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

[Anonymous]

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.

Sometimes pedestrian here - for one, cars that turn red pull into and sit in / block the crosswalk while they wait to turn so it can make it tough to get around them - typically would end up walking behind the car that has pulled up, I guess.

[Anonymous]

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.

Sometimes pedestrian here - for one, cars that turn red pull into and sit in / block the crosswalk while they wait to turn so it can make it tough to get around them - typically would end up walking behind the car that has pulled up, I guess.

DP to add, you can have folks who approach the intersection quickly to turn right while you are crossing. If you are crossing in front of the car that is stopped at the red while simultaneously the right lane car pulls up fast to turn right, you can have a situation where a near hit or hit could occur.

[Anonymous]

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.

Sometimes pedestrian here - for one, cars that turn red pull into and sit in / block the crosswalk while they wait to turn so it can make it tough to get around them - typically would end up walking behind the car that has pulled up, I guess.

That sounds like a mild inconvenience not some dire safety issue.

[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.

They also told us that if we build more bike lanes, bicycling would become popular, except the number of lanes has exploded and the number of bicyclists has been shrinking for years.

"The city has built about 20 miles of bike lanes in the past five years, but despite that, the portion of D.C. residents who bike to work peaked in 2017 and has decreased each year since, falling from 5 percent to 3 percent. So who are these lanes for?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/20/bicycle-lanes-dc-traffic/

[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.

Sometimes pedestrian here - for one, cars that turn red pull into and sit in / block the crosswalk while they wait to turn so it can make it tough to get around them - typically would end up walking behind the car that has pulled up, I guess.

That sounds like a mild inconvenience not some dire safety issue.

+1

It's a big city. There's lots of people moving around. As Bowser likes to say, this isn't Mayberry. If you don't want to have to ever worry about traffic, perhaps city living isn't for you.

[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.

I agree that most drivers obey the no right turn on red sign. But those are also the same people who stopped for pedestrians BEFORE the signs were added. There is nothing at all wrong with turning right on red if the crosswalk and roadways are clear. I walk more than I drive, and do not find the signs beneficial whatsoever.

The ones that ignore the signs are the ones who ignored pedestrians before the signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They also told us that if we build more bike lanes, bicycling would become popular, except the number of lanes has exploded and the number of bicyclists has been shrinking for years.

"The city has built about 20 miles of bike lanes in the past five years, but despite that, the portion of D.C. residents who bike to work peaked in 2017 and has decreased each year since, falling from 5 percent to 3 percent. So who are these lanes for?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/20/bicycle-lanes-dc-traffic/

Both you and the stupid journalist that wrote that article are completely ignorant of basic principles of statistics.

The only thing you’ve demonstrated is that you waste an inordinate amount of time hunting for snippets of information to lend false credence to your insane biases.

Data on actual bike trips recorded in DC shows that bike use has absolutely exploded over the past few years.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP: No they haven't. Every single time they've posted this they've said the exact same thing. The amount of projection you throw out it is clinical.

[Anonymous]

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.

I agree that most drivers obey the no right turn on red sign. But those are also the same people who stopped for pedestrians BEFORE the signs were added. There is nothing at all wrong with turning right on red if the crosswalk and roadways are clear. I walk more than I drive, and do not find the signs beneficial whatsoever.

The ones that ignore the signs are the ones who ignored pedestrians before the signs.

True. The problem is the drivers who turn right on red when the crosswalks (both of them) and the roadways are NOT clear.

When you're not driving, the No Turn On Red signs are not for you anyway.

[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.

Sometimes pedestrian here - for one, cars that turn red pull into and sit in / block the crosswalk while they wait to turn so it can make it tough to get around them - typically would end up walking behind the car that has pulled up, I guess.

That sounds like a mild inconvenience not some dire safety issue.

It is not a "mild inconvenience" when a driver pulls into a crosswalk, in order to turn right on red, while you're crossing with your walk signal. It's either a potential crash, or it's a real crash.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

lol

and lol some more

[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.

Because drivers tend to look left and if no one is coming, go ahead and make a right turn, right into a pedestrian. It is dangerous as eff.

[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 drivers tend to look left and if no one is coming, go ahead and make a right turn, right into a pedestrian. It is dangerous as eff.

Sounds like an old wive's tale. You got any evidence that drivers actually tend to do that?