this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
406 points (95.5% liked)

News

23599 readers
3518 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
JonsJava
rjc
Thekingoflorda
Tenthrow
gedaliyah
little_cow
jeffw
enu
406
U.S. cities consider banning "right on red" laws amid rise in pedestrian deaths (www.cbsnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave to c/news
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sophee Langerman was on her way to a bicycle safety rally in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood in June when a car turning right rolled through a red light and slammed into her bike, which she was walking off the curb and into the crosswalk.

The car was moving slowly enough that Langerman escaped serious injury, but the bicycle required extensive repairs. To Langerman, it's another argument for ending a practice that almost all U.S. cities have embraced for decades: the legal prerogative for a driver to turn right after stopping at a red light.

A dramatic rise in accidents killing or injuring pedestrians and bicyclists has led to a myriad of policy and infrastructure changes, but moves to ban right on red have drawn some of the most intense sentiments on both sides.

Washington, D.C.'s City Council last year approved a right-on-red ban that takes effect in 2025. New Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson's transition plan called for "restricting right turns on red," but his administration hasn't provided specifics. The college town of Ann Arbor, Michigan, now prohibits right turns at red lights in the downtown area.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nBodyProblem 135 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 children)

I live in one of these cities (Denver) and in my city’s case this push is part of a ton of other provisions including a push to set a maximum speed limit citywide of 25 mph.

About 80% of my trips out of the house are walking or on a bike, but it seems clear to me that policies like this don’t improve safety. It’s just lazy policy making. For example, if you set a 25 mph speed limit on a road designed to support 45 mph traffic, most drivers will still drive 45+ mph and you instead get a wild mismatch of driving speeds. This just slows traffic with an arguably negative benefit to safety. Similarly, if you ban turn on red in the city many drivers will still turn on red, but now whether or not a car will turn on red becomes unpredictable.

What our cities need is more dedicated bike and pedestrian infrastructure that is separated altogether from the roads, as well as greatly improved public transit.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

See, the thing is, those roads that were 45mph have more than enough room for both cars and bike/ped infrastructure. The issue is that, generally, the lanes for higher speed roads are wider. Narrow the lanes and people feel they have to go slower to stay in the lines (which is true for a lot of drivers, bless their hearts). It's an unconscious response to narrowing roadways that can be used to actually make people slow down, rather than just telling them not to. And when you narrow the lanes, that leaves more room in the same space for stuff like bike lanes and sidewalks.

[–] nBodyProblem 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yup and I’d LOVE to see some of those four lane roads get turned into two or three lane roads with protected bike lanes

However, in a city that’s primarily optimized for cars and lacking in other forms of infrastructure, the main impact of traffic calming measures is to make it really hard to get anywhere in an efficient manner. I don’t believe it significantly improves safety, but it will undoubtedly make a lot of people who rely on their cars absolutely miserable.

The root of the problem is that we simply have too many cars on the roads to begin with. However, we can’t reasonably ask people to stop driving until the alternatives are as safe and convenient as a car. The primary focus should be on urban planning that makes walking, biking, or taking light rail an attractive alternative. In the case of walking and cycling, this overwhelmingly means dedicated infrastructure.

[–] grue 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The root of the problem is that we simply have too many cars on the roads to begin with. However, we can’t reasonably ask people to stop driving until the alternatives are as safe and convenient as a car.

You've got that entirely backwards: driving must become painful in order for people to support funding alternatives.

Edit: downvote me all you like, folks, but it doesn't change the fact that we've been trying to do it the other way for decades and it doesn't fucking work.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You're being downvoted, but that's exactly what many europeans cities have been doing for many years now. When going into the city center by car is the worst option, people choose other ways to go.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did those cities already have good mass transit set up to facilitate a better option, I legit don't know? I like this plan but I wonder if it will be successful with how absolute dog shit this country's mass transit is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nBodyProblem 5 points 1 year ago

The difference is that those cities are denser, better laid out for walkability, and have tremendously better public transport.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Serinus 18 points 1 year ago

Proper mass transit. Then pedestrian and bike paths are more useful.

After that, cars can go fuck themselves.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

What my city is doing is removing car lanes to replace with bike lanes, lowering the speed and also policing it and it worked to turn a 4 lane, 45mph area into a 2+turn lane, 25mph road and improved bike safety. Lowering the speed limit is the cheapest and easiest method. It will probably take a bit to claw that land from the driver's and build something for pedestrians with it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In NYC, right on red is illegal and I'd venture a guess that >98% of drivers obey this. Obviously each city will need to handle it differently, but they can't make it illegal and then call it a day. Enforcement and change infrastructure to match the new rules of the road are necessary. In the case of lowering speed limits, traffic calming measures should be put in place with the reduction in speed limit, so that going 45mph in a 25mph zone is difficult.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When you add cycle paths turnijg right on red needs to be gone. If the cars can't turn it is usually time for cyclists to cross.

[–] nBodyProblem 6 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Disagree. I spent all of my 20s living the no car lifestyle and cycling 100-200 miles a week on city streets. I have had countless negative interactions with cars but not a single one had anything to do with right turns on red.

I just don’t see any meaningful safety improvement from it but significant downsides in terms of traffic flow.

[–] angrystego 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are countries where right turn on red is prohibited and it makes no problems with traffic flow. Also, change is possible, people are able to get used to new rules.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In my country, besides right on red being illegal (having never been legal), traffic lights themselves are seen as a thing of the past and most of them were replaced with roundabouts decades ago.

[–] angrystego 6 points 1 year ago

Sounds civilized.

[–] StereoTrespasser 3 points 1 year ago

I find this really hard to believe. Probably once a day I have to deal with some dipshit not looking for bikes coming down the bike lane before turning right.

Maybe you biked in the car lane, which is fine, but that doesn't mean those of us in the bike lane don't have to deal with this constant danger.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I live in Seattle. We implemented the 25mph rule and it does seem to actually be helping. This is after a lot of attempts at improving pedestrian safety failed to have any effect. It's irritating because it seems like it takes forever to drive anywhere in this city, and there are definitely a lot of corners cut in infrastructure that could improve safety—including very simple things like adding more marked crosswalks and stop signs at uncontrolled intersections—so I consider it a mixed bag overall.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I agree for the most part. It’s better to design streets so that drivers feel uncomfortable at higher speeds. Street narrowing, bollards, trees, smaller set backs can all slow cars down.

That said, as a counterpoint, despite similar street design, the speed limit in most of Canada is 50kmh (30 mph) and many urban residential streets are down to 30km (18.6 mph). Some people speed, but driving 45 mph (72 km/h!) down most city streets is pretty rare. Pedestrian and cycling accidents involving cars in Canada are close to half the rate of the US. Which is to say, I don’t think the Denver mayor’s proposal is crazy. It works in Canada, but it will take time for the culture to change.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] CuddlyCassowary 5 points 1 year ago

I live in Denver too and couldn’t agree more.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I'm totally down for this. Right turn on red is optional, but people behind me seem to think it's required and lay on their horns if I stop for more than a second. Like come on, I need a moment to make sure someone isn't trying to cross!

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, and it has nothing to do with the big ass vehicles being churned out due to loopholes in US law.

https://www.distilled.earth/p/the-loophole-that-made-cars-in-america

[–] afraid_of_zombies 8 points 1 year ago

Just freaken yesterday I was walking with my kids and there was a sports utility bullshit parked ready to come out of the garage and as we passed I noted that not one of my kids is tall enough to be seen by the driver if they decide to move forward.

A sports utility truck is a truck not a car. Require a CDL to operate or better yet just buy a regular car.

[–] makyo 24 points 1 year ago

"What's really behind this movement is part of the agenda to make driving as miserable and as difficult as possible so people don't drive so much," Beeber said.

This is an unbelievably idiotic statement, as if cars haven't been, and don't continue to be nearly the sole consideration for transportation in almost all American cities.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

"What's really behind this movement is part of the agenda to make driving as miserable and as difficult as possible so people don't drive so much," Beeber said.

Shit. He figured my plan out.

But seriously people driving less would be a win. Cars are awful.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

As someone who went to the US recently and nearly got taken out by a driver rolling right through the crosswalk only looking to her left, get rid of right turn on red. We survive just fine without it (well, it would technically be a left turn here) in Japan.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

In the Netherlands it wouldn't even work as yhere are usually cycle paths or pedestrian crossings that have a green light. Right turns have their own light whenever possible to make sure they are on their own cycle.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's the size of the cars that's causing the increase.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Fridgeratr 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, it's pretty easy to not hit someone while turning right on red if you look where you're going...

[–] sensiblepuffin 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In a lot of cities, it's extremely difficult to see past the corner because of parked cars. We could cut down on street parking, but people scream if you even consider restricting their parking options.

[–] RazorsLedge 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Especially when those parked vehicles are trucks or SUVs or some other unsafe large vehicle.

[–] sensiblepuffin 4 points 1 year ago

I mean I have a hate boner for giant cars as much the average person, but even a reasonably-sized, economy sedan can block my view of the sidewalk/any cars that might be coming around the corner. I would say it's a 50% chance in my city that, in order to safely turn right on red, I'd need to inch about halfway into the lane I'm turning into, which already has the potential of causing an accident.

[–] makyo 14 points 1 year ago

The spike, which included all accidents — not just those involving right turns on red, was attributed in part to an increase in larger vehicles such as SUVs and pickup trucks on the road ... due to larger blind spots and the deadlier force associated with heavier models.

There it is, this is just one reason why 'no right turns' will be a useless half measure, politicians trying to make it look like they're doing something about the problem because the real solution would be too politically risky.

[–] CriticalMiss 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

When I visited the US I was shocked that’s actually allowed. Seemed like a very easy way to kill someone

[–] ours 10 points 1 year ago

It's the "cars above all" mentality.

That said my city is doing this for bicycles which is way more reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I couldn't work out how you were supposed to negotiate it as a pedestrian, and assumed there must be some knack that locals learn. Guess the knack is just, don't be a pedestrian lol.

load more comments
view more: next ›