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

[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.

Creating rules that drivers won't respect makes everyone less safe.

Are there any rules that drivers actually respect though?

[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.

Creating rules that drivers won't respect makes everyone less safe.

Giving licenses to drivers who won't respect rules makes everyone less safe.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

same old post from you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How in the hell do you think people who live far away from their jobs, who don't have the luxury of working remotely, are getting to work?

The bus.

Biking is even cheaper than the bus and, during rush hour, faster than driving or riding the bus. More people should bike. But I guess it’s hard for people living the poorest parts of the city to do so when the Ward 8 councilmember has effectively banned DDOT from building any bike lanes in his ward.

I will take drivers over annoying, entitled, rude bikers and day of the week. I take the metro BTW and do not drive to work. Bikes and scooters on sidewalks are the worst!!!!

You know what’s even worse than bikes and scooters on the sidewalks? Cars in bike lanes and sidewalks. A mother died like this earlier in the year [1]. She survived Russian tanks in Ukraine only to get mowed down on her own roads. I’ll take bikers with poor manners over vehicular manslaughter any day.

[1] https://www.fox5dc.com/news/bicyclist-hit-killed-by-car-in-bethesda.amp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How in the hell do you think people who live far away from their jobs, who don't have the luxury of working remotely, are getting to work?

The bus.

Biking is even cheaper than the bus and, during rush hour, faster than driving or riding the bus. More people should bike. But I guess it’s hard for people living the poorest parts of the city to do so when the Ward 8 councilmember has effectively banned DDOT from building any bike lanes in his ward.

I will take drivers over annoying, entitled, rude bikers and day of the week. I take the metro BTW and do not drive to work. Bikes and scooters on sidewalks are the worst!!!!

You know what’s even worse than bikes and scooters on the sidewalks? Cars in bike lanes and sidewalks. A mother died like this earlier in the year [1]. She survived Russian tanks in Ukraine only to get mowed down on her own roads. I’ll take bikers with poor manners over vehicular manslaughter any day.

[1] https://www.fox5dc.com/news/bicyclist-hit-killed-by-car-in-bethesda.amp

She was killed in August 2022.

I agree with you, though. People who don't like bicyclists and scooter riders on the sidewalk should support good, separate lanes for bicyclists and scooter riders to use - where they will be safe from turning truck drivers.

[Anonymous]

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.

As a pedestrian, I'm much more worried about getting hit by someone turning left.

[Anonymous]

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.

As a pedestrian, I'm much more worried about getting hit by someone turning left.

...and congestion makes that worse because of the decrease in visibility and co-comittant increase in stress.

[Anonymous]

This entire experiment, which includes everything else the Council has done in the last two years, is based on an almost religious belief that congestion increases safety and has no economic effect.

[Anonymous]

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.

As a pedestrian, I'm much more worried about getting hit by someone turning left.

You should be worried about both: drivers turning right, and drivers turning left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire experiment, which includes everything else the Council has done in the last two years, is based on an almost religious belief that congestion increases safety and has no economic effect.

It's funny calling this an experiment. Until the 1970s, everywhere in the US had No Turn On Red everywhere. Most places in the world still do have No Turn On Red everywhere.

[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.

Creating rules that drivers won't respect makes everyone less safe.

Giving licenses to drivers who won't respect rules makes everyone less safe.

The police really should go back to pulling people over. Lack of policing on minor issues leads to general lawlessness when driving. They can’t even pull people over in most areas of the DMV for a missing headlight. How dangerous is that to a pedestrian walking at night?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.