turning on red when pedestrians are present. A pedestrian on a corner may be crossing in front of you or where you are turning -- you don't get to assume which that may be. You yield.

So, these common misconceptions, are actually driver error and violations of the regulations, and because these misconceptions and errors are so very common and passed form ignorant parents to the new driving teens, it is best to make the law crystal clear for everyone by banning it.

Yeah. I disagree. I have no problem banning it during certain hours, but there's not reason to ban it 24/7. There are so many new lights the past few years. No reason not to be allowed to turn right on red after 8 or 9pm. Mostly anyone adhering to the time window wouldn't be the reckless population this needs to target anyway.

New lights are put in when incidents at those intersections become frequent (particularly if they are no fault accidents), which means they are high risk intersections. Also, 8 or 9 at night is when drivers can't see pedestrians, but people are still out and about walking home from metro, kids walking home from sports games or theater practice, people walking home from restaurants, bars, etc.

[Anonymous]

No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

Everyone should always exercise at least one hour a day too and eat plenty of vegetables and only drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

Everyone should always exercise at least one hour a day too and eat plenty of vegetables and only drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.

Did you seriously just compare following diet and exercise recommendations to obeying traffic laws so that you don't injure or kill people?

If you don't want to obey traffic laws while driving, don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

Everyone should always exercise at least one hour a day too and eat plenty of vegetables and only drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.

Did you seriously just compare following diet and exercise recommendations to obeying traffic laws so that you don't injure or kill people?

If you don't want to obey traffic laws while driving, don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

The self righteousness over drivers turning right on red is a little much. I never obey right on red signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

Everyone should always exercise at least one hour a day too and eat plenty of vegetables and only drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.

Did you seriously just compare following diet and exercise recommendations to obeying traffic laws so that you don't injure or kill people?

If you don't want to obey traffic laws while driving, don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Does that go for cyclists too? If they bothered to learn the rules of Idaho stops, they'd see that the *only* time they can run stop signs is when no one else is at an intersection, including pedestrians on the sidewalk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

Everyone should always exercise at least one hour a day too and eat plenty of vegetables and only drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.

Did you seriously just compare following diet and exercise recommendations to obeying traffic laws so that you don't injure or kill people?

If you don't want to obey traffic laws while driving, don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

The self righteousness over drivers turning right on red is a little much. I never obey right on red signs.

Congratulations, you're a dangerous driver!

There need to be more red light cameras, and there needs to be more impoundment of cars with lots of citations from automated traffic enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

Everyone should always exercise at least one hour a day too and eat plenty of vegetables and only drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.

Did you seriously just compare following diet and exercise recommendations to obeying traffic laws so that you don't injure or kill people?

If you don't want to obey traffic laws while driving, don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Does that go for cyclists too? If they bothered to learn the rules of Idaho stops, they'd see that the *only* time they can run stop signs is when no one else is at an intersection, including pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Does the state issue bicycling licenses?

(Answer: no, the state does not.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

Everyone should always exercise at least one hour a day too and eat plenty of vegetables and only drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.

Did you seriously just compare following diet and exercise recommendations to obeying traffic laws so that you don't injure or kill people?

If you don't want to obey traffic laws while driving, don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

The self righteousness over drivers turning right on red is a little much. I never obey right on red signs.

Congratulations, you're a dangerous driver!

There need to be more red light cameras, and there needs to be more impoundment of cars with lots of citations from automated traffic enforcement.

My insurance company would disagree. Never been in an accident. Haven't gotten a ticket for anything in decades. Just because someone ignores one of DC many stupid rules doesnt mean they're unsafe. Maybe it just means the rules are dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

Everyone should always exercise at least one hour a day too and eat plenty of vegetables and only drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.

Did you seriously just compare following diet and exercise recommendations to obeying traffic laws so that you don't injure or kill people?

If you don't want to obey traffic laws while driving, don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Does that go for cyclists too? If they bothered to learn the rules of Idaho stops, they'd see that the *only* time they can run stop signs is when no one else is at an intersection, including pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Does the state issue bicycling licenses?

(Answer: no, the state does not.)

Uh, what? So cyclists are free to ignore the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

Everyone should always exercise at least one hour a day too and eat plenty of vegetables and only drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.

Did you seriously just compare following diet and exercise recommendations to obeying traffic laws so that you don't injure or kill people?

If you don't want to obey traffic laws while driving, don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

The self righteousness over drivers turning right on red is a little much. I never obey right on red signs.

Congratulations, you're a dangerous driver!

There need to be more red light cameras, and there needs to be more impoundment of cars with lots of citations from automated traffic enforcement.

My insurance company would disagree. Never been in an accident. Haven't gotten a ticket for anything in decades. Just because someone ignores one of DC many stupid rules doesnt mean they're unsafe. Maybe it just means the rules are dumb.

Your insurance company doesn't get to decide this. You are deliberately deciding to disobey traffic laws. You are a reason why DC needs more enforcement of traffic laws. I don't know if you think "everyone does it" or "it's ok for me to do it because I'm a good driver", but either way, you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

Everyone should always exercise at least one hour a day too and eat plenty of vegetables and only drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.

Did you seriously just compare following diet and exercise recommendations to obeying traffic laws so that you don't injure or kill people?

If you don't want to obey traffic laws while driving, don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Does that go for cyclists too? If they bothered to learn the rules of Idaho stops, they'd see that the *only* time they can run stop signs is when no one else is at an intersection, including pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Does the state issue bicycling licenses?

(Answer: no, the state does not.)

Uh, what? So cyclists are free to ignore the law?

Driving is a privilege, not a right. That's why the government issues driver's licenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to know how many millions of pounds of carbon will be released into the atmosphere each year because engines idling unnecessarily at red lights.

I guess we can blame the Council and the bike mafia for global warming now.

"Unnecessarily" why? There's nothing unnecessary about safer streets.

"Traffic calming" doesnt actually make the streets any safer. The number of people killed by speeding drivers in Washington DC is more or less the same every single year (around 10) for the past 25 years. Traffic calming does force drivers to sit in traffic longer which increases greenhouse gas emissions.

The number of people in DC killed by speeding drivers in past dozen years, per the government:

2022 -- 9
2021 -- 12
2020 -- 15
2019 -- 10
2018 -- 9
2017 -- 12
2016 -- 8
2015 -- 11
2014 -- 12
2013 -- 11
2012 -- 5
2011 -- 15
2010 -- 8

Not this shit again . . .

For the umpteenth time, unless you believe that crashes always have a single cause - or don’t care because you believe your point matters more than truth - these numbers (whoever compiled them) are absolutely meaningless.

No one ever said anything about crashes having a single cause. They are the official number of traffic deaths each year in Washington D.C. in which speeding was the "predominant" cause according to the DC government. Here's the numbers again:

2022 -- 9
2021 -- 12
2020 -- 15
2019 -- 10
2018 -- 9
2017 -- 12
2016 -- 8
2015 -- 11
2014 -- 12
2013 -- 11
2012 -- 5
2011 -- 15
2010 -- 8

If all the "traffic calming" measures the city has implemented over the years (and there are many!) have actually reduced deaths, please point out which year they began to reduce deaths.

In your previous post, you presented these numbers as the “number of people in DC killed by speeding drivers in past dozen years”.

Now you are claiming that they represent something different, which by the way is absolutely meaningless.

You are person who lies about data in order to make the streets of DC less safe. It’s hard to imagine of a more vile use of time. Please get lost and stay lost.

Those are the official numbers. I'm just asking when you think traffic calming began reducing traffic deaths. It's a simple and fair question. Your tortured, mealy mouthed excuses demonstrate to everyone reading this that you have no clue if traffic calming has accomplished, aside from aggravating drivers and increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Here's the numbers again for everyone to see.

The official number of traffic deaths each year in Washington D.C. in which speeding was the "predominant" cause according to the DC government:

2022 -- 9
2021 -- 12
2020 -- 15
2019 -- 10
2018 -- 9
2017 -- 12
2016 -- 8
2015 -- 11
2014 -- 12
2013 -- 11
2012 -- 5
2011 -- 15
2010 -- 8

You are the epitome of everything that is wrong with this era in American democracy.

After combing the internet incessantly for a patina of information to confirm your biases, you found a few numbers in an MPD publication that you seem to think help you out.

You have taken to posting these numbers on every single thread that is peripherally related to traffic safety and pretending to be an expert. Seemingly there are some gullible folk out there who share your biases and eagerly buy in to your nonsense.

The problem is that you understand absolutely nothing about crash investigations, statistics, causal inference, road traffic, or other topics relevant to the discussion.

Many others have pointed out to you the fatal flaws in your thesis and you just ignore them and carry on with your nonsense in defiance.

It’s pathetic and disgusting.

This is a weird tantrum to have when someone asks what, if anything, "traffic calming" has accomplished.

It is all they have. Tantrums and name calling. They always make vague reference to “studies” but are never able to actually produce any and the info they can produce is always some silly report authored by an interest group without credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should be in such a hurry that they absolutely cannot wait at a red light. I always point out to my kids the cars that do it illegally when we are behind them. We wait for the light and then turn, and within a block we are right behind the person who made the illegal turn. The risk got them nowhere.

Everyone should always exercise at least one hour a day too and eat plenty of vegetables and only drink alcohol in moderation, if at all.

Did you seriously just compare following diet and exercise recommendations to obeying traffic laws so that you don't injure or kill people?

If you don't want to obey traffic laws while driving, don't drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Does that go for cyclists too? If they bothered to learn the rules of Idaho stops, they'd see that the *only* time they can run stop signs is when no one else is at an intersection, including pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Does the state issue bicycling licenses?

(Answer: no, the state does not.)

Uh, what? So cyclists are free to ignore the law?

Driving is a privilege, not a right. That's why the government issues driver's licenses.

It’s not clear what point you are making. Everyone uses public roads by permission of the government. The government could declare licensing requirements for cyclists and registration requirements for bicycles if it wanted.