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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Since DDOT refused to re-allocate existing money to signs, you mean.

I agree with you, the signs should be everywhere.

[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.

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

[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.

Yes, the leading pedestrian interval combined with turn on red is super dangerous. I almost got hit when crossing with my child at an intersection like this- the light turned to walk and we started to cross when someone turning on red cuts right in front of us. If we hadn't waited a beat before crossing she would have hit us. I pulled my kid back and gave the car a "WTF" shrug and she stopped her car and GOT OUT OF HER CAR to yell at me that she was allowed to turn right on red, etc. Clearly she was in SUCH a hurry to turn right since she had time to top and yell at a mom with a two year old.

[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.

"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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Don't you ever get bored reposting the same nonsense, over and over, on thread after thread, year after year?

[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.

DDOT needs to learn that if its rules seem arbitrary or pointless to drivers, they will just ignore them. That includes unnecessary stop signs and traffic lights and unreasonably low speed limits and banning right turns for no good reason. If drivers are breaking traffic laws, maybe DDOT should look in the mirror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DDOT needs to learn that if its rules seem arbitrary or pointless to drivers, they will just ignore them. That includes unnecessary stop signs and traffic lights and unreasonably low speed limits and banning right turns for no good reason. If drivers are breaking traffic laws, maybe DDOT should look in the mirror.

You're making a good argument for suspending or revoking a lot of people's drivers licenses. If drivers can't drive safely and lawfully, they shouldn't have a driver's license.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, the leading pedestrian interval combined with turn on red is super dangerous. I almost got hit when crossing with my child at an intersection like this- the light turned to walk and we started to cross when someone turning on red cuts right in front of us. If we hadn't waited a beat before crossing she would have hit us. I pulled my kid back and gave the car a "WTF" shrug and she stopped her car and GOT OUT OF HER CAR to yell at me that she was allowed to turn right on red, etc. Clearly she was in SUCH a hurry to turn right since she had time to top and yell at a mom with a two year old.

YIKES! I'm glad she didn't hit you.

[Anonymous]

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

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DDOT needs to learn that if its rules seem arbitrary or pointless to drivers, they will just ignore them. That includes unnecessary stop signs and traffic lights and unreasonably low speed limits and banning right turns for no good reason. If drivers are breaking traffic laws, maybe DDOT should look in the mirror.

You're making a good argument for suspending or revoking a lot of people's drivers licenses. If drivers can't drive safely and lawfully, they shouldn't have a driver's license.

Drivers are mostly black, brown and not rich. Are those the people you think our government likes to crack down upon?

[Anonymous]

I live in MoCo on a street that intersects with CT and people are constantly beeping at me to turn right on red. There's like eight lanes of traffic! Irritates the bejeezus out of me but I stay put after the one time I gave in a turned right and someone doing a legal U turn nearly hit me. Leave earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DDOT needs to learn that if its rules seem arbitrary or pointless to drivers, they will just ignore them. That includes unnecessary stop signs and traffic lights and unreasonably low speed limits and banning right turns for no good reason. If drivers are breaking traffic laws, maybe DDOT should look in the mirror.

You're making a good argument for suspending or revoking a lot of people's drivers licenses. If drivers can't drive safely and lawfully, they shouldn't have a driver's license.

Drivers are mostly black, brown and not rich. Are those the people you think our government likes to crack down upon?

Weird point. Not to mention that your premise is objectively false - but generally accurate for pedestrians who are hit and injured by drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DDOT needs to learn that if its rules seem arbitrary or pointless to drivers, they will just ignore them. That includes unnecessary stop signs and traffic lights and unreasonably low speed limits and banning right turns for no good reason. If drivers are breaking traffic laws, maybe DDOT should look in the mirror.

You're making a good argument for suspending or revoking a lot of people's drivers licenses. If drivers can't drive safely and lawfully, they shouldn't have a driver's license.

Drivers are mostly black, brown and not rich. Are those the people you think our government likes to crack down upon?

Weird point. Not to mention that your premise is objectively false - but generally accurate for pedestrians who are hit and injured by drivers.

You new here? Welcome to DC. You'll find that housing is really expensive here. White people are far more likely than black or brown people to be able to afford to live within walking or bicycling distance of where they need to go, which is why white people are always talking about bicycling and pedestrians and black and brown people are not.

D.C. parking, traffic tickets snowball into financial hardships

Traffic and parking tickets are issued more often in Black neighborhoods than White ones, according to D.C. data analyzed by The Washington Post. Advocates for changing the District’s fees and fines system say the disparities criminalize poverty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/08/06/dc-traffic-parking-tickets-black-neighborhoods/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DDOT needs to learn that if its rules seem arbitrary or pointless to drivers, they will just ignore them. That includes unnecessary stop signs and traffic lights and unreasonably low speed limits and banning right turns for no good reason. If drivers are breaking traffic laws, maybe DDOT should look in the mirror.

You're making a good argument for suspending or revoking a lot of people's drivers licenses. If drivers can't drive safely and lawfully, they shouldn't have a driver's license.

Drivers are mostly black, brown and not rich. Are those the people you think our government likes to crack down upon?

Weird point. Not to mention that your premise is objectively false - but generally accurate for pedestrians who are hit and injured by drivers.

You new here? Welcome to DC. You'll find that housing is really expensive here. White people are far more likely than black or brown people to be able to afford to live within walking or bicycling distance of where they need to go, which is why white people are always talking about bicycling and pedestrians and black and brown people are not.

D.C. parking, traffic tickets snowball into financial hardships

Traffic and parking tickets are issued more often in Black neighborhoods than White ones, according to D.C. data analyzed by The Washington Post. Advocates for changing the District’s fees and fines system say the disparities criminalize poverty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/08/06/dc-traffic-parking-tickets-black-neighborhoods/

Let's see, who is more likely to be able to afford to own and drive a car? Affluent people, or poor people?