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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:its not necessary at every intersection - just lazy government

You mean, just a district-wide ban on right on red, no signs necessary? That would be great, but unfortunately I think the signs are necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've just noticed all the "new" (to me) signs for No Turn On Red. Why? It seems more dangerous for pedestrians crossing the street as cars that have been obeying the law (sitting there with no traffic coming, now try to turn while pedestrians/bikes are crossing. When are the cars supposed to go, especially on pedestrian heavy crosswalks? Sigh...I need to start going to the council meetings.

Because Right Turn On Red is dangerous for pedestrians, and we have known that since at least the mid 1980s.

The drivers are supposed to turn on green, when there's nobody in the crosswalk. If there's somebody in the crosswalk when you have a green light, then you should wait.

At a busy intersection, this will never happen if they don't delay the Walk signal for pedestrians!! I've been nearly hit multiple times while in the crosswalk, with the walk signal, as cars turn in front of me or behind me trying to make the light! Let them turn on red! Put red light cameras to catch those people that don't come to a complete stop.

To be fair, I have noticed an increase in the delayed light changes for pedestrians in concert with the no turn on red signs in DC along my commute.

It's not delayed light changes for pedestrians, it's delayed light changes for drivers. Pedestrians get a walk sign, then a few seconds later drivers get a green light. So pedestrians get a head start on crossing, before the drivers start turning. That's only effective if there's also no turn on red for drivers.

This is a strawman argument - the delayed light for drivers gives pedestrians a head start and then creates an open window (at nearly every intersection) for drivers to turn right on the green light. I drive all over DC - in neighborhoods and downtown - at different times of the day and this works well. The only times there are "throngs" of pedestrians crossing for an entire light cycle are at a handful of busy intersections during rush hour. And it would be (and is) foolish to use those outliers as the basis for not protecting pedestrians more broadly across the city. The 'no turn on red' has taken some getting used to. However, I can absolutely tell that the streets are safer for cyclists/walkers because of it.

[Anonymous]

Charles Allen again. It's an inconvenience for most of his (law abiding) constituents and it isn't obeyed by those who's risky behavior inspired it. It should at least have a 7am-7pm type restriction.

The post article did indicate that there might be enforcement at intersections with the signs starting in the new year.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:its not necessary at every intersection - just lazy government

You mean, just a district-wide ban on right on red, no signs necessary? That would be great, but unfortunately I think the signs are necessary.

The signs are necessary, because a district-wide ban is a change from the norm and a change from how it used to be. But since no money was allocated for new signs everywhere, it will only be enforced where there are signs.

This seems like the worst of all possible worlds.

[Anonymous]

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.

Drivers only ever make this argument when they are made to behave themselves. They don't seem to care about it when they buy their vehicles, choose where to live, when they leave their cars running, when they cause traffic by parking in a travel lane, or when they drive two blocks to the store, etc...

[Anonymous]

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.

Drivers only ever make this argument when they are made to behave themselves. They don't seem to care about it when they buy their vehicles, choose where to live, when they leave their cars running, when they cause traffic by parking in a travel lane, or when they drive two blocks to the store, etc...

The Council is supposed to care. They're just not bright enough to think anything through.

[Anonymous]

LOL at the blame SUV/Trucks crowd. We can actually see better than the prius and fiat drivers.

The real answer is that there are just too many bad drivers/people who just can't be trusted to be smart or courteous to safely turn right on red. It sucks as someone who commutes through the city daily, but I kind of understand it. Some people are just self-absorbed morons.

[Anonymous]

I just ignore the signs. At some point the city council and DDOT became like parents who nag/criticize their children over every single thing they do. At some point, the child just tunes them out and drivers will do the same.

[Anonymous]

I'm confused -- pedestrians shouldn't be crossing on red lights, so isn't it better for pedestrians if cars do their right turns on red lights? Is there any data actually supporting that this will be safer for pedestrians?

[Anonymous]

They'll make exceptions for cybertrucks though. Elon bros can turn even further right anytime they want!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the blame SUV/Trucks crowd. We can actually see better than the prius and fiat drivers.

The real answer is that there are just too many bad drivers/people who just can't be trusted to be smart or courteous to safely turn right on red. It sucks as someone who commutes through the city daily, but I kind of understand it. Some people are just self-absorbed morons.

Yeah, see this why pedestrian fatalities are up. Truck/SUVs have much, much worse visibility up close. First, in a truck the driver's eyes are feet further back from the crosswalk/intersection. Now add about a foot of height, blocky design and you've created gigantic blindspots all around the front of the vehicle, especially with shorter people like children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused -- pedestrians shouldn't be crossing on red lights, so isn't it better for pedestrians if cars do their right turns on red lights? Is there any data actually supporting that this will be safer for pedestrians?

No, right turn on red isn't better for pedestrians. Pedestrians cross intersections in BOTH directions.

The issue is the cars that want to turn right on red crawl forward while looking for an opportunity to turn and block the crosswalk for the pedestrians that DO have the right of way (and a green light/walk signal).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've just noticed all the "new" (to me) signs for No Turn On Red. Why? It seems more dangerous for pedestrians crossing the street as cars that have been obeying the law (sitting there with no traffic coming, now try to turn while pedestrians/bikes are crossing. When are the cars supposed to go, especially on pedestrian heavy crosswalks? Sigh...I need to start going to the council meetings.

A good percentage of pedestrians and bikers do not follow the law, cross late or more through traffic. It is easier to enforce a traffic law against cars vs pedestrians/bikers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just ignore the signs. At some point the city council and DDOT became like parents who nag/criticize their children over every single thing they do. At some point, the child just tunes them out and drivers will do the same.

Sounds accurate. You are like a child driving a car.