423
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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@lemmy.world 142 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 45 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

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.

[-] remus989@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.world 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@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

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

After that, cars can go fuck themselves.

[-] bamboo 17 points 1 year ago

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)
[-] Blackout@kbin.social 14 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.

[-] omgarm@feddit.nl 13 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] justgohomealready@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Sounds civilized.

[-] StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world 7 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 (4 replies)
[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah just like Oklahoma tried to ban driving through a yellow light they had to repeal that shit fast.

Cities cant suddenly change the turn on red when we were all taught we can. And if any city made the entire city 25mph I would avoid it like the plague and most companies that deliver good like truck drivers would either ignore it or boycott your town. Good luck with your supply chain issues.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 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.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] nBodyProblem@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I think the focus here really needs to be on supporting alternative forms of transport.

We have a city that’s already filled with gridlock almost 24/7, even at 2am in the evening. The city planning is such that it’s hard to go significant distances without a car without spending hours in transit. If the primary lever for change is to institute slower speed limits and traffic calming measures, it simply makes things miserable for everyone involved.

IMO the root of the issue is we have way too many cars and not enough alternative infrastructure to make going without a car especially practical.

Denverites love to walk and bike when it’s convenient and they feel safe. I firmly believe that dedicated infrastructure would dramatically reduce the number of car trips as well as give structural safety measures walkers and cyclists. This would reduce deaths while making the city a more pleasant and healthy place to be. Thats why it should be the primary focus in terms of change.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

I agree with everything you said in the second half. Better non-car infrastructure should be the primary focus!

But I don’t see why traffic calming and slower car speeds would make things miserable for “everyone”, like cyclists or pedestrians. I wouldn’t ride my bike nearly as often if cars could go 45 mph on Canadian streets. Making cars uncomfortable is part of encouraging other modes of transportation.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] justgohomealready@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

More infrastructure for cars = even more cars on the road, as simple as that.

You want to fix a gridlocked city with awful traffic? You start taking lanes out and making them exclusive for public transport, and you build big sidewalks and a cycling lane. Now you can get where you want to go in 10 minutes using public transport or bike, or you can sat in traffic for an hour - magically, you'll see traffic getting better and less cars on the road.

It's not as if this is some mistery - it has been done in many cities around the world and it works. The alternative is the american way, "just add one more lane", and you guys live with the results.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] suprchrgd@sh.itjust.works 42 points 1 year ago

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!

[-] Brokkr@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I'm in favor of prioritizing safety, but if right on red is permitted, then it's not optional. Just like going on green is not optional. Once you determine that you have the right of way you are expected to take it. This makes you predictable and safe.

Other drivers should be giving you a reasonable amount of time to determine your right of way though. You are also supposed to come to a full stop which should technically take about 3 seconds.

[-] Odelay42@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

Right on red is most definitely optional. No need to be "predictable" in this situation - you're coming to a full stop no matter what. How is not moving again unpredictable?

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I've never heard of such a requirement. Where is that?

Here in Massachusetts, the law (MGL ch 89 sec 8) says: "At any intersection in which vehicular traffic is facing a steady red signal, the driver of a vehicle may make a right turn" (summarized, emphasis mine). May, not shall.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] NBJack@reddthat.com 28 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.world 10 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.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 27 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.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 26 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.

[-] helenslunch@feddit.nl 25 points 1 year ago

I don't agree with this. It has nothing to do with red lights. Drivers will cut out straight in front of me with green lights as well. The problem is proper infrastructure. Make a city where there are so many cyclists that cars can't miss them. This is why places like NYC have such low incidents at crosswalks.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Or better yet, give cyclists sperated spaces from cars and trucks to ride. Even if it's just letting them ride on sidewalks. (Although not applicable in this case)

[-] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 4 points 1 year ago

I always thought pedestrian crossings should be further back from the intersection. With them being a part of the intersection itself you have to deal with traffic and pedestrians changing positions at the same time vs just traffic or just pedestrians crossing the street.

[-] min_fapper@iusearchlinux.fyi 9 points 1 year ago

That, and also because NYC has already banned right on red.

[-] tiredofsametab@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] omgarm@feddit.nl 12 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.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 18 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.

[-] arquebus_x@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] CriticalMiss@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

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

[-] ours@lemmy.world 11 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.

[-] octoperson@sh.itjust.works 5 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.

[-] Fridgeratr@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

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

[-] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

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@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 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.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

So ... she didn't look both ways as a walking pedestrian?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
423 points (100.0% liked)

News

23259 readers
2681 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS